OT: Why Carroll will never coach in the pros again

[tanked_as_usual]

nothing wrong with a 4 team playoff to help offset BCS stupidity..........

the best single sport event in the history of mankind is a playoff.......march madness!!!

 

[Deus Irae]

How would setting up playoffs ruin college football? Do you like seeing Ohio State undeservedly get into the National Championship every year only to get blown out? And I'm sure Texas would love another shot at Oklahoma.

1.) Ohio State was not undeserving. They were voted in based upon good 'regular' seasons.

2.) Texas should have beaten Texas Tech when they had the chance to control their own destiny.

There are over 100 teams in college football, so you can't even begin to set up a fair 'regular season' without a complete restructuring of all the conferences and a reliance on the previous year for strength of schedule adjustments which would need to be made yearly. It's not possible to make it "fair" no matter what gets done, because there are just too many teams involved.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Pete has the perfect job for Him. He's Californian and He is treated like royalty in L.A.I simply don't see Him leaving for some time.

And, the money ain't bad either...

 

[Spiral]

How would setting up playoffs ruin college football? Do you like seeing Ohio State undeservedly get into the National Championship every year only to get blown out? And I'm sure Texas would love another shot at Oklahoma.

The horns don't need another shot at OU. They want another shot at TT.

 

[upstater1]

Really? Mayhem? Really?

It's a typically pedantic NCAA rule, and given that UCLA is on board with it and the NCAA is going to make a decision today, my guess is now that the 800-lb. gorilla that is USC is throwing its weight around, the NCAA will acquiesce and allow them to wear home darks.

Is UCLA on board? Didn't say that in the article.

 

[upstater1]

How would setting up playoffs ruin college football? Do you like seeing Ohio State undeservedly get into the National Championship every year only to get blown out? And I'm sure Texas would love another shot at Oklahoma.

This is what I don't get.

Oklahoma has also gotten to the national championship.
And been blown out.

Just because they are Oklahoma, doesn't mean they're good.

We found that out when WV spanked them last year.

Ohio State got there 3 times this decade, lost twice. But they did win once.

 

[Kontradiction]

1.) Ohio State was not undeserving. They were voted in based upon good 'regular' seasons.

-I know why they got in. They were "voted in" based on strength of schedule but the fact of the matter is, that schedule strength really was not that strong. The SEC shown light on that two years in a row. But if you want to go with the good 'regular' season argument then one can say that Boise State should have been in the National Championship in 2006. What do you honestly think would have happened if Boise had gone in against Florida or Ohio State? What do you think will happen if they get in this year? Bottom line is we will never know because there is no way the BCS system will put them in. Their validity for a National Championship could be chosen through a playoff.

2.) Texas should have beaten Texas Tech when they had the chance to control their own destiny.

-And Oklahoma lost to Texas yet they are ahead of them by a percentage point. All three of those teams have beaten one another and have one loss to their names. Why should one of those teams in that merry-go-round of a conference be decided to go to a National Championship by a computer system? It's just not fair.

There are over 100 teams in college football, so you can't even begin to set up a fair 'regular season' without a complete restructuring of all the conferences and a reliance on the previous year for strength of schedule adjustments which would need to be made yearly. It's not possible to make it "fair" no matter what gets done, because there are just too many teams involved.

-If there was a playoff put into place I would suspect that the top four teams from each conference would be put in. That would give Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Texas a chance to see who really is the best out of the three. That's just an comparison for this year. We can go back every year and find this exact same scenario. Would it be a cluster****? Yeah, it would be. But no more of a cluster**** than the NCAA men's basketball tournament... and that works out pretty well every year.

 

[fnordcircle]

Why would you want to ruin college football with a playoff?

If by ruin you mean make it watchable, I have no idea why someone would want to do such a thing.

Playoffs are the most exciting aspect of professional sports. The BCS system is simply the most ******ed idea I have ever heard of. Trot out whatever excuses you want for it, the end result is a less enjoyable product to watch which is, you know, sorta the whole goddamn point of spectator sports.

 

[billdog3484]

i like it. its a statement. i bet his players wanted this, and they will respond to him allowing this

 

[Deus Irae]

-I know why they got in. They were "voted in" based on strength of schedule but the fact of the matter is, that schedule strength really was not that strong. The SEC shown light on that two years in a row. But if you want to go with the good 'regular' season argument then one can say that Boise State should have been in the National Championship in 2006. What do you honestly think would have happened if Boise had gone in against Florida or Ohio State? What do you think will happen if they get in this year? Bottom line is we will never know because there is no way the BCS system will put them in. Their validity for a National Championship could be chosen through a playoff.

