This is not an instigation to engage in flame wars, name calling and other non-sense. This is an honest attempt to engage in civil opinion sharing.

I want to ask UCLA (including BN regulars with whom I exchanged some non-pleasant name calling - promise won't happen in this post) and other non-USC fans several questions. I will provide my thoughts as a dialogue starter.

1. What should have Pete done after RN timeout?

Here is my brief take:

- Rick's TO was "game on" indication

- Kneeling 2 more times and punting the ball and possibly allowing the Bruins to score would be a major negative for PC because

* RN will claim that 21-14 is an indication of how close UCLA is and the gap is closing

* RN will claim UCLA fights to the end..

* UCLA's gain is USC's loss. No question about it

- Thus a "game on" responce was needed.

- Short pass would most likely not work because UCLA was stuffing the run and covering short passes.

- Perhaps "catch and fall on 1 yard line" might have been an alternative, but I am sure the media would find a way to negatively spin this as well

- I didn't really like the celebration, but perhaps Bruins obvious frustration (as evidenced by PAT penalty) really fueled the Trojan sideline

So overall, I think it was a right call with some reservation about the celebration

2. In your opinion, what is the proper "4th down, up by double digits in 4th quarter" etiquette?

A poster on BN posted a list of 4th down attempts in PC era. While applaud his solid research, I believe he left out few instances of really rubbing it in (70-17 pass by McDonald vs Arkansas - and since I hate the SEC, f*ck'em :) ) while presenting some 4th down attempts that were totally justified as classless.

My general take that it is better to go for 4th down conversion than kicking a field goal in this situation. Haters will always find a way to spin it (Urban Meyer kicked a FG vs Miami last year... everyone in Miami was pissed. What if he called a simple run play and scored?). If backups are in the game and simple run down the middle is called, there is nothing unclassy about it. It's better than kneeling on 4th down and telling the opponent "hey you suck so bad that we don't even want to run a 4th down play because your sorry ass can't stop us". So examples like this:

Up 52-7 with under 4:00 left against UCLA, 4th and 10 at UCLA 50 Matt Cassel (USC) rushed up the middle for 1 yard; turnover on downs and Up 45-0 with under 6:00 left against Arizona, 4th and 2 at ARIZ 25 David Kirtman (USC) rushed up the middle for 3 yards

are totally foolish because you have a backup QB or backup FB (not even a RB!!!) running up the middle.

 So everyone who has an opinion on this matter, please share and lets keep it civil

I guess it doesn't take much brain power to be a writer for an online sports media... How else you can explain the poorly researched stupidity that's coming out in many places? Richard Cirminiello of CFN writes:

However, what was Pete’s point with just 44 seconds remaining? The game was in hand, and if anything, he might have risked a sack and a turnover by dropping Barkley back in the pocket. Take a knee, shake a hand, and move on to next week’s regular season finale with Arizona.

What? Take a knee? What a great idea, Richard. But if you bothered to spend 2 minutes researching the issue before writing this non-sense, you'd realize that Barkley did "take a knee" to "shake a hand, and move on to next week's regular season finale with Arizona".

Hey, for the sake of an already contentious rivalry, Carroll’s odd choice of play-calling isn’t the worst thing, right? It makes for good copy, gets the fans in Los Angeles frothing at the mouth, and generally raises the overall hostility level between the long-time rivals. However, from a tactical perspective, I just don’t understand the move.

May be if you had half-a-brain to explore the issue carefully, you'd understand what really happened.

Yet another dumb post without using a "grey matter" called brain... Andy Staples of SI wrote:

Up 14 late Saturday, Carroll allowed quarterback Matt Barkley to throw a 48-yard touchdown pass to Damian Williams with 44 seconds remaining. Sure, UCLA coach Rick Neuheisel had just called a timeout, but USC could have handed off until the clock expired.

Andy - I am calling you out and asking you to show factually, how USC could have handed off until the clock expired if they had 2nd and 11, 54 secs on the clock and 2 UCLA timeouts. A conservative run play that gains 2-3 yards takes about 5 secs off the clock. So you are talking 4th and 5/6 with ~40-45 secs left. If USC goes for it on 4th down and doesn't get it, clock goes to 40 secs and UCLA ball. If USC punts, ~35-40 secs left while UCLA fields the punt.

I dare Andy Staples to show me what's wrong with my logic considering SC's mediocre running game and UCLA with 9 man in the box. Until then, I will just conclude that he just doesn't have the brain to figure it out - a typical "speak first, think about it later" clown.

