Yesterday, Carroll gave his UCLA counterpart, Rick Neuheisel, a late-game moment that he likely won't forget for a very, very long time.
Trailing 21-7 with less than a minute to play and with the Trojans lining up in the victory formation to run out the clock, the Bruins inexplicably called a timeout. This apparently pissed off Carroll, who called a pass play coming out of the timeout that resulted in a Matt Barkley-to-Damian Williams 48-yard touchdown to push the lead to 28-7.
At least publicly, though, Neuheisel is taking the high road on the touchdown bomb.
"I was trying to make them punt. It's our job to cover. They have every right to throw the ball deep," the coach said after the game. "People draw their own conclusions. It's our job to stop the play. ...
"I had three timeouts. It was first down, I called a timeout. If they run the ball on second down, I call timeout. I'm trying to get the ball back. If they fumble I got a chance. I don't blame them for doing it. It's our job to cover it. I was just trying to keep the game alive."
Carroll, for the most part, echoes his UCLA counterpart's postgame thoughts.
"We were killing the clock and were just going to take a knee," Carroll said. "That (the pass) was just competing, and it was flawlessly executed. It is just the heart of a competitor, just battling. We just wanted to win the game and have fun. When the moment was there, it wasn't thinking about what you (media members) might be thinking. You're either competing or you're not.
"We were taking a knee. The game was over for us. They (had three timeouts and) were going to get the ball back. We didn't want them to have the ball again. That's exactly what went through our minds. If you really believe in competing, then you understand."
Something tells me that Neuheisel will have his guys really believing in competing when the rivalry game rolls around this time next year.
Is there anything bigger in college football than Pete Carroll's ego?
1. horns_05 says: November 29, 2009 12:14 PM ET
"Is there anything bigger in college football than Pete Carroll's ego?"
Yes. Nick Saban's. But not by much
"Is there anything bigger in college football than Pete Carroll's ego?"
Two things, actually. The bellies of Weis and Mangino.
"Trojabs rub the Bruins' nose in it"
The "Trojabs?"
@horns05 - Yes, but the fat load is about to get fired from nd, so Pete will be back on top within a few days.
@ Wrathchild: Wow, I completely missed that. Gracias, sir.
Great job, Pete. Gotta get ready for that December bowl game, huh?
C'mon....both coaches were competing and doing what they thought best for their team. Neuheisel chose to go down fighting - good for him. Carroll responded in kind - good for him.
UCLA wanted to take the game right to the wire, and Carroll obliged. If you throw down the gauntlet, don't go all pansy if the other team picks it up.
Why fault either for being competitors in a competitive sport?
@John Tayor: Tierra del Feugo, senor.
Rick has never learned to not poke the bear and I wouldn't want to be around him at Yellowstone. :)
i really didnt see anything wrong with this. i watched the game but didnt have a horse in the race, just enjoy seeing a rivalry game. usc was gonna run the clock out and go home but once the bruins called a TO then it's game on again.
Probably is nothing wrong with what Pete Carroll did...however, he can not take the same thing. He made a scene out of Stanford going for a 2 point play instead of 1 point. Carroll is a hypocrite: good coach, but toal hypocrite.
Not "probably" nothing wrong with what Carroll did, definitely...for the reasons already mentioned.
The 2-point play by Stanford...not the same thing. Stanford up by four scores at that stage of the game, the 2-pointer serves no real purpose. It was what some are trying to say about the USC call - a nose rubbing.
UCLA knew there was a remote possibility that if they could get the ball back with a little time, a quick strike and a successful onside kick could give them a shot at catching USC. They elected to play for that option. No such threat existed when Stanford pulled their stunt
It was Carroll's reaction which in turned inflamed the teams reaction, resulting in excessive taunting.
Taunting is the act of poor sportsmanship that I can't stand. There is no reason to taunt except to embarrass your opponent. There is no way that anyone can defend it , or claim otherwise.
The Trojans have no class because they can't win with class.
Omega
The Last Word.
Omega is right.
Neuheisel called time-out, signaling "game on" and Carroll obliged. But after the TD, Carroll's jumping up and down was ungracious, as the obvious winner. And USC's finger pointed and other gestures were clearly taunts.
Carroll is not guilty of running up the score, but he did behave in a regrettable way after the TD, with the game now in hand.
It it always acceptable to chear your own team on, or to be enthralled with a victory, especially over a rival. But to taunt the other team is classless.
USC was on the other hand of several taunting incidents lately, especially the Stanford 2-pt conversion, which is clearly a taunt. I'm sure there was much the USC players had to endure after the Washington and Oregon losses. But that does not excuse their own poor sportsmanship. When you play for a powerhouse you have to expect such taunting after a loss, and have to ignore it. That's the price you pay for being on one of the best teams, and having a chance to play for a Mythical National Championship.
What was so wrong with what he did? The game was clearly over with 50 seconds left, USC was kneeling it, and this moron on the other sideline is calling timeouts.
My exact words after UCLA called the first timeout was "I'd throw a 50 yard bomb on them right now for doing that." And to my amazement, Carroll did it. I don't see anything wrong with it. He was trying to end a game that was clearly over.
And all this is coming from someone who hates Pete Carroll like poison.