Just finished watching the (not-so) Big 12 Championship game. Texas was given that game. They don't deserve to be in the BCS Championship after that garbage showing. If Colt McCoy wins the Heisman that would even further make that a joke of an award.

It should be Alabama vs TCU in the BCS Championship game. (And I think that would be a hell of a game. TCU is very talented all over the field)

I hate it when teams are gifted wins like Texas got tonight.

especially given how Texas threw not 1 but 2 illegal chop blocks on Suh on the winning FG that the refs just decided not to call, I'm mean nebraskas's offense is to blame for being anemic but Mack Brown CRYING like somone took his candy on the playground to get that 1 second on the clock was so much more pathetic than Nebraska's offense

I will not watch the BCS title game, outside of being the 2 college teams I despise more than nearly anything Texas doesn't to desrve to be there PERIOD.

You can come and post here with all the rationale that they do but it will fall on deaf ears

Alabama can choke on a big steamy pile of Ebola virus as well, but they beat Texas by, 17 at least

Alabama looked strong. Florida laid an egg. But, I've always liked Alabama from the western division, so I can't feel too bad. We had a good run. Alabama destroys Texas. But, it's over a month away. Anything can happen.

Who the hell do you give the heisman to?

I'd probably give it to Ingram, but I'd love to see Gerhart from Stanford win it

McCoy won't win the Heisman, so we can all settle down there. Ingram probably will win it because of his game against Florida, but Gerhart from Stanford was IMHO the best college football player in the country this year and *should* win it.

I don't think there is anything exciting and sexy about an Alabama-Texas championship game. The exciting and sexy game, to me, would be TCU and Boise State. And I guess Cincinnati is going to get Florida and get annihilated by Tebow and company in their last game. The other teams... eh. I just hope for TCU and Boise State- that might be the only major bowl game I watch this year if that was to happen.

_________________

Florida has a bad track record in bowl games after big letdowns. I'm not sure we'd beat anyone that is motivated.

Yes, Texas had a bad game, but it's real hard to go undefeated. Don't let last night's performance make you think that seeing an undefeated Big12 vs an undefeated SEC team is anything but very special. I can't wait.

Suh was a beast for Nebraska last night and damn near took out Texas. I was underwhelmed to say the least by Texas. Given the games I have seen the past month I would not mind seeing a Alabama TCU match up.

The Big 12 was terribly down this year. Oklahoma lost Bradford and never recovered. Oklahoma State started off hot then choked down the stretch. Texas Tech was rebuilding, A&M was A&M. Nebraska was the best of the north and they had zero offense this year. Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, all bad.

Look at Texas Schedule:

Louisiana-Monroe W 59-20
at Wyoming W 41-10
Texas Tech W 34-24
UTEP W 64-7
Colorado W 38-14
Oklahoma* W 16-13
at Missouri W 41-7
at Oklahoma State W 41-14
UCF W 35-3
at Baylor W 47-14
Kansas W 51-20
at Texas A&M W 49-39
Nebraska*W 13-12

Yeah they can't help it that the Big 12 was down this year, but their toughest road game was at OK State? Lame. The (not so) Big 12 ended the season with three team in the top 25 (Texas #2*, Nebraska #22, and OK State #20. The Mountain West Conference had three top 25 teams (TCU #4, BYU #14, and Utah #25)

TCU had a better schedule than many people think:
at Virginia W 30-14
Texas State W 56-21
at Clemson W 14-10 (Clemson played for ACC Championship)
Southern Methodist W 39-14
at Air Force W 20-17
Colorado State W 44-6
at Brigham Young W 38-7
UNLV W 41-0
at San Diego State W 55-12
Utah W 55-28
at Wyoming W 45-10
New Mexico W 51-10

TCU played at BYU, at Clemson, and at Virginia (Six road games in all)

TCU should be playing Alabama in the title game

I would love to see TCU and Alabama.

I think TCU vs Alabama would be a much better game than Texas vs Alabama. Colt McCoy is a Tebow wanna-be. Texas wants to run their offense like Florida. Alabama just beat the crap out of the originals. What would the do to a team that isn't as good as Florida?

