I call B.S. We played to the level of our competition. Classic characteristic of a young team.

Furthermore, when you are favored in virtually all of your games all your losses will be to underdogs.

Its funny, I thought in a best case we might be 10-2 although I thought both losses would be in Sept maybe early Oct.

I thought the team would progress as the season grew and in part it did, the Defense really picked up the 2nd half so kudos to the D, the Defensive staff etc. The offense was adequate to get wins which was all you could ask for and often in spite of less than stellar QB play. But in the end, the two losses were to two teams that I never thought SC would lose too.

At least PC kept his Nov record in tact.

Right, it's time to tag Carroll with "underachiever" -- ala Jim Tressel, whose Buckeyes won the national title in 2002, then dropped two games (including a chance at the BCS Championship against hated Michigan) in '03, four more in '04 (with a loss to 11-point underdog Northwestern) and another two (both upsets) last year before returning to No. 1 this season.

A trend...no.

Here will be a trend of concern: If USC loses to Michigan, then stories will circulate,

"The Trojans have lost 2 in a row, 3 of seven and are 10-4 in their last 14."

That will be something to address.

I can see your point but I don't agree with the generalization that USC is now susceptable to upsets by "major underdogs".

Oregon St. has shown to be a better team than they were given credit for at the time they played USC. Plus, USC put the ball on the ground in that one and gave up a special teams TD, yet lost by only a missed 2-point conversion. Mistakes + other team plays great = classic upset.

The disturbing conclusion I had to reach after the UCLA game is the Trojans got owned by their D-Line. That was no fluke or wacky turnover filled game. They owned the LOS when USC had the ball.

USC is susceptable to a speed rush off the edge and also struggles with dealing with pro-style zone blitzes. That's my disturbing trend.

Let's face it, the O-Line never really played great this year. They played pretty good but not great and they made an inordinate number of dumb penalties.

Additionally, the lack of a true #1 RB hurt us in the end too. Gable and Moody provided some spark at times but they are not true #1 RBs at this point in their career. Chauncey was adequate, nothing more. Hopefully he can get healthy and be more of a factor next year.

When you need a couple tough yards for a first down in a close game and your O-line isn't getting a consistent push and your RB isn't breaking tackles, you're in trouble. You end up trying a quick snap pitch out wide on a key 4th down - and that's disturbing.

We're all hurting now so it's only natural to want to find somebody to blame...
Overall we can't complain. I admire Pete and his success, I think many of us respect him because of what he has accomplished, especially now w/a young team.
It hurts we lost to UCLA and can't compete w/OSU for the NC, but Pete's a winner and there will be better times. In the meantime, we won the 5th consecutive PAC 10 title!

It is all a matter of perception. No one expected much from Arkansas this year. If USC had lost that game, even though it was on the road, it would have been tagged a "bad" loss at the time. When Arkansas turned out to be good, it retroactively became a "great" win.

The fact is that both USC losses were on the road. They were by a combined total of six points. There is no shame in that. It is completely unrealistic to think that a program could win 56 games in a row. The fact that USC is frustratingly close to having done just that-- with a triple-OT loss to Cal, a 3-point loss to Texas that required a dozen different unusual things to break the Longhorns' way (the Bush fumble, the failure to call Young down at the 12-yard line on his TD run, the incidental facemask call on Bing on 4th down, the uncharacteristic decision to go into a prevent defense at 38-26, etc.), plus the two close losses this year, is extraordinary. No one should take these accomplishments for granted. It won't always be this good. It won't always even be 10-2 good.

Oregon State may have been a heavy underdog, but they turned out to be better than most people realized, winning nine games and ending up #22 in the final BCS standings. They won seven of their last eight, including road wins at Washington (which still had Stanback) and Arizona right before they played USC.

As for UCLA, it was a rivalry game, on the road, against a team with a lot of motivation after getting undressed last year at the Coliseum, playing its best football of the year in the two previous games, with a defensive coordinator uniquely positioned to formulate a scheme to thwart the USC attack, with an extra week to prepare. For its part, USC was coming off a gauntlet of highly rated opponents against which they showed a level of performance that is difficult to sustain. Does all of this mean that UCLA should have been favored in the game? Of course not. But the loss, while surprising, should not have been shocking to anyone who understands sports and has the ability to remember anything more than what happened five minutes ago, such as when a USC team superior to the 2006 edition went into the Rose Bowl against a .500 UCLA team two years ago and escaped with a five-point victory.

