Skip to content

Pete Carroll’s contract double-standard logic with Marshawn Lynch

USC v California Getty Images

Seattle Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch is having a bit of a stand-off with management off the defending Super Bowl champions. Lynch has two years remaining on his contract with the Seahawks but is holding out from training camp to deliver his message to the team. Head coach Pete Carroll got involved by making a statement that comes off a little hollow considering the source.

“It’s a contract for a reason. We made a decision and it was signed, by us and by them,” Carroll said, via USA Today. “We expect them to honor their contract just as we will. We’re going to honor it and we expect them to do the same.”

Oh, that’s rich.

While coaching at USC, Carroll signed a contract extension in December 2005. The new contract would have kept Carroll in charge of the USC Trojans through the end of the 2010 season. The only problem is Carroll saw an opportunity to return to the NFL with the Seahawks. Oh and by the way, that return to the NFL came with a healthier paycheck as a result.

Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Maybe to an extent, although the situations really are a bit different.

In his defense, Carroll had done just about everything he could at USC, winning a BCS championship and another AP national championship while building one of the top programs of the BCS Era by bringing it back to life, even if for a short period of time. Sure, it was slapped with NCAA sanctions for violations that occurred under his watch, and that is fair to mention as well. Carroll has been outspoken about his belief that USC was punished too harshly by the NCAA, but the top level of a football coach’s profession is in the NFL, and Carroll was ready to take another crack at it. The situation and timing were right to move to the NFL when Carroll did.

Even if it meant not honoring the contract he had signed.

Permalink 16 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Pac-12 Conference, Rumor Mill, Top Posts, USC Trojans
16 Responses to “Pete Carroll’s contract double-standard logic with Marshawn Lynch”
  1. delashmit says: Jul 25, 2014 8:11 PM

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Oh, never mind.

  2. onbucky96 says: Jul 25, 2014 9:19 PM

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Pete Carroll. Always thought Petey was a D-bag, his contract statement just confirmed it. Enjoy the ride Seattle, this clown is gonna wreck it soon.

  3. canetic says: Jul 25, 2014 9:22 PM

    Do as I say, not as I do

  4. corvusrex96 says: Jul 25, 2014 9:23 PM

    So the Seahawks will never ask a player to structure a contract or get cut ?

  5. mancave001 says: Jul 25, 2014 10:32 PM

    I don’t like Carroll, but comparing the two situations is completely different. Carroll left his job for another. Lynch is just holding out for more money. People leave jobs with contracts all the time. They aren’t usually held beyond a point they want to stay At Will (most could be, depending on the contract). The Lynch situation and others like it drive me nuts. He agreed to the terms of his employment, and now he wants to change them. Ridiculous.

  6. coachglove says: Jul 25, 2014 11:30 PM

    I guess I’m crazy…because I don’t see a double standard. Carroll fulfilled the terms of his contract. His contract contained a buyout clause, which he exercised. That constitutes “meeting the terms” of his contract. We are done here.

  7. psunick says: Jul 26, 2014 12:45 AM

    Exactly right, glove

  8. addict2sport says: Jul 26, 2014 3:51 AM

    Apples. Oranges.

  9. irishlad19 says: Jul 26, 2014 7:26 AM

    Anything PC says has to be taken as hype–he’s a phony who skipped out of USC ahead of the NCAA.

  10. ahugusf says: Jul 26, 2014 7:37 AM

    Well, Lynch just won a Super Bowl, what else does he have in Seattle?

  11. metrocritical says: Jul 26, 2014 8:46 AM

    There are many reasons to lambaste Pete Carroll but this particular situation isn’t one of them. His statement isn’t hypocritical and doesn’t suggest a double standard. Quite simply, a contract is a contract and when someone doesn’t adhere to the terms it’s called a breach of contract and there are consequences, both legal and practical. When a team cuts a player they are not violating the contract because the contract allows the team to do so. On the flipside, a standard NFL contract doesn’t say players may holdout because they want more money or that a team must restructure or extend because a player feels disrespected. From a practical standpoint a hold out may create leverage to force change but it does not create any legal leverage whatsoever. The smarmy Pete Carroll may not be squeaky clean but even a former thief has the right to call the police when his car has been stolen.

  12. ancientcougar says: Jul 26, 2014 10:42 AM

    Players like Lynch need better Agents, that know how to structure the original contract to allow for accomplishments that go beyond expectations. Then all this would not be a subject for conversation.

  13. delashmit says: Jul 26, 2014 11:25 AM

    no more posts please

  14. manik56 says: Jul 26, 2014 1:08 PM

    A non-guaranteed contract is not much of a contract in my book. NFL holdouts will always have my support until they guarantee all contracts.

  15. rick359 says: Jul 26, 2014 5:13 PM

    OK, I’ve changed my mind, Lynch should be paid, figure it out Seattle an get it done!

  16. mogogo1 says: Jul 27, 2014 12:28 AM

    Apples and oranges. I’ve never understood why colleges just sit back and let coaches skip out on contracts but that is business as usual. And Carroll never demanded a raise like Lynch is doing now, he left for a different job.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!