USC 28, UCLA 7 (final)

[BB73]

Difference being PC didn't do something to goad Harbaugh into doing what he did other than be the big boy on the block.

Neuheisel egged PC on with the TO.

Apples and oranges imo.

I thought Pete over-reacted to the timeout. With 52 seconds, a fumbled snap, a quick TD, an onsides kick, and another TD would tie the game.

Now I know that's a million-to-one shot, but I don't blame Neuheisel for calling the timeout; if he doesn't ake a timeout he's admitting defeat early, something he doesn't want his team to do.

 

[methomps]

Yeah, because there's so much difference between tOSU and USC this decade

I have nothing bad to say about OSU. You're the one strutting over a bid to a bowl that SC has dominated this decade.

He may not have whined in the media, but the widely-reported "What's your deal?" comment to Harbaugh post-game gives the impression of hypocsisy, even moreso when compared to his elation after the 48-yard TD yesterday.

Fair enough, but people have said over and over in this thread that PC whined about what Harbaugh did and that really isn't accurate. And hypocrisy really is more of holding others to a standard that you do not maintain. I don't know that confronting Harbaugh amounts to claiming to being above such things as it does simply being pissed that Harbaugh did it.

And really the situations are not the same. Carroll extended an olive branch to ucla, which was rejected. Harbaugh just wanted to score 50 points.

It's a friggin timeout. You really think a timeout deserved that circus?

And especially for him to do it after "What's your deal" the week before.

What's HIS deal??

It was going to be three timeouts and then either an attempt at a punt block or punt return to setup an onside kick.

 

[BB73]

And really the situations are not the same. Carroll extended an olive branch to ucla, which was rejected. Harbaugh just wanted to score 50 points.

That's a good point.

I understand Pete being ticked at the 2-point conversion from Harbaugh. I still think he over-reacted to Rick calling a timeout in a 2-score game.

 

[BrutusBobcat]

All situations are unique. Against Illinois, it was fourth and goal from the three. Do you turn the ball over on downs, giving Illinois a shot to break up the well-earned shutout? Do you kick a field goal, which is pretty insulting? Or do you give Illinois a chance to win the ball back on their own merits, while challenging your red-zone impaired offense to hammer one home? Tough call, and I wouldn't call it classless.

What is it decidedly not is a 50 yard bomb. Now, Neuweasel did bring it on himself, somewhat. If he doesn't call a time out, the game ends at 21-7. By calling a time out, he's expressing to USC that he doesn't think the game is over. Fine, you keep playing, earn a first down and run UCLA out of time outs. At the same time, no team is entitled to having the winning team roll over and play dead for them, so I won't fault Petey too much for calling a play that clearly worked.

Was it the classiest thing he could do? Not exactly. Pete Carroll does not normally choose the classiest route available (see Sanchez, Mark), and his celebration was kind of ridiculous, as was the taunting. That doesn't make him an awful person or the worst coach in America. It's just an over-reaction to a perceived slight, sort of as if one were to react to a visiting fan trolling your message board by revealing his email address, real name, place of work, photographs, getting him fired, subscribing him to questionable magazine material, and ultimately making sure that the whole mess is the first thing that comes up when you Google his name.

So, I guess you could say that UCLA has been Neuheiseled.

 

[Mr_Burns]

I thought Pete over-reacted to the timeout. With 52 seconds, a fumbled snap, a quick TD, an onsides kick, and another TD would tie the game.

Now I know that's a million-to-one shot, but I don't blame Neuheisel for calling the timeout; if he doesn't ake a timeout he's admitting defeat early, something he doesn't want his team to do.

In that case, if there is still any chance of UCLA winning, what's wrong with USC making sure it's out of reach? If UCLA is still saying they can win the game, I don't think USC scoring again is out of line. If you meant that the overreaction was PC's celebration afterwards, then disregard what I just said. He didn't need to act the way he did after the score, running around with that grin on his face.

 

[methomps]

All situations are unique. Against Illinois, it was fourth and goal from the three. Do you turn the ball over on downs, giving Illinois a shot to break up the well-earned shutout? Do you kick a field goal, which is pretty insulting? Or do you give Illinois a chance to win the ball back on their own merits, while challenging your red-zone impaired offense to hammer one home? Tough call, and I wouldn't call it classless.