Lastly, anyone bringing up Harbaugh (I personally had no problems with it, but some did), understand the difference between "unprovoked" and "provoked". Ricky instigated it and got what he deserved. Should have let the clock roll or be ready to bring your "A" game for 60 mins

Yes, it was only the first of UCLA's three timeouts, meaning if USC kept taking a knee, Neuheisel could have kept calling them and eventually gained possession of the ball with about two seconds remaining.

Down two touchdowns with two seconds left.

Bill Plaschke needs to think before writing. Clowns who'd try to bash Pete saying that UCLA had no chance of doing anything with 2 secs left would quote Bill.

Lets do the math: 3 time-out's, 54 seconds left. 3 kneels would only take 6 secs off the clock (2 secs after 1st kneel). Add 6-10 secs for the punt and you have 40 secs left with a punt in the air. It's not easy but stranger things happen in football (did you see Case Keenum pull it off in a minute down 2 scores?)

So one more reason why Pete did the right thing after Ricky wanted to play ball.

Let's see if Mr "This is Bruin Town" will admit his inaccuracy (just sent him an email)

So by now you all probably heard about Mr. Theriot and his thoughts on "Coach" Rick Neuheisel.

After some thoughts (or I imagine heavy dose of insults from likes of Mushroom and calls from UCLA AD), Mr Theriot is telling the world that it was some freaky hacker that posted those negative comments:

Continue reading this post »

Stumbled upon this. For thos who don't know, The OC stands for Outta Control. It is Carroll's nickname - http://usc.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=886458

The first gem is here:

So if my translator interpreted this correctly:

1) Norm Chow is black

2) Randall is not happy with him

3) NC doesn't trust RC or RC doesn't trust NC...

4) Same "shyt" (losing?) is getting tiresome for RC

5) Like every Bruin, he was paying more attention to USC - ND game than UCLA game

6) He is whining about this to Ditrich Riley, who probably won't go to UCLA now

More priceless stuff from OC:

More "shyt" from OC

1) RC doesn't like school

2) RC realllllllllly doesn't like schoool

3) RC really reallly realllly realllly doesn't like school

But wait, I thought they were all Rhodes scholars in waiting, or at least that's what Mushroom told me...

UPDATE: Looks like RC is not getting any punishment for that "shyt". Just like Nikola Dragovic (or whoever it was), it was just a misunderstanding. From UCLA blog

After a meeting between freshman wideout Randall Carroll and offensive coordinator Norm Chow about the contents of a somewhat controversial Twitter post by Carroll to St. Francis of La Canada recruit Deitrich Riley, Neuheisel said that Carroll would not be punished.

This, after redshirt freshman cornerback Aaron Hester expressed his frustration about the handling of his return from a broken leg.

"In the midst of a four-game losing streak, there's gonna be frustration," Neuheisel said. "That's a natural byproduct. What we have to do is channel that frustration in a positive way. With respect to Aaron Hester, certainly he understands that coming off a broken leg we can't just rush him into the starting lineup. Maybe on that particular day, he didn't understand. If communication needed to be more thorough, I'll certainly take the responsibility.

"With respect to Randall, I think it's just an oversight with respect to the technology. I don't think it was intended for a public forum. He and Norm have talked and cleared the air."

UPDATE 2: Looks like the Bruin team is united and buying "Coach" RN's philosophy... NOT!!!

Here is another twitter gem from Chrstian Ramirez (yeah yeah I know about Gable, but he never tweeted the whole world about the injustice). Funny "shyt"

After fuming the whole weekend, I finally decided to put my thoughts together. I posted few comments on WeAreSC.com forum, but I want to present a comprehensive look into UW debacle and the negative vibe around the program. A healthy critique never hurts, especially coming from a big time fan.

I won't get into how much I love what Pete has done for the program and accomplishments. Yes, 118 other programs would die to have this kind of success. But this loss really hurts. I got over Texas loss fairly quickly. I even somewhat got over losses to Oregon and 2 losses to Oregon State. But a loss to UW, UCLA and Stanford really hurt. It really hurts to lose to a program that has no business of being within 21 points if the talent on SC's roster is properly developed and utlized. I can understand losing to Ohio State, Cal or even Notre Dame (EDIT: to clarify, I am talking about 2009 Cal, OSU or ND, not 2001 or 2003 Cal). But not UW nor 2006 UCLA nor 2007 Stanford.

Let's not forget, Bobby Bowden also had tremendous success in 1990s. But FSU's inability to maintain discipline and develop players (despite playing in weak ACC and Florida being mediocre in early 2000s) eventually led to a freefall.

Continue reading this post »