TCU has a good defense and a balanced offense. I think that they would give the Tide a very good game

I think people need to put disclaimers in their posts so we know where their loyalties lie (ie: "I root for this team:LSU -- I hate these teams: Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Texas"). Texas has one bad game (that they still won) and now some of you act like they are not deserving of a National Championship game berth. Colt McCoy is suddenly a "Tebow wannabe?" It must be all the times Texas runs the option, eh? Please.

Here's my disclaimer: I live in San Diego and support USC (Trojans), UCLA (Bruins), SDSU (Aztecs). Other than those, I just enjoy watching good football. Texas is good, TCU is a very balanced team and Alabama is getting the respect they earned and deserve. Shrug, we should have some good bowl games this year regardless.

You're right Neesha, Texas has the rankings and the record. I have no problem with them in the BCS title game.

I could care less who is in the BCS title game. The only match up I really want to see is TCU and Boise State. To me, that could be the most exciting and entertaining game out of any match up you can put on the field. And they can come to Phoenix in the Fiesta Bowl, which geographically is a good fit for both Texas and Idaho as far as travel arrangements goes (compared to the other BCS bowl games).

_________________

What I really want is an 8 team playoff to decide the national champion.

LOL I predicted TCU and Boise State to the Fiesta Bowl! That would be a fantastic game to go to, I wonder if I can get tickets to that.

And yes Cucullin, everyone wants a playoff system. But that won't be happening anytime soon, so we just have to live with this BCS joke.

_________________

Sure, you can get tickets. Nosebleed starts at 109 and Lower Level endzone starts at 125. That's actually not that bad all things considered.

I bought front row endzone tickets to the Texas Bowl back when we didn't know what teams were going to be playing. Navy vs. Missouri. Lame matchup, but it is what it is.

The Fiesta bowl is a horrible match-up. It is like they took the upstarts and put them at the kiddie table. I think most of the sporting world kinda forgot that the Horned Frogs and Broncos played in the Poinsettia Bowl last season. TCU won 17-16 to hand Boise State its only loss of the season. This is the BCS saying to both Bosie St. and TCU "Here, you both have a BCS game, now don't bother the BCS schools while we go play our games and you can have yours."

It is a slap in the face.

Here are the match- ups I'd rather see:
Championship Game: TCU vs Alabama
Rose Bowl: Ohio St. vs Oregon (can't really change this one)
Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs Cincinnati (match-up of unbeatens)
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs Bosie State (Put up or shut up bowl)
Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech vs Iowa

Disclaimer: You should know that I am an Arkansas fan and an SEC fan. I live in the Dallas area and get all the Big 12 coverage. Will probably be going to the Liberty Bowl in Memphis on Jan 2.

So Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs Cincinnati (match-up of unbeatens) is ok but
Fiesta Bowl: TCU vs Boise State (match-up of unbeatens) is a slap in the face?

Your logic continues to impress.

Did you not read what I said? Putting BSU and TCU against each other is like telling those schools "OK, here is your BCS game, don't bother us real schools"

Why do I have to keep explaining things to you? Your reading comprehension continues to fail.

My comprehension is fine. Your logic is just retarded. It's 2 undefeated teams in a BCS game yet it doesn't mean anything to you because you don't want Texas in the National Championship game. If it was TCU against Cincinnati would you say the same thing?

I think what krby is saying, Neesha, is that you have a low sports IQ.

Who TCU and BSU face are larger than their records.

What do the following conferences have in common?:
ACC (Georgia Tech)
Big East (Cincinnati)
Big 12 (Texas)
Big 10 (Ohio State)
SEC (Alabama)
PAC 10 (Oregon)

They are all automatic qualifiers to the BCS bowl games The winner of their championship is guaranteed a spot in a BCS game. To further lock in who can and who can't play in a BCS bowl game there are the following agreements, that unless their "pick" is slated to play in the Championship game, the BCS bowls will take the following:

Rose - Big 10 vs PAC 10 Champions
Sugar - SEC Winner vs Big East, Notre Dame or at large
Fiesta - Big 12 Winner vs Big East, Notre Dame or at large
Orange - ACC winner Big East, Notre Dame or at large

The Big East winner is guaranteed to play in one of the BCS bowls as is Notre Dame if they finish in the top eight of the final BCS ranking.