What is it decidedly not is a 50 yard bomb. Now, Neuweasel did bring it on himself, somewhat. If he doesn't call a time out, the game ends at 21-7. By calling a time out, he's expressing to USC that he doesn't think the game is over. Fine, you keep playing, earn a first down and run UCLA out of time outs. At the same time, no team is entitled to having the winning team roll over and play dead for them, so I won't fault Petey too much for calling a play that clearly worked.

Was it the classiest thing he could do? Not exactly. Pete Carroll does not normally choose the classiest route available (see Sanchez, Mark), and his celebration was kind of ridiculous, as was the taunting. That doesn't make him an awful person or the worst coach in America. It's just an over-reaction to a perceived slight, sort of as if one were to react to a visiting fan trolling your message board by revealing his email address, real name, place of work, photographs, getting him fired, subscribing him to questionable magazine material, and ultimately making sure that the whole mess is the first thing that comes up when you Google his name.

So, I guess you could say that UCLA has been Neuheiseled.

Pryor threw on 3rd and 4th down, but my point is that Carroll has been criticized by OSU fans for even having starters in the game midway through the 4th quarter, for letting backup quarterbacks throw the ball, and even for simply running the ball late with a big lead (Rose Bowl against Illinois).

I can't help but feel that the reactions would be very different on this board to Carroll throwing with his starters on 3rd and 4th down up 23-0 or for Tressel calling a play-action bomb after RRod calls a timeout with OSU up 21-7 with 40 seconds left.

 

[OSUsushichic]

If we would have done that vs. Dick Rod, we would have been laughing and bowing down to Tressel for that move. I'm not saying it's a classy thing to do, though.

 

[DubCoffman62]

If we would have done that vs. Dick Rod, we would have been laughing and bowing down to Tressel for that move. I'm not saying it's a classy thing to do, though.

All's fair in a rivalry game, that's my stance.

 

[BB73]

In that case, if there is still any chance of UCLA winning, what's wrong with USC making sure it's out of reach? If UCLA is still saying they can win the game, I don't think USC scoring again is out of line. If you meant that the overreaction was PC's celebration afterwards, then disregard what I just said. He didn't need to act the way he did after the score, running around with that grin on his face.

Yep - I don't have a problem with calling the pass when UCLA's hoping for a fumble or a blocked punt. But the celebration afterwards was crazy - it was similar to Georgia running onto the field against Florida two years ago (except that was at the start of a game, to get them fired up, not at the end). When both teams were on the field, that could have gotten real ugly in a hurry.

But my thinking is that if a coach calls bombs to be thrown in the last minute, he shouldn't get upset at somebody going for two just to try to score 50. That's where I think the hypocrisy comes in, even recognizing the difference that Harbaugh did it on his own, and Pete's bomb was in reaction to a timeout after taking a knee.

Either way, it's up to the defense to stop it if they don't like it. And the bad blood just adds interest to the Pac Ten games, so it's probably not a bad thing for the conference.

Edit - right after posting that, I saw this blurb from SI's Andy Staples:

SI.com

Let he not without sin ...

USC coach Pete Carroll doesn't get to ask "What's your deal?" ever again.

Carroll played the victim two weeks ago after Stanford punched in a late touchdown to break half-a-hundred. He famously asked Cardinal coach Jim Harbaugh about his deal during the postgame handshake.

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.

Had Carroll not whined to Harbaugh, the late toss wouldn't be such a big deal. USC and UCLA are hated rivals, and if UCLA didn't want to get embarrassed, it should
have kept USC from scoring. But Carroll seemed so offended when Harbaugh ran up the score. Now, that complaint rings hollow.

So run it up all you want, coach. Just don't get upset the next time someone hangs 50 on you.
​

 

[OH10]

Is what Neuheisal did really that wrong?

Most teams don't take a knee until the other team is incapable of stopping the clock. Until then, they usually run the clock out. I've rarely seen the knee before all timeouts have been used.

