Killian wrote:What's Pete's record in games decided by a TD or less the last 4 years?
I don't know (off the top of their head, who would ever know a stat like that?), and I don't feel like looking it up. Apparently it isn't good enough for you.
I know most USC games aren't close, obviously, and I know the only games he's lost since 2001 were decided by a TD or less.
Would it reflect better on him if sometimes he lost by more than a TD? Take some of those nail-biter losses and make them three TD blow-out losses. Would that impress you more, since it would improve his record in close games?
So, basically, he's not allowed to lose. He never loses big, for which you give him no credit, and now he's even deemed "lost" by you for very occasionally losing small.
Last edited by Van on Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Van wrote:
Texas was no slouch that year. Losing to that team hurts, but there's no shame in it either.
the Buckeyes should have beaten Texas in 05. Tressel played WAY too conservative.
USC should've beaten them too, what with having a 12 point lead and only 6 minutes to play, but they didn't. Nobody managed to beat Texas that year. Texas got some breaks, and Texas made some of their own breaks. It happened. They won, every time.
Losing to them sucked, but it wasn't like they lost to a meh team, in a poor effort. Texas was damn good, all season long. USC lost in what many consider to be the greatest game ever played. Winning would've been infinitely better, but that '05 team can still hold their heads high.
""On a lonely planet spinning its way toward damnation amid the fear and despair of a broken human race, who is left to fight for all that is good and pure and gets you smashed for under a fiver? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar!"
"
Killian wrote:I lost my job and can only post by a cellphone.
So... you're going to skim right over me calling you out... again?
Sorry, that's not going to work this time.
I'm going to bust your balls and shred whatever credibility you ever thought you had here.
You should pretty much keep your shit takes to yourself from this point forward because whenever I see an absentee cunt like you post, I'm going to shove it down your throat.
Hey Wagon, guess what? I still don't give a fuck about fantsey baseball team. I intentionally have not touched it because I know it pisses you off so much.
Do I still have ARod on the DL? If so, rack me!
"Well, my wife assassinated my sexual identity, and my children are eating my dreams." -Louis CK
I didn't say that Van. I know yu expect Pete to float out of the tunnel and over to the sidelines, healing the sick and making the blind see on his way, but he can't. Like any other coach, he has his faults. Unlike almost all other coaches, he has an obscene amount of talent which usually keeps him out of close games.
USC is like Tyson in the '80's. Withstand the initial onslaught and you have a chance. Pete doesn't have a great record in games decided by a TD or less. It's not a good or bad thing, it's just a fact. Probably why he wasn't successful in the NFL.
"Well, my wife assassinated my sexual identity, and my children are eating my dreams." -Louis CK
He was successful in the NFL. In four seasons as a head coach his record was over .500, he won the AFC East, he twice went to the playoffs and he won a playoff game.
He wasn't wildly successful, but he wasn't a failure either.
So, anyway, what you're saying is that if a team can manage not to get blown out by USC, if they can keep it to a close game...they have a chance to win.
Killian wrote:I know yu expect Pete to float out of the tunnel and over to the sidelines, healing the sick and making the blind see on his way, but he can't.
What are their records in close games, Pete's and Urban's, while Urban has been at Florida?
Obviously, Pete's been involved in a lot of blowouts, which tends to skew his record in close games. Maybe some other coaches wouldn't have managed to win so decisively, so often.
A lot of other coaches at USC had access to the same talent pool, and they didn't produce nearly the same results.
Killian, I completely laid the Stanford loss at Pete's feet. I also mostly blame Pete for the Texas loss, for not employing a full-time spy on VY, plus I wasn't thrilled with his playcalling (though Lane Kiffin may have actually called the plays there) on that drive where White got stuffed on fourth and one.
I've said USC had no business and no excuses whatsoever for blowing that UCLA game a few years ago, which handed Florida a national title. Pete's error in the Stanford game handed LSU a weak national title.
My deal with Pete and USC is simply a lot more realistic than it is among many others here. See, I accept and expect USC to lose every so often. I don't expect perfection from him, or them, simply because they're nearly always better than their opponent. I don't see USC's occasional losses as some grand failing or Achilles' heel on Pete's part. I don't expect college kids to never make mistakes, and to play to their potential every single week. I understand that USC will on occasion lose to someone they shouldn't lose to, same as every favorite in college football.
If the favorite won every single time, we'd never need to play the games.