Now, what do these conferences have in common?:
Conference USA (East Carolina)
Mid-American Conference (Central Michigan)
Mountain West Conference (TCU)
Sun Belt Conference (Troy)
Western Athletic Conference (Bosie State)

To even get an invite to a BCS Bowl game they must either 1) Win their conference and finish in the top 12 of the final BCS rankings or 2) Win their conference, be 16 or higher in the final BCS ranking and be ranked higher than the lowest BCS conference champion.

Also, the non-BCS conferences are only guaranteed one slot if they meet the above conditions.

The argument all year has been "is TCU/Bosie as good as the BCS teams?" By putting them in their own little bowl does not answer that question. That is segregating the two "upstarts" into their own little bowl where they won't bother the Big Boys.

Do you understand yet?

To add:

TCU and Bosie are lucky that the following didn't happen:

1) Notre Dame did not finish in the top eight (would have been one less spot)
2) The Big 12, PAC 10, Big East, or ACC runner up were not top 12 ranked as any of the higher ranked of those would have been in one of the other BCS games.

Also, last year an undefeated Utah (from that same conference as TCU) beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. No-one was saying that Utah was the better team, they were all saying that Alabama was not happy to be there and wanted to be in the Championship Game.

Finally if they had a playoff, all this would be settled. Take the top eight teams and let them play it out. Would look like this:
#1 Alabama vs #9 Georgia Tech
#2 Texas vs #8 Ohio State
#3 Cincinnati vs #7 Oregon
#4 TCU vs #6 Bosie State

The winner of Alabama/GT would play the winner of the TCU/BSU game.
The winner of Texas/OSU would play the winner of Cincy/Oregon.
Then the true national championship.

There would be an argument about #5 Florida being left out because they didn't win their conference championship (You could argue that Florida should be in before Bosie)

That argument makes a little more sense. However, I could understand putting TCU or Boise State against someone like Florida saying, "you want to play with the big boys, now's your chance to prove it" but I still don't think you should penalize Texas, who has been in the top 3 all season. Each team had a game they could have lost, were it not for a little luck.

I also think your playoff system is flawed if you only take conference champions. I actually enjoy watching Georgia Tech and think they are a good team, but I don't think they'd deserve a spot in the tourney (if there was one) over a one loss Florida team. And I CERTAINLY don't think Ohio State would deserve a spot over Florida, even though they did win their conference.

Of course, all of this is just idle speculation until the BCS runs its course. As it is now, I don't see a problem with having 4 of the 5 unbeaten teams playing each other. It would be nice to see a TCU in the championship game, but they are certainly no more deserving than Texas, Cincy, or even Boise State (who I would rank as the worst unbeaten team, among the 5). The system sucks, and there are no scenarios that would make everyone happy. But at least this way insures that there aren't 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year.

I still think a simple solution would be for the winners of the two games with the top 4 teams play in a final Bowl game.. alternating each year from the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, etc. It's certainly not perfect, but it's much better than this current crock of shit. In that scenario, Boise would still be on the outside looking in this year, but that's what they get for having blue turf.

Krby, we are not having a playoff system. Regardless of how many people want it (you, me, 99.9% of college football fans), it is not happening this year. Or next year. Or the year after that. Maybe one day in our lifetime it will, but for now we have these moronic bowl games.

One of the biggest factors to who the bowls invite to their game are matchups and demand. The organizers of the bowls want to have an attractive matchup so that people will go to the game, so the organizers can make money. Like in all sports and business, it is the power of the dollar. And as we found out throughout the year, America seemed well behind the TCU and Boise St bandwagons- they were the clear underdogs, they potentially could compete with the top 2-3 teams in the country, all the writers and talk show radio guys fed the public how awesome TCU and Boise St were. As a matchup goes, that is an extremely attractive matchup- two underdog teams, both on the brink/cusp of elite super stardom, which one is going to come out on top? Heck I would not be surprised if the winner of this game is voted #2 in the polls.

What other matchup would bring fans into the stadium? Would bring people to watch the game on television? No one cares about Cincinnati- not like they care about TCU and Boise St. Which is why TCU-Boise St is a great matchup, will sell out the stadium, will bring in a great television rating, and will be an exciting game.

And TCU was nowhere near where it is now last year. So it is hard to compare last year's game with this years. There is much more excitement and drama this year than last with both teams.

I just find it odd that USC is playing on December 26. When was the last time they played a bowl game before December 30?

_________________

You said it yourself: "two underdog teams"

But they are playing each other. There is very little joy in playing another underdog.

