Has southern cal underachieved with Pete Carroll?

[SacFalcFan]

By Tom D:

One week, Washington ends the nation's longest losing streak. The next week, the Huskies shock the world by knocking off No. 3 USC, 16-13.

It's the kind of win on which Washington coach Steve Sarkisian can build a program. And there is a lot of construction to do at a school that hasn't been to the postseason since a trip to the 2002 Sun Bowl.

The win is even sweeter for Sarkisian, who took the Washington job after serving on the USC staff from 2005-08, with the last two as offensive coordinator.

The Huskies' Erik Folk booted a 22-yard field goal with three seconds left to help UW secure the improbable triumph. It is the second year in a row USC has lost its Pac-10 opener a week after beating Ohio State.

Now, the question can be asked without fear: Has USC underachieved under Pete Carroll ?

Think about it. Since the Trojans lost the BCS title game to Texas after the 2005 season, USC has failed to get back to the championship game despite arguably having the most talent of any school in the nation.

In 2006, USC lost at Oregon State (33-31) and at UCLA (13-9).

In 2007, USC got dumped at home by 41-point underdog Stanford (24-23) in arguably the biggest upset in college football history.

In 2008, USC was clipped at Oregon State (27-21).

Now, this: a humiliating loss to a Washington team that entered the season with a 15-game losing streak that was the longest in the nation.

Credit Washington defensive coordinator Nick Holt, who was the defensive coordinator at USC before joining Sarkisian at Washington. The Huskies held the Trojans to 360 yards, but only 110 of those came in the air. It was the worst passing game in the Carroll era.

Make no mistake about it: This is a one-dimensional USC offense that is all-run and no pass. Redshirt freshman quarterback Aaron Corp started for an injured Matt Barkley, who missed the game with a bruised shoulder.

Corp completed just 13 of 22 passes for 110 yards with no touchdowns and an interception. USC also lost two fumbles and was 0-for-10 on third-down conversions. Unless USC's passers improve, the Trojans might be in peril of not winning at least a share of the Pac-10 title for the first time since 2001, Carroll's first season. USC still has games at Cal, at Notre Dame and at Oregon.

Conversely, Washington is rolling behind quarterback Jake Locker, who completed 21 of 35 passes for 237 yards. The victory over the Trojans is Washington's second in a row (it opened with a 31-23 home loss to LSU but rebounded to beat Idaho, 42-23, last Saturday) and has the Huskies thinking about being a Pac-10 contender. Washington plays at Stanford next Saturday before traveling to Notre Dame.

[FaIconfansince80]

Pete Carroll left USC??

[fabolous]

Hmm, depends on your definition of underachieved. Pete is real laid back with his team. Like to play jokes on them and stuff. And that's all good when your winning. But when you continue to lose games you should win it's a problem. It's a focus problem with the entire program. You let USC play any of the top 10 teams, and you will get their best game. And 9 times out of 10, their best is better than any other teams best. But they don't have the playmakers at WR right now. They don't have anyone that strikes fear in the hearts of DB's like Steve Smith, Mike Williams, Dewayne Jarrett. He has underachieved by the standards of the USC program and its fans. Because in L.A. they expect USC to contend for a National Championship every year. And I mean every year. I believe Pete is under the most pressure of any coach. I know it's crazy but if you lived in L.A. or been recently you will know what I mean

[Ton80Kid]

Wouldn't say they've underachieved...maybe underwhelmed. Carroll is a very good coach, some might even say great. He's an outstanding recruiter, and that's what he has done with USC, possibly better than just about any other HC of a major program since his arrival in 2000. They're always in the Top 5, usually in the top 3 for recruiting, even with the losses he's had with various coaches/outstanding recruiters...they still continue to bring in the recruits. However, having the cream of the crop for talent only goes so far...you still got to coach those boys into proven winners in big game situations. I think that's where Pete will grade at a B...the Trojans do win some big games, but they lose quite a few of them too. I don't consider it underachieving when you're doing the best the you can, but in the end, your best simply doesn't live up to expectations. He's great at recruiting...not so great at winning when it counts. Great talent + good coaching will get you what USC has...a great program, steeped in tradition, lots of Heisman winners, loads of TV time, lots of sex appeal, solid respect, and pick of the litter in recruits, but it won't neccesarily get you championships or universal respect as being the best in the business...

