Every sport has certain assumptions that hold true to the test of time. Football is no different. Ohio State, Penn State, Florida, and Texas all are giant recruiting schools. The state of Texas has been the hotbed of quarterbacks for the past ten years. Either the Big 10, Big 12, or SEC will have a team in the BCS Championship Game.
There are also certain things that should always happen, unwritten codes if you will. You don't run up the score if you think your defense can hold, you don't insult the other team's coach or players, you wear your away colors when away. These are rules that the coaches and players follow, and have for years. So who does Carroll think he is when he decides to wear his home colors when he is away on Saturday?
In case you didn't know, one of the biggest rivalries in college football takes place Saturday as UCLA hosts crosstown rival USC. USC is predicted to be the easy winner. While this game is already rich in tradition, Carroll being well aware of the current, and the old, traditions wanted to restart one that ended in 1982. That is, Pete wants his visiting Trojans to wear their home colors. This violates the unwritten code, sportsmanship, shows his lack of class, and NCAA rules (listed in the order of importance). The NCAA is punishing Carroll by removing one of his timeouts. UCLA, acting with class, offered (and will) to burn one of their own timeouts as a show of friendliness.
Sure, it is all nice to have this classic tradition restarted, but he is breaking the rules to do this. What does this teach to your students, your kids? How can you get mad if they break a rule, as long as they contend that they are only doing it because that is how it used to be done? Seriously, I can see this as being bad for disciplinary purposes.
Article comments
1 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Does Pete really think that he is above the law?"
It doesn't look like it. If he was above the law, he would say "I want to wear home jerseys and not be penalized." He's accepting the cost of breaking a rule, which really is trivial in the grand scheme of NCAA rules, such as boosters giving Reggie Bush rent money back in the day.
This is a great lesson to his kids. Stand up for what you believe in, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences. If you want to not study for an exam by doing blow and having threesomes all night, and you are OK with getting suspended and losing your football scholarship, and you think that's the right then, then you are adult enough to make that decision.
The only way I might have a problem with this is if Pete Carroll's team was not OK with this, and he's doing it anyway. I doubt that's the case, though.
2 - El Bicho
"You don't run up the score if you think your defense can hold"
Point differential factors into the rankings, so I have to ask what are you thinking?
Your premise is totally flawed and you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. It doesn't violate "the unwritten code, sportsmanship, shows his lack of class." Those would apply if Carroll didn't announce it and surprised everyone as the team ran out of the locker room, as opposed to making it known, discussing it with the other coach, and willing to take the penalty.
Matt's right. It teaches kids there are stupid rules on the books and if you are willing to stand up to them and pay the consequences, then civil disobedience is the way to go. Don't they make you read Thoreau at OSU?
Many people in Southern CA are fine with it, including most importantly Coach Neuheisel, so I honestly don't know why you care. Your issue with USC should be about the 35-3 spanking they laid on your Buckeyes back in Sept, which they would have done no matter who wore what color uniform.
3 - Robert M. Barga
To Matthew
"It doesn't look like it. If he was above the law, he would say "I want to wear home jerseys and not be penalized." He's accepting the cost of breaking a rule, which really is trivial in the grand scheme of NCAA rules, such as boosters giving Reggie Bush rent money back in the day."
---Here is the thing. He decided to break a rule simply because he think that his way is better. When did he come up with this idea? Why not try and change the rule instead of practically ignoring it
"This is a great lesson to his kids. Stand up for what you believe in, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences. If you want to not study for an exam by doing blow and having threesomes all night, and you are OK with getting suspended and losing your football scholarship, and you think that's the right then, then you are adult enough to make that decision."
---threesomes? Where, and am I invited?
Anyways, the point is that he shouldn't be doing that. Yeah, he should say there are consequences, buut he is violating a rule. His kids could easily argue back to him that they should be allowed to too.
"The only way I might have a problem with this is if Pete Carroll's team was not OK with this, and he's doing it anyway. I doubt that's the case, though."
---Do families have a say if dad speeds?
4 - Robert M. Barga
To El
"Point differential factors into the rankings, so I have to ask what are you thinking?"
---I do not like this fact. If I voted, I would take points from teams that unreasonably ran up the score. If you second team is out there and scoring then that is cool, but if you are doing it with your best players, and your defense rocks, then back off...
"Matt's right. It teaches kids there are stupid rules on the books and if you are willing to stand up to them and pay the consequences, then civil disobedience is the way to go. Don't they make you read Thoreau at OSU?"
---He is our favorite author after all. That said, I disagree with his contention that it is right to not pay taxes as a protest of a war...
"Many people in Southern CA are fine with it, including most importantly Coach Neuheisel, so I honestly don't know why you care. Your issue with USC should be about the 35-3 spanking they laid on your Buckeyes back in Sept, which they would have done no matter who wore what color uniform."
---I agree, our O-line sucked
5 - Matthew T. Sussman
"---Here is the thing. He decided to break a rule simply because he think that his way is better. When did he come up with this idea? Why not try and change the rule instead of practically ignoring it"
If he went through the conventional method of asking the NCAA to change it, it's a story in March, when college football isn't being played. Two, if he does it today, it's a national story when everyone's talking about Bama-Florida and OU-Mizzou. If it wasn't for this story, nobody outside of Bicho's backyard would be talking about USC-UCLA because, as you said, it's so lopsided and USC isn't really in the national title discussion.
Now they are talking about it, and at very little cost. The cost of one timeout in the first half is nothing more than a five-yard penalty.
It's like when a team purposely takes a delay of game penalty on 4th and long on the opposing 35-yard line to give their punter more room to kick a natural punt inside the 10? They're intentionally breaking the rule of "you have to snap the ball in 40 seconds" because they think their way is better and will accept the consequence. And nobody ever seems to have a problem with this.
And again, he's not "ignoring" the rule. He's well aware of it and accepting the consequence for it. The rule is 'either you wear road whites or wear road colors and lose a timeout." He'd be ignoring it if he wanted to wear home whites and not lose a timeout.
6 - Robert M. Barga
"If he went through the conventional method of asking the NCAA to change it, it's a story in March, when college football isn't being played. Two, if he does it today, it's a national story when everyone's talking about Bama-Florida and OU-Mizzou. If it wasn't for this story, nobody outside of Bicho's backyard would be talking about USC-UCLA because, as you said, it's so lopsided and USC isn't really in the national title discussion."
---If Florida loses and OU loses USC is in, maybe even if Bama loses...
That said, you are thinking it is more for the timing?
"Now they are talking about it, and at very little cost. The cost of one timeout in the first half is nothing more than a five-yard penalty."
--I know, and that is my biggest issue. It should be a higher penalty
"It's like when a team purposely takes a delay of game penalty on 4th and long on the opposing 35-yard line to give their punter more room to kick a natural punt inside the 10? They're intentionally breaking the rule of "you have to snap the ball in 40 seconds" because they think their way is better and will accept the consequence. And nobody ever seems to have a problem with this."
---Nice analogy, but there is a problem with it. They are not breaking a rule of football, but a rule of the NCAA
"And again, he's not "ignoring" the rule. He's well aware of it and accepting the consequence for it. The rule is 'either you wear road whites or wear road colors and lose a timeout." He'd be ignoring it if he wanted to wear home whites and not lose a timeout."
---Not really. The law is not 'speed and get a ticket'. You are arguing that getting the ticket means you complied with the law. He is ignoring one rule, but respecting another
7 - USC rocks OSU sucks
dude, you are just pissed cause your team got killed
8 - history buff
FYI, they used to wear home uniforms only because the la coliseum was the home of both