Do you still not understand how this is a slap in the face to both of these teams?

These schools have been wanting a chance to prove themselves against the BCS schools. They have worked all year to get that chance now at the very end the BCS gets the last laugh and tells them to "go play against your fellow non-BCS school"

After these bowls are done who will remember who is #2? Who will care who won between TCU and BSU? If TCU and/or BSU were to play other teams from the BCS schools THEN WIN they would not be forgotten. Everyone remembers that Bosie State upset the BIG BAD Oklahoma Sooners in the Fiesta Bowl a couple years ago and Utah upended a non-focused Alabama team last season.

I agree with you, Krby.

I agree with you, but Cicely has the BCS system figured out.

Florida vs Cincinatti - Florida is close enough to bring the fans to the Sugar Bowl and it really doesn't matter who you match them up against.

TCU vs BSU - Neither one is a terrible travel from the Fiesta Bowl and both will travel well to that location. Travel well meaning their fans will come that far to see the game.

Would Cincinatti fans go to Glendale in as large an abundance as they will to New Orleans? The BCS doesn't think so and to them it's all about selling all of the tickets and merchandise they can.

It's all about money. I'm with you that I would rather see Boise State in the Sugar Bowl with Florida and TCU in the Fiesta against Cincinatti, but we're not the decision makers and no matter how much we cry about it, it doesn't change a damn thing.

Look. I agree with you that they want to "play with the big boys". That is not going to happen because the "big boys" don't want to play them. They don't want to lose to a TCU or a Boise St. Heck Oregon gave in, and look what happened to them- loss.

They won't play with the "big boys" until a playoff system happens. Or when AD's don't get scared and actually want to challenge their teams pre-conference. Until that happens, then those small schools are stuck. Yes, it sucks. Yes I hate it with a passion like you. But unless they leave their conference and join a "big boy" one, it is what it is.

So it then comes down to matchups. Does anyone in this country want to see Florida-TCU? Do they want to see Cincinnati-Boise St? Anyone? Hello? Echo echo echo? My point exactly- no one does.

TCU and Boise St are two of the better stories this college football season. They are the two undefeated teams that America seems to latch on the most from the smaller schools- I haven't read or seen or heard the outpouring of love for Cincinnati like I have the other two. Plus from a location standpoint... do you want residents in Idaho to fly to New Orleans? To Florida? How many people do you think will be jumping at that opportunity? Anyone? Hello? You get my drift... from a logistical standpoint, Boise St is better off playing in Arizona at the Fiesta Bowl. Idaho will fly down to Arizona in the beginning of January, enjoy the weather, and enjoy a football game. Now, would a game against Iowa be exciting? El oh el. Cincinnati? I doubt they will fly down here for a Cincinnati opponent. But TCU? High offense, blowing people out just like Boise St is, underrated, underappreciated, etc etc. That is a sexy match up. That is a match up that people will go to, people will watch.

The decisions are not just based on football and "big boys". It is also based on other factors as well. Like I said prior to Sunday night when the announcements were on, I wanted to see a TCU-Boise St game. Most of America also would want to see that too. It will be fun, exciting, entertaining, thrilling- at least we all hope it will. And since we won't have a playoffs, this is the next best thing for football fans.

EDIT- Keep in mind that I hate, loathe, cannot stand, detest, etc the BCS. With a passion. I have wanted a college football playoff system for as long as the next person. But I do understand some of the thought processes behind the BCS and if I cannot get a playoff, then at least I want to understand it. Don't agree, but understand.

_________________

Oh, I think plenty of people out there want to see Florida vs TCU or Boise State.

I'd love to see Florida vs. TCU. I'd wouldn't care if Florida won by 50 (to bring TCU back down to reality) or if TCU won by 50 (to continue to make a mockery of the BCS system).

I think the big thing to look at here is the fact that the Big East isn't much better a conference than the MAC or the Mountain West. They were going to have a matchup between two teams that really don't belong with the BCS teams (Cinci, Boise, and TCU) so they put the two that they feel gives them the best potential for money making together and let Cinci play Florida.

I wish I could, but obv I can't, but if I could I would bet ALOT of money that TCU would beat Texas by 10 points with very little trouble.

I had hopes that Auburn was gonna beat Alabama in the Iron bowl, and then Alabama would do what it did and beat Florida in the SEC title game.

