USC's Carroll being interviewed for the Dolphins' head coaching job?
 

Jeez. First USC loses its kicker to a fall from a cliff, now they might lose Carroll to the Dolphins....

...all in the span of seven days...

I guess roses aren't supposed to last longer than a week...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16407426.htm

He'd be a fool if he left.

Some people are cut out to be college coaches and some pro coaches. He is def one of the former.

Agreed. I don't care for the guy, but he's damn good at what he does.

It'd be interesting to see him at the helm of an AFC East team other than the Patriots and I actually like the guy and what he did while he was there, but there's also no doubt in my mind that Bellichick would absolutely humiliate him.

yep.

But once you've been a failure as an NFL head coach like Carroll was, you always feel like you have some "unfinished business." You want to prove to yourself and others that you CAN coach and win at the highest level. At least that's the way most highly competitive people think, and he supposedly is personally highly competitive.

The personality of pro players is much different than the college ranks, and I just don't think Carroll's style fits the bill with million dollars-a-year athletes. They'll either see through, exploit or disregard his sideline coddling of his players. At any rate, yes, he was a failure with the Jets and Patriots, and a success with the Trojans, but then anyone knows the differences between college and pro football are exponential.

It also doesn't help that Miami is a sinking ship.

And hopefully he gets that this time around.

He's a nice guy, very rah-rah is my impression. The pros need "when I'm done slapping you 'round, I'll start slappin your posse around" kind of people. Or the "cerebral" coach eg/Bill Walsh

two words" steve...spurrier

i hope he stays at USC, it fits him so perfectly

I've got your Spurrier and raise you a Dennis Erickson

I was a fish fan many (Shula) years ago. I lost interest in the NFL ~10 years ago - I hear the Chargers are doing well this year...;)

What's the story with the sinking fish?

Ditto...but first:

Pete would be a fool to leave. He can do no wrong thse days, he'd be best to stay put and keep contending for National Championships.

I was once a HUGE Rams fan - Jim Everett, Dickerson, Slater, the Youngbloods, Ellard...man, those were good days. I felt like we were Joe Frazier to the Niners' Ali. If only.... But, after they left I couldn't get into other teams. I tried to get into first the Niners (not), briefly the Chargers (not then) and just never could and gave up. It killed me after all those years to have them win the Super Bowl in friggin St. Louis. No offense to St. Louis, but what were we? Chopped liver? They couldn't have "thrown us a friggin bone" while they were here? After the Browns left and had to leave there name behind I wondered why we couldn't have kept the Rams name? Oh well, if L.A. ever gets an expansion club, I'll try to get re-interested. If we get some other city's castoff (most likely) I doubt I'll be able to get into them.

lol...i lived in miami all during the erickson era. good times. :)

I couldn't agree with you guys more about Carroll.

My question is what is an NFL coach? Or a pro coach in general? What makes them up?

I mean, if I were George Karl of the Denver Nuggets, and just acquired Allen Iverson, I'd be scared to death of the man.

College athletics, IMO, whether football, baseball, or basketball, is just more pure as a sport. The players take direction, learn, and are (in football at least) anything but spoiled Terrell Owens-types. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

But then again, hell, I'm a Bobby Knight fan, so maybe my opinion is...umm...tainted.

Nah, not really.

At some level of college sports, you are right.

But at the highest levels of D1 college sports, esp. football, it's not a very pure sport. Winning and losing is mostly determined by recruiting.

And recruiting is a very unlevel playing field. First, you have very diverse athletic academic requirements. Stanford, Cal or UCLA's pool of academically qualified HS football players is very different than USC, Florida State, Ohio State, etc.

Second, you have very different levels of, umm, voluntary compliance with NCAA recruiting and other rules. "Playas" know where the rules are lax, where they can get their rent paid, maybe a couple bucks here and there, little extra "supplements" in the weight room, etc.

College football at the high level is anything but "pure," IMO.

Pro football, on the other hand, is ALL just a bunch of rich criminals, all the payments are up front and in the open, there's no recruiting rules, the teams are on more even footing.

I'll have to disagree with you on the recruiting thing. Look at Texas. As long as Mac Brown has been there they've had top 5 recruiting classes every year. And yet only last year did it pan out. Of course Vince has proved just how great he is at the next level. The thing is you would not believe the # of true UT people that think Mac Brown is a recruiter not a great coach. And I'll call you on the Stanford UCLA BS about academically qualifiers. Come on. You think they don't have 80% Bubbas?

I think it's mostly about respect. And power.

A coach has to have the respect of his players - best example is Phil Jackson. The team has to buy into the coach and the system. If not, a renegade player like Iverson can cause a lot of dissension.

And he has to be empowered, have the backing of the organization, so that the players know if it is player v. coach, the player is going to come out on the short end of that deal.

Then, on top of that, you have to really know your Xs and Os, and be what is essentially an effective CEO of a large corporation - managing your personnel, assistants, etc.

All while under a microscope, leading a team where you have no direct control of the outcome of the games or your future.

I think being the HC of a pro football or basketball team has to be one of the toughest jobs around (esp. football, though, because there are less games and far more personnel pieces to the puzzle - separate offense, defense, complex plays, dozens and dozens of players, etc.). Very few can do it really well.

All of which points to why Carroll should stay put...

1) Having great recruits doesn't mean you are going to necessarily win, but not having great recruits does generally mean you are NOT going to be competing for any NCs.

2) You can call BS on Stanford/UCLA/Cal recruiting standards, but that doesn't make it BS. Their athletic academics standards are higher than places like USC, Florida State, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc. They just are. So their pool of potential recruits is by definition smaller than those places. Many of the great players from those schools would not be academically eligible to play at Stanford/UCLA/Cal.