Rather, I look at his consistency, and I marvel at just how often he manages to keep USC up; week in, week out, year after year. I see the way he always has them up for big games. I see other programs having mini peaks and valleys, while he keeps rolling along, unfailing in his ability to coax at least eleven wins and a BCS bowl win out of his team, despite all the disapppointments.
When have you ever seen Pete's team pull an Alabama or OU, where they got steamrolled in a big game, then blamed it on a lack of focus.
I see Pete accomplishing all these things, where nobody else in his shoes ever could. Pete inherited an empty cupboard, relatively speaking, along with a greatly diminished tradition. A lot of monkeys like Jon like to say that anyone could win big at USC. Yeah? Then why haven't they? The USC program Pete inherited was nearly irrelevant. Aside from six Rose Bowls appearances in the 80s and 90s they were pretty damn meh.
For USC, they sucked, and all their tradition and all their local talent base wasn't stopping them from sucking.
So, no, not just anybody can win at USC. The level at which Pete is winning is unprecedented, and it came from completely out of nowhere. He has to be given credit for that, including his ability to consistently motivate his team to not underachieve.
There have been no four loss Florida seasons, or five loss LSU seasons. He loses ten guys to the NFL, including seven guys on the first day of the draft, and everyone says this will be the year where they have to suffer a drop-off, and still he's again one play away from running the table and playing for the national title.
This year, maybe it finally will catch up with him. He's never had a QB leave early like this, interrupting the planned continuity; on top of losing eleven guys to the draft.
I also won't rip Pete for being a "cheater," minus any solid evidence; not internet rumors, or newspaper articles concerning rumors, but actual confirmed evidence, accompanied by a finding of wrong-doing by the NCAA.
That's how it's supposed to work in America, and I don't buy for one second that the NCAA considers USC some sacred cow that's above being penalized. They've penalized USC before, and they recently penalized foundation programs like OU, Bama and Florida St, so USC isn't above being penalized either.
I don't accept at face value this now popular and completely erroneous notion that Pete was a failure in the NFL. He wasn't. He was an above average coach in the NFL, and he was in a very difficult position, having to follow Bill Parcells. Pete's record speaks for itself, and it belies any notions that he was a failure.
So, no, I don't think Pete's perfect, or USC's perfect. I just accept him for who he is, and I accept USC for who they are. They're great, but not infallible. I don't look for stupid stats to punch holes in Pete's resume, such as, "He's lost in close games."
Killian, that was downright stupid. When the only games you've ever lost were close ones, and only a very few of those, and you usually steamroll people in your wins, of course your record in close games will show an inordinate amount of losses. Take away those losses and USC is undefeated in the Pete Carroll era, from 2002 forward. No losses or ties, seven straight years.
But Van, why has he lost EVERY close game in the last 5 years? He's not .500, he's awful. Yes its amazing that USC doesn't get blown out. Yes its amazing the amount of talent he gets on campus. To me, its also as amazing that he has an awful record in close games.
Starting a program or having to rebuild one, I'd take Pete in a heart beat. If I knew the game was going to be close, not a fucking chance.
And he was a below average NFL coach. Average or above average coaches coach in the NFL for more than 4 years.
"Well, my wife assassinated my sexual identity, and my children are eating my dreams." -Louis CK
Killian, with his foot planted firmly in his mouth, wrote:You're right Van, its comical. What's Pete's record in games decided by a TD or less the last 4 years?
Completely jamming it all the way down his throat, Killian wrote:But Van, why has he lost EVERY close game in the last 5 years? He's not .500, he's awful.
Oh really??
You seem to be forgetting Charlie Weis's greatest game at ND, which was a loss in a close game to Pete.
Also....
2004:
31-28 win over Stanford.
23-17 win over Cal
29-24 win over UCLA
2005:
34-31 win over ND
38-41 loss to Texas
2006:
28-22 win over Washington St
26-20 win over Washington
28-21 win over Arizona St
31-33 loss to Oregon St
9-13 loss to UCLA
2007:
27-24 win over Washington
23-24 loss to Stanford
20-13 win over Arizona
17-24 loss to Oregon
24-17 win over Cal
2008:
21-27 loss to Oregon St
17-10 win over Arizona
So, he's 11-6 in close games, over the past five seasons. By my math, that's well over .500. Those six close losses are also the only losses he's had over those same five seasons.