Then I could have watched TCU beat Texas in the BCS title game.

But alas were stuck with what we have and it sucks, I'm like Cicely in regards to having been VERY vocal about a playoff system for years.

As far as my disclaimer my Bachelor's is from Univ of South Mississippi, and my masters from Univ of Alaska Anchorage so I'm not a TCU homer.

TCU- 24 Texas -14

P.S. Yes The Big East as well as the ACC don't deserve automatic BCS bowl game bids and haven't for at least 4 or 5 years

### Warning: Long read ###
Just screwing around with stuff (yes it has been slow in the office today) and I think this would be an awesome playoff setup for NCAA Div I football

First you set up the landscape. You would have three main regions:
West Region - New Big 12 Conference; New Pac 12 Conference; New Western
North Region - New Big East; New Big 10 (12 teams) New MAC
South region - ACC; SEC; New South Conference

Conference Changes
Big 12 - to become New Big 12
remove Colorado
add TCU

Pac 10 - to become New Big 12
add Colorado
add Utah

WAC - to become New Western
remove Louisiana Tech
add Air Force (from old Mountain West)
add Colorado St. (from old Mountain West)
add UNLV (from old Mountain West)
add New Mexico (from old Mountain West)
add BYU (from old Mountain West)
add San Diego St. (from old Mountain West)
add Wyoming (from old Mountain West)

Big East (This is just for Football, Big east Basketball is something else)
add Army
add Navy
add Marshall (from old Conference USA)
add Temple (from old Mid-American)

Big Ten (Needs a better name as they would have 12)
add Notre Dame

MAC - to become New MAC
add Tulsa (from old Conference USA)
add SMU (from old Conference USA)
add Memphis (from old Conference USA)
add Houston (from old Conference USA)
add Rice (from old Conference USA)

ACC & SEC would remain unchanged

New South Conference
take the old Sun Belt football schools,
add Louisiana Tech (from old WAC)
add Tulane (from old Conference USA)
add UAB (from old Conference USA)
add Central Florida (from old Conference USA)
add East Carolina (from old Conference USA)
add Southern Mississippi (from old Conference USA)

SETUP:
The New Big 12, New Pac 12; New Big East, New Big 10, ACC, and SEC would automatically qualify their top two finishers for the playoff.

The New Western, New MAC, and New South would automatically have their conference winners qualify for the playoff

The next top three finishers from each region would qualify as at large teams for the playoffs.

That would yield a 24 team playoff. The top eight teams {currently using BCS rankings} would receive a first round bye (This year would be Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati, Florida, Bosie State, Oregon, and Ohio State)

The first round would be:
16 Oregon State vs 17 Pittsburgh (Winner plays at 1 - Alabama)
9 Georgia Tech vs 24 Troy (winner plays at 8 - Ohio State)

13 LSU vs 20 - Nebraska (winner plays at 4 - Cincinnati)
12 VA tech vs 21 Wisconsin (winner plays at 5 - Florida)

15 BYU vs 18 West Virginia (winner plays at 2 - Texas)
10 Iowa vs 23 Clemson (winner plays at 7 - Oregon)

14 Miami vs 19 Stanford (winner plays at 3 TCU)
11 Penn State vs 22 central Michigan (winner plays at 6 Bosie St.)

You can see the groupings from there.

As for the timing of this playoff
Round one would be Dec 11-12
Round two would be Dec 18-19
Round three would be Dec 25-26
Semifinals Jan 1-2
Championship around Jan 11

You would need to shorten the reg season to be no more than 11 games (currently 12)

You could use the major bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton{now that it is in the new Cowboy's Stadium}) for some of the later round games. To even out the locations, have the sixth be at the new Colt's stadium or Ford Field in Detroit.

Rounds 1 and 2 would be at the higher ranked team's facilities.

The remaining bowls, if they were viable could continue and they would be much like the NIT is to the NCAA tournament.

It will never happen, fun to dream.

BCS Recap:
Alabama almost called off the dogs too soon and gave the young QB a chance to get a feel. Good thing that they were able to turn up the D in the 4th quarter. As for the shovel pass near the end of the half, I think that it was a great call the RB just Roy Williamsed it (my term for a ball hitting a receiver in the hands yet it ends up as an interception). That is the safest pass he could throw, even safer than a pitch play. If he doesn't Roy it, at worst he has a 5 yard gain, he could have run for a long way as the Bama D Line and Backers were all over the QB.

