Best Conference?
Pete Carroll continued to rave about the Pacific-10 Conference on Monday, which is understandable when you just lost by 27 points.
``The conference is as good as I've seen it,'' he said. ``The offensive line play is really good. The quarterbacks are excellent. Everyone has good running backs and wide receivers.
``The conference is better than I thought it would be. The key is the emergence of the quarterbacks. We're up against it every week.''
The question might be whether USC is better at those positions than a year ago?
I can understand Pete Carroll's need to hype the conference. As you point out he just got whooped by 27 to go along with the Washington loss. So, he wants to show the nation how tough he's got it.
And, to some extent, he's right. The conference is better this season, in my opinion.
But, on the same token, USC isn't as good as they once were. That's not to say they're a bad team. They're not. They are, in fact, still a very good team. No one should count them out.
Best conference? Where? On the west coast? This is just like Pete who is really a great salesman PR guy but who is also a Ron Zook type college kid. Leave it to Pete to alibi by hyping the truth about the Pac 10.
What is lost in his impressive numbers at USC are some historical anomalies that other USC coaches did not benefit from. In the history of this fine conference, the power programs were in the power cities - Seattle, LA, and Phoenix. UW, USC, UCLA, and ASU. Former Trojan coaches rarely faced a schedule where 1 of these was not a powerhouse. Except Pete's era, when all 3 have been way down since he came to town. Throw in the abysmal state of annual rival Notre Dame under Charlie and Tyrone
Balance of post (cont)
The Big 10 and the Pac 10 are at their weakest point ever. When Larry Smith whined that Fresno State was better than people thought, he was run out of town. USC just got rolled by their league leader (without its star tailback). That same Oregon (with its star tailback) was dominated by Boise State. Can anyone name the last Pac 10 champion that lost 2 years in a row to a Boise State type program? I am waiting. OK, how bout once?
The main reason Pete has been successful is that USC dominates in one of the most lucrative recruiting regions in the country. The only "unsuccessful" coach in USC history was the hapless Hackett whose USC record would have made him an icon at half of the schools in the Pac 10. AND because Pete coached in this storied conference when most of their signature programs were down.
The Pac 10 is no better than the ACC and probably a lot closer to the Big East than people out here realize. I do not think that the Pac 10 has slipped as badly as the Big 10 where Ohio State and Penn State are coasting like Notre Dame on long gone past glory. Penn State and Illinois had the worst Big 10 Rose Bowl teams ever. And Iowa has to be the weakest Big 10 leader ever.
The athletes at USC have always been better than the too often junior high school kids PC coaching staff. (If Lane Kiffin's name had been Lane Jones, does anyone really think he would be coaching the Trojans, the Raiders and the Vols at his age.) Trojan fans must be wondering why this fine group of athletes manages to loose to a heavy underdog every year.
The NFL knows the truth and that is why they never come back after him. Pete cannot make tough personell decisions. Like the Knight Bradford Johnson Gable merrygoround. And he is better judge of talent than character. Face it - his very talented football team quit on him and his coaches. At Notre Dame and at Oregon.
The Trojans take way more cheap shots than most teams. Look at the end of the ND game. Look at Mays performance in the 2nd half of the Oregon game - his only vicious hit was a cheap shot on the Oregon QB. The good news and the bad news are the same - Pete is just a big kid. The Pac 10 is a great conference. What does that make the WAC? I have only 2 things to say about that: PUL LEEZE.
Stackfire: Unless Coach Carroll writes the headlines for Mr. Wolf, I don't see any mention of "best conference" in his quotes above. You're selective examples in the above rant are laughable, to say the least. Just ONE ommission, "off the top"...no mention of Carroll's record against inter-conference opponents. Keeping it short, what sane coach does not "hype" his own conference, and what successful coach is not a good recruiter? And yes, there is no excuse for the Washington loss. But, The "power cities" have been down for awhile, because of Carroll.
Like twitter, please limit your posts to 160 characters.
The conference looks solid, but not great if you look at OOC results. Surely, someone can post the complete OOC results, but here are some of the big games: Oregon lost to Boise, Wash lost to ND & LSU, ASU lost to Georgia, Zona lost to Iowa, OSU lost to Cinci, Stanford lost to Wake, etc. The only schools w/ decent OOC wins are SC and U¢LA.
Wolf, please stop the one-sided slant in your writing. The Pac 10 is the best conference this year, going by any way you measure - OOC record, quality of wins, sagarin ratings, etc.
The Big 12 stinks this year and I was so glad your favorites Nebraska and Kansas lost big time because you continued to include them in your top 25 and not only that, you kept them in the top 15 too! Ridiculous.
The Pac 10 is definitely tougher than the Big East (who isn't??), again by any yardstick.
As for the SEC - I think, Pac 10 is definitely up there, especially the breadth. The best teams in the Pac 10 may not be as good as the best teams in the SEC (though I would say they are not that far apart), but the Pac 10 middle can thump the SEC middle and the Pac 10 bottom minus Wazzu is much better than the SEC bottom.
Overall the Pac 10 is tough, tougher and yes, has caught up with USC as USC has fallen down to the rest.
Again, stop the nonsense you put on in the name of "writing"!
fact: pac 10 QBs much better 2-3 yrs ago
dixon, sanchez, carpinter, longshore, a running jake locker, tuitama and the kid from wazzu
fact: pete caroll BS much deeper this year