Ucla

I thought the play was classless also--but it did look like USC was willing to kneel out the clock with the score 21-7. They took one knee and then when UCLA called time-out USC decided they couldn't kneel-out the time, if UCLA was going to use it's time outs, and decided to go deep

Pretty much what you guys said. You give Pete Carrol the chance to be a douche... and he will be a douche. Does he really need another coach hell bent on whipping his ass every year like Harbough?

You make a fair point, but... [QUOTE=Yappy Dave;10866]I'm siding with Pete Carroll on this one. UCLA, down 14 points with 50 seconds left calls a timeout after a first down run. In my mind, if you're still going to play the game to win, then so am I. You aren't expecting the play action 50 yard bomb to end the game, so I'm going to run it. There was really no reason for UCLA to prolong this game and got what they asked for. I applaud Pete Carroll for sending a message to petty coaching.[/QUOTE] Neuheisal wouldn't be doing his job if he doesn't use all of his timeouts. Coaching etiquette may SUGGEST that UCLA not call that timeout, but coaching etiquette DEMANDS that SC not throw that 50 yd bomb.

[QUOTE=Yappy Dave;10866]I'm siding with Pete Carroll on this one. UCLA, down 14 points with 50 seconds left calls a timeout after a first down run. In my mind, if you're still going to play the game to win, then so am I. You aren't expecting the play action 50 yard bomb to end the game, so I'm going to run it. There was really no reason for UCLA to prolong this game and got what they asked for. I applaud Pete Carroll for sending a message to petty coaching.[/QUOTE] First of all, UCLA's TO was after the move by Carroll, not before. Secondly, if "play the game to win" was the motivation then Carroll was wrong. Going for the bomb actually lessened his winning chances over taking a knee.

having looked at this, UCLA had 3 timeouts remaining. So lets suppose USC knees it 3 times anyway then punts it. UCLA is down 2 TD's. what if they get a good return, or score pretty quick. really unlikely, but suppose. then onside kick. What Caroll did looked like a lowlife move vs a beaten team which fought hard, but if he knees it 3 times, I see now it was only 99.9999% over. perpetualcheck are you saying the likely incomplete pass throwing deep would have increased UCLA's chances of winning? I dont think so and purely from a surprise point of view, not unlikely the receiver was wide open.

I have no problem with the bomb. If a team takes a knee up 14 with 50 seconds left and you call time out, and then they decide to score, too damn bad.

[QUOTE=PerpetualCzech;10875]First of all, UCLA's TO was after the move by Carroll, not before. Secondly, if "play the game to win" was the motivation then Carroll was wrong. Going for the bomb actually lessened his winning chances over taking a knee.[/QUOTE] UCLA called a timeout, Carroll responded with the 50 yarder, knowing he couldn't kneel down to win the game.

agree, with all 3 timeouts, UCLA could have forced a punt. Not bitching about money, I already lost. They nearly had a riot though

Seriously... just run the ball. [QUOTE=Yappy Dave;10881]UCLA called a timeout, Carroll responded with the 50 yarder, knowing he couldn't kneel down to win the game.[/QUOTE] What comes around, goes around. I thought old Petey may have been getting some of his own medicine this year, but clearly, he still has some coming his way.

I'll be honest. I'm sick of "sportsmanship." UCLA called a timeout because they could get the ball back and go on to win in miracle fashion. That's fine. But when you make a decision like that, you must be prepared to face the consequences. USC buries the game on the next play. How can you wrong a coach for winning the game? This links to seeing the media question a coach (and even a high school coach losing his job!!) over blowing a team out. What are you supposed to do when your team is crushing the other with your worst lineup in the game? You play to win the game. Period.