Ohio State is 1-2 in Championship games this decade, not 0-32. Did Oklahoma prove that the rest of the Big 12 is a joke compared to the mighty Sooners when it pasted Texas Tech?

-And Oklahoma lost to Texas yet they are ahead of them by a percentage point. All three of those teams have beaten one another and have one loss to their names. Why should one of those teams in that merry-go-round of a conference be decided to go to a National Championship by a computer system? It's just not fair.

The NFL uses tiebreakers too. On might as easily ask why a winner should be decided by strength of schedule or points scored, etc...

-If there was a playoff put into place I would suspect that the top four teams from each conference would be put in. That would give Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Texas a chance to see who really is the best out of the three. That's just an comparison for this year. We can go back every year and find this exact same scenario. Would it be a cluster****? Yeah, it would be. But no more of a cluster**** than the NCAA men's basketball tournament... and that works out pretty well every year.

Another problem with the "Playoff!" people is that they ignore the injury factor. Four teams per conference? That's 20 teams just inside the Big 10, Pac 10, Big East, SEC and ACC, nevermind teams from other conferences and the independents.

Maybe it's me being quirky, but I find that a lot of the fun about college football is that they DON'T always have a clear cut winner. Shared national titles and clouded national titles have led to all kinds of fun debates and discussions.

 

[mgteich]

In the PAC10, refs can tell the difference between powder blues and maroon without it causing mayhem.

How is that intrusive?

You can't have two teams out there in home jerseys. I hate when I see that in high school ball, but if you start allowing college teams to wear all darks, it's going to cause mayhem.

 

[Deus Irae]

If by ruin you mean make it watchable, I have no idea why someone would want to do such a thing.

Playoffs are the most exciting aspect of professional sports. The BCS system is simply the most ******ed idea I have ever heard of. Trot out whatever excuses you want for it, the end result is a less enjoyable product to watch which is, you know, sorta the whole goddamn point of spectator sports.

Well, given that I disagree with your initial premise, disagreement about the rest is no surprise.

 

[mgteich]

I think you're wrong on both counts. Very few NFL coaches are treated like Carroll or Paterno or any of a dozen others. It is hard to imagine an NFL job where the coach's ego is stroked as much as in the NCAA.

Greed? I think you will find that top 32 NCAA coaches earn more than NFL coaches, when all sources of compensation are included. Note that you need to consider bonuses and guarantees as well as salayr, TV shows and so forth.

I can understand top NCAA coordinators or even position coaches moving to the NFL, but not head coaches from a major program.

"to be honest, I don't know why any successful college coach would want to coach in the NFL........there are very few for whom it was worth their while"

Great point; one word, EGO. Actually a second word comes to mind; GREED..........

 

[SoCal Pmen]

If Pete goes anywhere it will be to a West Coast team like the Niners or Seahawks.

 

[Kontradiction]

Ohio State is 1-2 in Championship games this decade, not 0-32.

-Should be 0-3, Deus, if not for a horrible call and non-call by the ref in the Miami game. The 'Canes got robbed in that national championship.

Did Oklahoma prove that the rest of the Big 12 is a joke compared to the mighty Sooners when it pasted Texas Tech?

-You just made my point for me. Oklahoma didn't prove anything. They pasted Texas Tech who beat Texas who beat Oklahoma. The saying "any given Sunday" can also be applied to Saturdays in college football. How else do you think Oregon State is competing for it's conference's championship instead of USC? They deserve the championship but they may not deserve a higher bowl bid than USC just based on what the Trojans have done to everyone else. The fairEST way to determine that is a playoff system where the two would meet each other in conference play. The winner goes on to face the winner from another conference in interconference play.

The NFL uses tiebreakers too. On might as easily ask why a winner should be decided by strength of schedule or points scored, etc...

-This is true but in the case of a three way tie, such as this one, who is to say where the losers of said tiebreakers would go? The computers? Who is to say that they are more deserving of whatever bowl they get into instead of one of the teams from the bowls that are behind THAT said bowl or vice versa?

Another problem with the "Playoff!" people is that they ignore the injury factor. Four teams per conference? That's 20 teams just inside the Big 10, Pac 10, Big East, SEC and ACC, nevermind teams from other conferences and the independents.

-That could just as easily be fixed with an NIT-like tournament with conferences like the MAC and Conference-USA just like in college basketball. Is it fair? No. Nothing in sports could every really be considered completely fair. But it's about as fair as it's going to get. Remember, Deus, I didn't say that it wasn't going to be a cluster****.

Maybe it's me being quirky, but I find that a lot of the fun about college football is that they DON'T always have a clear cut winner. Shared national titles and clouded national titles have led to all kinds of fun debates and discussions.

-Indeed.

 

[tombonneau]

Is UCLA on board? Didn't say that in the article.