Pete's done just fine in close games.
Killian, you can kindly go ahead and admit you're completely wrong, then you can go ahead and completely shut the fuck up.
A lot of other coaches at USC had access to the same talent pool, and they didn't produce nearly the same results.
Pete inherited an empty cupboard, relatively speaking, along with a greatly diminished tradition
Wait Van was there a talent pool or not?
spin spin spin round and round we go....where we'll stop nobody knows........
For USC, they sucked, and all their tradition and all their local talent base wasn't stopping them from sucking.
A lot of that talent was leaving the state which made it difficult. Pete's doing what the others couldn't....keep the top notch talent home. Outside of one particularly over rated QB.
A lot of other coaches at USC had access to the same talent pool, and they didn't produce nearly the same results.
Pete inherited an empty cupboard, relatively speaking, along with a greatly diminished tradition
Wait Van was there a talent pool or not?
In the southern California area, yes, the talent pool has always run deep. On the USC roster, when Pete took over? Not all that much, no. They'd sucked, relatively speaking, for a good fifteen years, and the team Pete inherited wasn't exactly stellar.
What, you don't see the difference between talent in the area vs talent on a team?
The point is that all USC coaches have access to USC's tradition and USC's recruiting base. They've all had it, yet none of them besides maybe John McKay produced the results Pete's produced.
spin spin spin round and round we go....where we'll stop nobody knows........
There isn't an ounce of spin in me. I very clearly stated the difference between having talent available in the area vs having talent on the USC roster.
You're too smart to have not understood it, so you intentionally misunderstood it, just so you could throw out another insult.
This kind of personal crap needs to stop. I'm pretty much tired of it. I don't like crapping on Killian, and I don't like any of this nonsense.
Maybe sometime we could all just talk football, minus all the bullshit acrimony.
For USC, they sucked, and all their tradition and all their local talent base wasn't stopping them from sucking.
A lot of that talent was leaving the state which made it difficult. Pete's doing what the others couldn't....keep the top notch talent home. Outside of one particularly over rated QB.
Pete deserves credit for that, obviously. He's also recruited like crazy, out of state. He's nabbed some awfully good non-California talent over the years.
Why weren't his predecessors able to recruit the talent Pete has, and why weren't they able to produce the same results?
They had the same access he did.
Killian, it's the tenor of what we say, and what I said. After I wrote what I wrote to you, I didn't like it. It felt petty, shitty, and childish. I should've just made the point and left it at that, and for that I apologize.
After all the time we've all spent here, I'd like to think we'd be past that crap by now.
I don't mind the football smack, like the OU-Texas smack, but the personal attacks are not what I want to do here. I'm well sick of it, and I ought to start by not doing any of it myself.
Van, no need to apologize. Its a smack board and we're all wound up waiting for the season to start. Plus, with no fresh meat, we only have us left to debate with. Being on our fifth or sixth board (or more), we've run off most of the idiots.
"Well, my wife assassinated my sexual identity, and my children are eating my dreams." -Louis CK
Van wrote:The point is that all USC coaches have access to USC's tradition and USC's recruiting base. They've all had it, yet none of them besides maybe John McKay produced the results Pete's produced.
Say what ?
Being that I know more about College Football than anyone on this board... it's kinda disturbing that I have to throw in your face a guy that happens to be in the College Football Hall of Fame and has just as many MNC's as Petey. If you add his time as OC with John McKay, his tenure would easily eclipse Sweet Pete.
I must also point out that some of the best toejams EVER are from Northern California.
OJ... San Francisco
Rey rey... Humboldt county
Sweet Pete.... Marin County "Redwood High School" (at the base of Mt. Tam)
John Robinson... San Mateo ( and he went to elementary school with John Madden)
Van wrote:This kind of personal crap needs to stop. I'm pretty much tired of it. I don't like crapping on Killian, and I don't like any of this nonsense.
Maybe sometime we could all just talk football, minus all the bullshit acrimony.
Easy tiger, take a deep breathe and step away from the computer and hit Mt. Tam.
You'll find that very few here on the College Football board know much more than their own team or conference. This leads to mass confusion in their brains and they lash out with indisputable irreverence.
the truth
"A Renfair douche should NEVER offer up opinions involving BIG TIME POWER CFB, since FeKal doesn't play BIG TIME POWER anything. I apologize to the entire BTPCFB Forum for my feeble commentary."