Scott,

So was it a succesful season or not? You can't have it both ways.

Beat Michigan!!

Oh, by the way, Pete Caroll has lost only 12 games in 6 years, so I would say that he is not susceptible to many losses, period.

Trojans rule

1 season, 2 losses does not a trend make. That statement is a bit of a reach. This loss is actually more disturbing than than the Oregon State game because drives stalled not because of turnovers (which in theory are blamed on the players) but because plays where stuffed or simply did not work. Certainly that's why the Kiffin is getting lots of heat. I consider this Kiffin's real first year, as bad plays or average plays probably worked with such great personnel last year. Hopefully, there will be an adjustment to the difference in strengths and weaknesses of this group of players next year. Maybe less 3 step drops to avoid tipped passes? Also didnt see enough trick plays this year. Gotta keep the "Ohh!" in offense in my opinion. Next year there will be some tough road games, too.

usc loss to ucla was due to the worst coaching in recent memory. it was well known that ucla had an outstanding pass rush. sc was sending out 5 pass receivers. three of those receivers should be blocking and jarret and steve smith would move the markers.
sc used to use the fullback as a receiver. whatever happen to the screen pass?

13-9

spoken like a true bruin miguelito, jack ass. next year it will be a romp again enjoy while u can

I do agree that it's quite an accomplishment for this young team to be 10-2 and be playing in the Rose Bowl. However, I find it unexcusable for them to have lost to UCLA, a team that is so inferior to USCs. The offense never found its rhythm and obviously, the offensive coordinator was out-coached.

ALL TROJANS SHOULD CALM DOWN....USC HAD A FINE YEAR AND LOST THE BRUIN GAME PROBABLY CAUSE THEY JUST PLAYED 3 HIGHLY EMOTIONAL "MUST GAMES" AND WERE JUST WORN OUT? UCLA PLAYED WITH TOTAL FOCUS...A VERY YOUNG TROJAN TEAM "ALMOST" WENT ALL THE WAY..THIS IS A GAME AND MICH AND NXT YEAR WILL COME SOON ENOUGH-- USC FANS SHOULD RELAX AND HAVE PERSPECTIVE...FIGHT ON

By Wolfy's rational(susceptible to losses to major underdogs) a Rose Bowl win against Michigan is likely by USC.

What are you suggesting, Wolfie? That Mike Garrett contact Steve Mariucci?

BTW, UCLA wasn't really an underdog, not as far as smart money was concerned. On Friday, the night before the game the spread had dropped from 13 1/3 to 12. That was an indication that the pros were taking UCLA and in a heavy way. It take millions going down just to move the line a half-point.

So, Wolfie, is the Mariucci era about to begin as USC. As usual, it's your call.

As a relatively new Trojan fan, which some would call a "band wagon" jumper, I'd like to share my 2 cents about trends.

I work at USC as a staff member, although my salary is not paid by USC but by the federal government. I did not have a teaching tenure at USC on my radar and was not a USC football fan, although I enjoy college football. My first year here I had a great time playing devil's advocate for USC's opponents each week in 2004 with my students. Each week, the team proved me wrong. As I came around to become a Trojan fan, due in large part to this university's demonstrated abiliy to be a valuable component in developing this nation's next generation of leaders in all walks of life, I also became a "dyed in the wool" Trojan football fan. My family, none of them USC alums (neither am I) have adopted the Trojans and my children (8 years old and 5 years old) only know they want to attend USC for the atmosphere and excellence. The football program is an integral part of that atmosphere, and I am proud of what the team and coaches have accomplished this season. I'll be prefectly honest, I was one of those guys who thought we wouldn't run the table during our last 4 games, but after the Notre Dame beat down, I believed. Believing your team can go to the NC game in a rebuilding year and being one touchdown away from it in the end is a better position than 117 of the 119 teams in Div 1A football were in on December 2, 2006.

Thank you Trojans for a great season, I'm confident you'll win in the Rose Bowl. I always wear my USC colors with pride, win or lose. I like winning better, though.

We (my son and I) thought we would be anywhere between 10-2 and 7-5 and tought we would be luckt to e in the top 10. We couldn't even begin to predict which teams would beat us. We knew ND, Cal, Neb, and Ark, would be tough. We also knew one cannot trust OSU or UCLA, both of which are famous for upsets. This is college ball. Lots of emotion. As it turned out, we beat all the tough teams.

What about the possibility that 'SC is a young team, and with so much on the line just plain old choked?