From the article:

Carroll said the decision to wear home jerseys is not meant as a sign of disrespect to UCLA, adding that he discussed restoring the tradition with former UCLA coach Karl Dorrell and with current coach Rick Neuheisel.

"It's exciting," Neuheisel said. "I think wearing the home jerseys is a great tradition."

In the meantime, the Pacific-10 Conference has forwarded a request to NCAA football rules committee secretary Rogers Redding, seeking to change the rule. Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said he expected to a decision by Tuesday.

So looks like not only is UCLA for it, but the PAC-10 is behind them as well. I'm sure it will be allowed.

 

[Deus Irae]

-Should be 0-3, Deus, if not for a horrible call and non-call by the ref in the Miami game. The 'Canes got robbed in that national championship.

Patriots v. Broncos in 2005
Patriots v. Colts in 2006
Patriots v. Giants in 2007

-You just made my point for me. Oklahoma didn't prove anything. They pasted Texas Tech who beat Texas who beat Oklahoma. The saying "any given Sunday" can also be applied to Saturdays in college football. How else do you think Oregon State is competing for it's conference's championship instead of USC? They deserve the championship but they may not deserve a higher bowl bid than USC just based on what the Trojans have done to everyone else. The fairEST way to determine that is a playoff system where the two would meet each other in conference play. The winner goes on to face the winner from another conference in interconference play.

Staying in the big 12 with the trio:

How will it be fair for the 4 teams to be in a playoff where two will face off and the third will have a much easier game and an advantage when they face off in the next round? As for the Oregon State question, it's really quite simple: USC lost a game that it should have won. The Trojans have nobody to blame but themselves. The only teams with anything approaching a realistic gripe are the undefeated teams that get ignored if they aren't in the major conferences. They can at least point out that they've not lost.

-This is true but in the case of a three way tie, such as this one, who is to say where the losers of said tiebreakers would go? The computers? Who is to say that they are more deserving of whatever bowl they get into instead of one of the teams from the bowls that are behind THAT said bowl or vice versa?

You have to set out parameters for your tiebreakers and, again, no matter what you choose, there will always be another way that could have been chosen. It's the same in the NFL.

-That could just as easily be fixed with an NIT-like tournament with conferences like the MAC and Conference-USA just like in college basketball. Is it fair? No. Nothing in sports could every really be considered completely fair. But it's about as fair as it's going to get. Remember, Deus, I didn't say that it wasn't going to be a cluster****

But why would I want to subject myself to such a system when it would be worse than one currently in place and a logistical nightmare on top of that?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

You have to set out parameters for your tiebreakers and, again, no matter what you choose, there will always be another way that could have been chosen. It's the same in the NFL.

I don't think it's really the same. It's true that no matter where you draw the line, there will always be someone on the outside-looking-in side of the line. But if there were, say, and 8 team NCAAF playoff, I don't see much of an issue. Will there be years where number 9 could say, "hey, I deserve to be number 8?" I guess, but that's not too compelling of an argument. I think year after year after year it's been pretty conclusively shown that there is just no way to whittle it down to just 2 teams who are the most worthy to get a shot. It's often 3, 4 or rarely 5 -- I don't remember it ever being too much more than that, so 8 should be fine.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't think it's really the same. It's true that no matter where you draw the line, there will always be someone on the outside-looking-in side of the line. But if there were, say, and 8 team NCAAF playoff, I don't see much of an issue. Will there be years where number 9 could say, "hey, I deserve to be number 8?" I guess, but that's not too compelling of an argument. I think year after year after year it's been pretty conclusively shown that there is just no way to whittle it down to just 2 teams who are the most worthy to get a shot. It's often 3, 4 or rarely 5 -- I don't remember it ever being too much more than that, so 8 should be fine.

Sorry, but the college basketball tournament shows you to be wrong. No matter what number you use for the cutoff, you will always have weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's just a normal by-product of an exclusionary system.

 

[PittPatriot]

"to be honest, I don't know why any successful college coach would want to coach in the NFL........there are very few for whom it was worth their while"

Great point; one word, EGO. Actually a second word comes to mind; GREED..........

To me, Pete Carroll = Roy Williams = Coach K. Guys who are at the top of their profession and make millions doing it - so why give it up?
These guys make over a million in base and probably even more in Nike endorsements. On top of that, they are leaders in their community and have the ability to shape the lives of young men forever. I think it is bigger than Professional Coaching.

Besides the 2 I name above, I think 2 of the greatest active coaches in basketball are Rick Pitino and Larry Brown. Pitino ruined his legacy while ruining the Celtics and Brown is in the process of ruining his by sticking around in the NBA instead of the NCAA.