[fabolous]

Wouldn't say they've underachieved...maybe underwhelmed. Carroll is a very good coach, some might even say great. He's an outstanding recruiter, and that's what he has done with USC, possibly better than just about any other HC of a major program since his arrival in 2000. They're always in the Top 5, usually in the top 3 for recruiting, even with the losses he's had with various coaches/outstanding recruiters...they still continue to bring in the recruits. However, having the cream of the crop for talent only goes so far...you still got to coach those boys into proven winners in big game situations. I think that's where Pete will grade at a B...the Trojans do win some big games, but they lose quite a few of them too. I don't consider it underachieving when you're doing the best the you can, but in the end, your best simply doesn't live up to expectations. He's great at recruiting...not so great at winning when it counts. Great talent + good coaching will get you what USC has...a great program, steeped in tradition, lots of Heisman winners, loads of TV time, lots of sex appeal, solid respect, and pick of the litter in recruits, but it won't neccesarily get you championships or universal respect as being the best in the business...

Tell me the last big game USC lost besides the Texas game?

[fabolous]

And USC has won 2 NC's and played in another and was one yard away from winning that one.

[Peyton]

Maybe in relation the wealth of talent, but he got them back where they are and he's the reason they get that wealth of talent.

[Ton80Kid]

Tell me the last big game USC lost besides the Texas game?

not sure how it is in the PAC 10, but in the SEC, any game against a division rival, ESPECIALLY one that woo'd one of your coordinators away would be considered a BIG game...but hey, they do things differently out west... :P

[Eddie Dominguez]

Pete Carroll is a very good coach

[LawDawg]

Has Pete Carroll underachieved? Is the author f-ing serious?

Pete Carroll put USC back on the national stage. He has the highest winning percentage of any active CFB coach. Nobody can win every game every time, even the ones you're supposed to win.

Ridiculous question. Ridiculous author.

[fabolous]

not sure how it is in the PAC 10, but in the SEC, any game against a division rival, ESPECIALLY one that woo'd one of your coordinators away would be considered a BIG game...but hey, they do things differently out west... :P

Well they consider a BCS game a big game. And he only lost one of those. So your comments about the coaching ability of USC is lacking knowledge at best

[eddiesauto]

Has Pete Carroll underachieved? Is the author f-ing serious?

Pete Carroll put USC back on the national stage. He has the highest winning percentage of any active CFB coach. Nobody can win every game every time, even the ones you're supposed to win.

Ridiculous question. Ridiculous author.

He has done a great job, although all these losses to teams that they really should be defeating has kept them out of the National Championship Game for the last 3 years. I think they'll win out the rest of the year and a loss to a much improved Washington team will keep them out of the big game yet again.

The bottom line is that they play to the level of their competition.

[fabolous]

He has done a great job, although all these losses to teams that they really should be defeating has kept them out of the National Championship Game for the last 3 years. I think they'll win out the rest of the year and a loss to a much improved Washington team will keep them out of the big game yet again.

The bottom line is that they play to the level of their competition.

You couldn't be more right eddie. If USC plays UF, they would play their A game and have a chance to win. It's a discipline problem with the entire program. And it starts with Pete Carroll

[ki46dinah]

I think USC is a tough school to play, obviously, but it is humorous they keep losing to scrub teams every year.

Kinda sad

[FaIconfansince80]

[SacFalcFan]

:lol:

[Ton80Kid]

Well they consider a BCS game a big game. And he only lost one of those. So your comments about the coaching ability of USC is lacking knowledge at best

True...then again, losing to your cross town rival in the final game of the year and taking yourself out of the NC equation that year might be considered a "big game" loss. Losing to the No 5 ranked team in the country when you know they're going to run, and you've had 2 weeks to prepare for it, and thus eliminating yourself from any NC convesations would be considered a "big game" loss...and then you've got the loss this year to UDub in a game that you should win, but figure out a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, is a "big game" loss too. All of those have happened since the Rose Bowl loss to Texas. It's interesting to me that a USC team with 2 losses in a season doesn't get considered for a shot at NC, but an SEC team with 2 losses, not only gets to play for it, but also win it. Maybe it's a lack of "big game" losses.