TCU picked a bad time to have a bad game by their QB. They played horrible and still only lost due to a fake punt in the 4th qtr. Bosie plays some better teams next year so it will be good to see.

For the Rose Bowl I got caught up (as did many others) in the Ohio St. can't handle the speed... Well, they can't handle speed when it is as strong as they are (like when they play an SEC school). Oregon was the faster overall team on the Rose Bowl, but the Buckeyes were much more physical and the Ducks couldn't stop it.

Florida murdered Cincy. Good to see that the Gators didn't have a let down after the SEC Championship game. I guess it is too bad that Florida didn't play TCU or Bosie to see what they would have done vs some real competition. If the Big East doesn't dramatically improve they should lose their automatic BCS invite.

Colt McCoy doesn't get hurt and the outcome of that game is a lot different.

It ended up being a better game than I anticipated after that first half. Can Herbie and Musburger get any further up Alabama's ass? They acted like Texas's Defense was just horrible when they had just lost their quarterback and were a little shaky. I think they proved in the second half that they were pretty damn good.

The game may have been different, but the outcome would have been the same.

Unless you're suggesting they would have had McCoy line up on defense and prevent the 30+ points that Alabama scored.

Herb and Muss were up Texas's ass the first half until it was clear they weren't going to win. Texas's defense was pretty horrible save for about five minutes in the first quarter and five minutes in the fourth quarter. McCoy getting hurt definitely gives something for the Texas fans to cry about, but at least we won't have another 20 years of burnt orange flag-waving as a result of them winning another championship. We're still probably about five years away from the Vince Young-come-lately fans losing interest, so hopefully they don't win any more championships, because Texas fans (specifically non-alum Texas fans) are just about the worst sports fans I've ever seen. They don't watch the games, don't know anything about the team, and only exist to gloat when they get a Google news alert for "Texas wins."

_________________

with McCoy in I don't think Alabama gets 3 touchdowns off of turnovers though, maybe they would have but I doubt it

They still would have had over 200 yards rushing. Probably more since they would have had worse field position.

If McCoy is not hurt of course it is a different game. I don't think the outcome really would be different.

Bama came out in the 2nd half knowing that all they had to do was not turn the ball over and they win the game. They gave the kid and the Texas coaches too many opportunities to figure out what they needed to do. Bama was playing an attack the run defense until they hit them with that second TD. They really didn't believe that the kid could put the team on his back and carry texas to a victory.

Ingram showed why he was the Heisman winner. When he was out in the third the Bama offense was not the same. When he came back they started moving the ball again.

Yes, when the game started all I was hearing from Herbie and Brent is "Texas is tired of hearing that they are not as good as Alabama. Texas's defense is tired of hearing they aren't as physical as Bama and they are showing it"

They are announcers and they always pile on for the team that has the momentum in big games like that.

Sources: Seahawks hire USC's Carroll
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4810861

Sanctions inc to USC? Now who does USC get to replace Carroll? I hear Mike Leach is looking for work. heh

On a related note, I saw an interview with LenDale White saying if Carroll leaves USC, he'll lose respect for him for not practicing what he preaches about loyalty ("he has been preaching loyalty for 10 years"). Why on earth does ESPN continue to interview (and hire) idiots and morons? Ten years shows loyalty. Turning down NFL offers every single year shows loyalty. Eventually, a man needs to move on (especially when the team is about to get slammed by the NCAA!). I absolutely hate idiots. And I'm not even a Pete Carroll fan. I genuinely dislike the guy (and I loved it when Stanford stuck it to them and Harbaugh ran up the score). But seriously, quit interviewing illiterate idiots.

ps: LenDale left school early. How's that for loyalty, dumb fuck?

The only shred of truth to his statement is if Carroll really is leaving before a slew of sanctions. That's pretty shitty, imo.

