Answer Friday!

Q: gilligan said:
Mr. Wolf, do you know why USC stopped recruiting Markeith Ambles, the WR prospect from the South? Thanks.

A: I'm going to wait a bit before I comment on this one, but will definitely answer it in the next couple weeks.

Q: SD Trojan said:
Scott, did El Capitan get banned from the blog?

A: Nope

Q: USC '91 said:
So, I watched the Rick Neuheisel video you embedded in the blog -- the one where he goes on for nearly 5 minutes about how he'd like coaches' sons under the age of 18 (and only coaches' sons) to be able to be on the sidelines, and how Pete Carroll was the lone vote against the idea.

Aside from being the most cumbersome set up for a "We're going to take down USC" punchline I've ever seen, it left me with one question: Did what Neuheisel related really happen the way he tells it?

I can't shake the feeling that there must be more to the story than Carroll just felt pissy and decided to be an obstructionist, which is the impression I get from the video. Or maybe it's supposed to be because Neuheisel proposed the idea and for some reason anything that Neuheisel is for, Carroll's supposed to be against? I have a hard time swallowing this.

If Carroll really voted against the exemption, there must have been some reason -- what was it? -- and if the other nine coaches voted for it, wouldn't it therefore have passed?

A: The rule already allowed for Neuheisel's son to be there if he performed a game-related task. And you all know they could make one up. I'd have made the kid assistant head coach, myself. But Carroll did vote against it because he says he likes the current rule. Despite the supposed rancor over the incident, I know the pair also spoke during the same Pac-10 meetings without any problems, so Neuheisel was probably performing for the crowd a bit.
But it's also true that the pair seem to have a dislike for each other.