Fact is, in today's college football when you have the level of national coverage and exposure that the Trojans have on them constantly, and the earned hype and praise that are heaped on legit contenders from the SEC, EVERY game needs to be considered a big game. When you play in a conference that doesn't have a conference championship game, you've got to make your case for a NC with 1 less game played than teams from the Big 12 or SEC. EVERY game is important in that situation, and you can't afford lackluster performances.

Sure, it's easy to say USC plays to the level of its competition, but when you've got the talent they have, then making that statement is making my argument for me...it's not talent, it's coaching. USC has talent all over the field...so you tell me why aren't they winning more "small games" and getting into more NC discussions?

You're probably right though, I must have a lack of knowledge though...I mean, I just can't fathom dropping the very next game after beating an overrated Ohio State squad in back to back years...I bet next year though if they have the Buckeyes on the schedule, the game the following week will be considered a "big game"...

[SacFalcFan]

Another read on this:

Has USC underachieved under Pete Carroll?

8:20 am September 22, 2009, by Tony Barnhart

It was one of those comments that when I first heard it my response was: “That’s absurd.”

The comment was made by Mike Lupica on ESPN’s “The Sports Reporters.” Lupica was trying to make the point that at the end of the day, USC has actually UNDERACHIEVED under Coach Pete Carroll.

Let’s see:

**–Carroll has been at USC for a little over eight seasons and has won 90 games.

**–He has won or shared seven straight Pac-10 championships.

**–He’s played in the Rose Bowl five times and the Orange Bowl twice in the past seven years.

**–He shared the national championship in 2003, won it outright in 2004, and was within seconds of winning a third straight title in 2005, but Texas and Vince Young had other ideas.

But since 2005, which I believe was his best team with two Heisman Trophy winners (Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart), USC has killed its chances at a national championship with an inexplicable loss to an unranked team. Let us review:

2006: Was ranked No. 2 and lost to UCLA 13-9 on championship Saturday. Florida went to the BCS title game instead.

2007: Was ranked No. 2 and lost to Stanford, a 41-point favorite, 24-23.

2008: Was ranked No. 1 and lost at Oregon State, 27-21, on an unforgettable Thursday night.

2009: Was ranked No. 3 and lost at Washington, a three-touchdown underdog, 16-15. The week before Washington had snapped a 14-game losing streak.

So what is going on here? Is it a lack of concentration? Do the USC players simply not believe they can lose to these teams and just don’t get ready to play? You could see last week’s loss t Washington coming. The Trojans won a hard-fought (18-15) victory before over 100,000 fans at Ohio State. Freshman QB Matt Barkley led a game-winning drive that propelled him to instant stardom. But Barkley (injury) couldn’t go at Washington, which has been re-energized under new coach Steve Sarkisian, a former Carroll assistant. It was the perfect storm for USC.

I have people tell me that we in the media over-hype USC as the glamour team in college football. Is there something to that?

My buddy Dennis Dodd at CBSSports.com theorizes that we may be watching the beginning of the end for this incredible run by USC. The Trojans have a new quarterback for the second straight year and had to replace nine starters on defense from last season. Is there something to that?

All I know is that for the fourth consecutive year it looks like USC is going to come up one win short of playing for it all and will accept the Rose Bowl as a consolation prize. That’s not bad but for USC fans it has to be getting old.

Is there anything really wrong at USC? Or is this just the nature of college football today? I’m interested in your thoughts.

[Volunteer Falcon]

I don't think they have underachieved at all, I mean they are basically in a BCS bowl every year where the majority of teams in 1-A will NEVER see one of those bowl games. The biggest problem with USC is that run they had a few years back of playing for and winning national titles raised expectations at that school tremendously and basically threw USC into the nation spotlight.

[House]

I think the problem does lay on the lack of focus. USC gets up for the big game, but they don't seem to get up for the conference games.