I would imagine that the only four reasons for Carroll wanting to leave USC for the NFL (and Seattle, of all places) are-

1. He knows that his football program is going to be slammed with major sanctions by the NCAA, and he doesn't want to have to deal with that (i.e. pulling a Calipari)

2. He sees that he is no longer the head honcho in the Pac-10, doesn't see his team playing for a BCS championship anytime soon, and would rather fail elsewhere than at a school he loves

3. He feels that he has been ultra successful as a collegiate coach (which you can argue he has) and wants to give the NFL one more shot to redeem himself for his average results a decade or so ago

4. Paul Allen is going to give him a crapton of money, so much that he is leaving strictly for financial reasons

I have to imagine it is a combo of 1 and 4, if I was to guess

Of course, I am glad that the Seahawks are fully co-operating with the Rooney rule for minority candidates. I guess you interview one token black guy with the absolute knowledge that you are not going to even give an iota of thought to hiring him is within the "spirit" of the rule. What a joke...

_________________

It's a retarded rule anyway.

I fully expect ESPN to hire Chris Johnson to do analysis on the Colts game next weekend. He has exactly what they are looking for and is an obvious choice to become "the next Emmit Smith" in the broadcast booth.

I agree it is a dumb rule. I understand that they want to give minorities the opportunity to become coaches and so forth- I get that. But you shouldn't force a team to interview, especially if they already have a pre-selected choice that they want to hire anyways.

To me, Seattle interviewing that guy today was a complete mockery of the "rule". Unless that guy wanted to do it strictly to practice his interviewing skills, I would have not even bothered going for it if I was in his shoes. Why go to an interview fully knowing that you will not be offered the job, and the only reason you are even being interviewed is because of the color of your skin- not your qualifications or knowledge or results?

_________________

The thought process behind the rule is that GM's & owners all talk to each other and that if an interview is good then they'd pass along the info that Coach XXX seems like a good hire as a head coach someday.

Before the rule there were little or no black head coaches, there are a few now.

The rule to me is stupid, they should be looking at all the best possible coaches not just a short few and then a token.

When Dallas hired Bum Jr. they brought in Mike Singletary, they admitted that they were really WOWed with what he brought to the table. There were many who saw it as just a token interview but it really left some people wondering if they (the Cowboys) hired the wrong guy.

Apparently USC notified the players via text message. lol

What a crazy two weeks it's been. Urban Meyer leaves, stays, now we have the #1 recruiting class after the AAA game (that may be Florida's best class ever, up there with the one we got Tebow and Harvin in). Carrol leaves - Kirby Smart likely to Georgia (Saban must be a real douche to work for).

or Nick Saban must know coaching talent because he keeps getting his assistants taken for bigger jobs.

Alabama has said that they will fight to keep Smart in the fold.

Being Georgia's defensive coordinator is not bigger than being Alabama's defensive coordinator.

when they throw $750,000 at you it is big. Bama is going to counter that with $800,000 to $1M.

Which is why i said that Saban must be a douche to work for, knowing he will get paid either way. Did you see what Saban said about him?

http://blogs.ajc.com/uga-sports-blog/20 ... ports_blog

I think Kirby's wife played at UGA and he has ties to UGA. That and getting out from Saban are the only things I could see making this attractive.

Saban is a douche so I am sure working for him would be very unpleasant. His Miami Dolphins coaching gig should be all the evidence anyone needs on his douchiness.

It's funny he would say that about lateral moves after moving form the Dolphins to Alabama. That's, at best, a lateral move, if not a step down.

I suspect working for Mark Richt will be a much different environment, heh. Polar opposites.

I would call going from the Dolphins to Alabama a promotion.

Sure, it's the NFL to college, but it's going from a shit team in a state that really doesn't give a shit about the Dolphins to a known dynasty amongst college football elite. Every swinging dick anywhere near Tuscaloosa is an Alabama fan except for the 10 Auburn fans.

I'd agree if it was Cleveland, or Seattle. But Miami has a bit more pedigree than some teams.

You gotta take yourself back 2-3 years to when Bama was reeling from Mike Shula, DeBose and Franchione tenures and realize that Alabama is an elite program, but wasn't as attractive when Saban made that move as they are now.

So how do you feel about him going from LSU to the Dolphins in the first place?

LSU to the Dolphins was a promotion ($$$) After he was there he learned first hand that he was not a pro type head coach and better suited for the college game (see Bobby Petrino in Atlanta or Spurrier in Washington for another examples).

Saban knew that he had at best one more year in the pros w/ Miami so when Bama came calling he jumped to what to him was a better situation.

Look at Charlie Weiss, an outstanding pro coach but out of his element when it came to being a college head coach.