Pete Carroll v. Steve Sarkisian

Posted on by

sarkpic15

Photo/Associated Press

Steve Sarkisian’s first USC recruiting class was ranked 10th by Scout.com and Rivals.com. Pete Carroll’s first class in 2001 was ranked No. 9 by recruiting analyst Tom Lemming of CBS Sports Network.

22 thoughts on “Pete Carroll v. Steve Sarkisian”

  1. Coach O would’ve been Top 5. Not saying he is a better coach, but he is a better recruiter.

    • Only if he got a long term contract, which he would not have. His class wouldn’t have been in the Top 20. BTW, admit you were wrong on Baseball.

    • that is pure guess work -sark is the coach -thankfully
      far better than coach o would have been
      the recruiting class was terrific -sark is the coach – true trojan fans will suport sark and give this useless comparison stuff up

    • Orgeron is a great assistant coach recruiter…other head coaches would’ve had him for lunch because of the way his poor big game/rival game record…it is just different being THE man…

  4. Not a good caparison Wolf. Sark had to deal with scholarship limitations, so you can argue either way, plus you don’t even use the same recruiting service as your baseline. Sloppy work Wolf.

    • I also have problems with this comparison, but for different reasons. Scott is ignoring the sea change among the competition, and he harps on recruiting, when the more important factors are coaching and system.

      Historical information is sketchy, and that’s not Scott’s fault.

      In addition, Scott is correct that USC always recruited well, regardless of the coach. Per SI, from 1994-2001, USC was in the top 10 every year except 1999. Unexpectedly, UCLA was top 10 in 1998, 1999, and 2001. No other Pac-10 school shows up in the top 10.

      USC was #12 in 2002, and UCLA was #10 (Scout).

      Starting in 2003, Pete Carroll’s USC became THE super-recruiter: #1 in 2003 and 2004, and very high for several years thereafter. THAT LEAP WAS PETE CARROLL, not “USC recruiting itself.” So, Scott is wrong that, w/r/t recruiting, it doesn’t matter who the coach is.

      Moreover, in the Pac-10, ONLY USC was recruiting at a high level. In 2003, behind USC’s #1 came Washington at #18, Cal at #24, Stanford at #26, and no other team higher than #35. In 2004, behind USC’s #1 came Oregon at #15,
      and four other teams from #21 to #24 (Scout).

      For the five years between 2008 and 2012, USC’s AVERAGE finish was #5.0. Next was Oregon’s average, at #17.8, UCLA’s at #18.6, Stanford’s at #24.6, Cal’s at #25.4, and so on (Rivals). There are two lessons here. First, the gap was closing, although USC was still had much better HS recruits. Second, coaching counts a lot. Oregon
      barely out-recruited UCLA, but won a lot more.
      Stanford barely out-recruited Cal, but won a lot more. Stanford even won a lot more than UCLA won, although UCLA’s average was 6 places higher than Stanford’s.

      More recently, the other schools are closing the gap by averaging higher, period. From 2012-2014, UCLA averaged #13. Stanford was 5th in 2012, 14th in 2014, and only had 12 recruits in 2013. Oregon is actually a little
      lower than before. But suddenly, ASU and
      AZ are in the top 25. Washingon is back
      there. Cal is in some turmoil, but recruited in the 20s for a long time, and will likely be back there.

      Some of this is the sanctions, to be sure. But all of it? Hard to say yet, but other schools are spending more on coaches and facilities, and that probably accounts for some of their recruiting success.

      What does the future hold? I would not bet on a return to the complete dominance of 2003-2006. That ended even before the sanctions. That was Pete Carroll really trying hard, before he got bored. And no other school was really recruiting effectively. But how about a return to 2008-2012, when USC finished 12 spots ahead of the competition? It doesn’t seem totally out of reach to
      approach a gap of 10 spots.

      But so long as UCLA has a strong program, it won’t be easy, and it would seem to depend on
      beating UCLA in the near-term.

      Most importantly, coaching and system tends to trump recruiting. USC did not do great against
      Oregon and Stanford during some of years when it held that 12 point recruiting gap. It did better against UCLA and Cal, but not mostly because of recruits. It was coaching.

      Sark did good work on NSD. But it’s not the most important part of the work. It’s just not. It will be a lot more about teaching and system.

  5. Listen, you can talk about this guy versus that guy versus another guy all you want when it comes to recruiting. PC could recruit damn well, there is no argument. And if Sark can measure up to PC year after year and not develop a championship program, it won’t be because of the talent brought into this program, it will be due to the coaching!

  6. As I recall Steve Sarkisian’s Huskies beat the Trojans in 2009 does that comparison come to mind?

  8. Sark wins – reduced scholarships because of Pete, and he’s still within one sport.

  9. Pete Carroll had to restart the Trojan tradition because Paul Hackett ran it into the ground so bad , that USC was an 8th place Team in the Pac 10 when he was fired .So to sign a #9 recruiting class was a feat in itself .

      • You’re right. It wasn’t mostly whom Mora inherited, it’s what he did with them. USC fans won’t like that, but that doesn’t make it less true. “It’s the coaching, stupid.”

    • Having reviewed recruiting over time (see above), I think his coaching was even more decisive than his recruiting. That’s a strong statement about a recruiter of PC’s ability, but take a look, and see if you don’t agree.

      Harbaugh and Kelly clearly overachieved with their recruits. PC had the recruits, and he still probably overachieved, especially in marquee games.

      It annoys me when USC fans complain about him, even his departure. He came from the League, and would inevitably want to return there. I expect the same from Mora. It’s no coincidence that he did not jump into talks with Texas, and it wasn’t because of his ties to UCLA.

Comments are closed.