The game simply wasn't over from a time standpoint. USC certainly thought the game was over from a competition standpoint, but you don't get to be pissed off when the other team still sees the miracle as a possibility.

By the same token, that means I don't have a problem with USC trying to score there. The prudent thing is to run the clock out, but they are free to pass in that situation. The problem, of course, is with PC's reaction to the touchdown (i.e. pointing across the field) and the hypocrisy.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Since we are on the topic of rubbing a defenseless rivals face in it....

The Game 1961
The first time Woody hung 50 on scUM

• OSU led 42-14 with :34 seconds in the game and the ball on their own 20.
• Woody, with all his starters still in the game, calls a bomb to Paul Warfield that went to the scUM 10 yard line.
• Woody calls 2 more pass plays and the second one scores with :05 seconds to go.
• Woody, being Woody, then goes for 2 and gets it to make it an even 50.

Newspaper accounts of the day made mention of a nearly half hour long series of on the field brawls between fans after the game. Older guys recollect any of that?

Regardless of the brawl part being true or not, can you imagine the field day the sports entertainment industry would have with that shit today?

 

[FrancisSoyer]

Pryor, Terrelle pass incomplete to Homan, Adam (Hardeman, D.).
Osu 4-G at*Ill03 Timeout Ohio State, clock 01:22.
Osu 4-G at*Ill03 Pryor, Terrelle pass complete to Sanzenbacher, D for 3 yards to the ILL0, TOUCHDOWN, clock 01:18.

Ohio state 30 Illinois 0

Don't forget in '07 when the Illinois players danced on the O midfield and almost started a riot after they had upset Ohio State. I like to think that Tressel wouldn't stoop to participating in these shenanigans but we can't be sure.

 

[MaxBuck]

In my opinion there's no such thing as "running up the score." If you don't want your opponent to score, stop him. If you can't, tough shit; you should have done a better job.

Wussification of American sports = criticism of "running up the score."

 

[BB73]

Is what Neuheisal did really that wrong?

Most teams don't take a knee until the other team is incapable of stopping the clock. Until then, they usually run the clock out. I've rarely seen the knee before all timeouts have been used.

The game simply wasn't over from a time standpoint. USC certainly thought the game was over from a competition standpoint, but you don't get to be pissed off when the other team still sees the miracle as a possibility.

By the same token, that means I don't have a problem with USC trying to score there. The prudent thing is to run the clock out, but they are free to pass in that situation. The problem, of course, is with PC's reaction to the touchdown (i.e. pointing across the field) and the hypocrisy.

The timeouts don't need to be exhausted before it's smart to take a knee. In my mind, as long as taking knees will run out the clock without having to punt or turn the ball over on downs, it's smart to do it. Each take-a-knee runs only 2 or 3 seconds off the clock if a timeout is called, but about 42 seconds between plays if no timeout is called.

So if it's 1st down and there's 1:25 or less left, and your opponent only has 1 timeout, taking 3 knees will kill it, even if he calls a timeout.

1:23 after 1st down, last timeout taken
1:21 after 2nd down, snap not needed until 42 seconds left
0:40 after 3rd down, clock will run out (or take a knee on 4th down with 1 second left)

If the opponent has 2 timeouts, it works with 46 seconds or less left (on 1st down).

If the opponent has 3 timeouts left, it dooesn't work unless it's under 12 seconds.

So at 52 seconds after USC's play, if UCLA had at least 2 timeouts, I think Neuheisel was reasonable in using them.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Harbaugh just wanted to score 50 points.

...and Carroll just wanted to score 50 points against San Jose St., throwing a TD pass with 4 minutes left in a game that had been 49-3.

I don't think anyone would be making an issue about this but for what appears to be hipocrisy on Carroll's part--it's ok to run up the score when it's his team scoring a TD late in the 4th against San Jose St. to make it a 56-3 game or throwing a bomb against his team's rival in the final minute and then acting like his team just won the Super Bowl, but if Harbaugh goes for 50 (without the sideline hooting and hollering, mind you) against PC's team, Carroll gets all bent out of shape. It seems that he can rub his opponents' noses into the ground, but other teams can't do the same to him. That double standard is what I have a problem with.