I watched the “30 for 30” about the USC “dynasty”. They won a lot of games in a row, but that’s not my definition of a dynasty. Overall, it wasn’t bad, but there were so many misleading or outright false things in there. That detracts from the quality and entertainment value.
The first thing was the comparison between Paul Hackett and Pete Carroll. I wasn’t in the L.A. area at the time, so I don’t know know what the conventional wisdom was around here, but it just doesn’t match reality. Hackett’s previous head coaching job was with the Pittsburgh PANTHERS (not in the NFL like the documentary said). How is that like the New England Patriots at all? Hackett’s previous job was in the NFL, but offensive coordinator isn’t the same thing.
The Chiefs did make the playoffs all but one year while Hackett was there, but after his first season, they failed to win any playoff games under head coach Marty Schottenheimer.
The Jets never gave Carroll a chance and have been a poorly run organization for a long time, so I don’t blame him for their 6-10 mark in the one season he was there. Jimmy Johnson went 1-15 his first season with the Cowboys. Speaking of the Cowboys, Tom Landry went 0-11-1 in his first season there. It’s ridiculous to judge anything based on a head coach’s first year with no chance to follow up (Carroll didn’t do much better his first couple of years in Seattle either), so I’ll focus on his time in New England.
Carroll coached the Patriots for three seasons and made the playoffs twice with an overall record of 28-23. He followed Bill Parcells, who had coached there for four seasons and also made the playoffs twice, going exactly .500 in his time there.
I really don’t understand the view that Carroll was a failed NFL coach who was going to do poorly at USC; and as someone who followed the NFL closely in the 1990s, I did not have that expectation at all. I’m not saying I thought USC was going to be one of the top four teams seven years in a row though. I don’t think anyone could have reasonably expected that.
We can also contrast Carroll’s prior NFL record with that of Bill Belichik, who coached a total of five seasons in the 1990s and only made the playoffs once with a total record with the Browns of 37-45.
Next, they acted like USC looked so bad in early 2002 to for losing to Washington St. You have to hear the way they say it. The tone suggested they had lost to a Cougar team from 2008-2010. The loss was in overtime in Pullman, and Wazzu had won 10 games the season before and went on to win 10 games again that season before losing in the Rose Bowl.
Then they acted like the win at Auburn in 2003 was a monumental victory, calling them “one of the best teams in the country”. The Tigers went 9-4 in 2002 and would finish 8-5 in 2003, infamously resulting in Tommy Tuberville nearly being replaced by Bobby Petrino.
The documentary ignored the Trojans’ last loss before the streak, which was in Berkeley against a similar team. Winning 34 in a row and 45 of 46 doesn’t really need to be embellished, does it? So why completely ignore the one loss in those 46 games?
I guess it was to avoid mentioning the three-team race at the end of that year. No mention was made of the fact that Oklahoma was the unanimous #1 going into the conference championships (which of course the Pac-10 didn’t have) or that the Trojans finished third in the BCS standings behind the eventual winners of the BCS LSU.
I did note that at one point Matt Leinart used the singular when referring to the USC national championship, although the narrator repeatedly talked about how the Trojans were a minute away from winning a third in a row. USC did beat Michigan at the end of that year, but when the team you’re playing is just playing for a nice bowl win, that’s not the same as actually playing a team who’s also trying to win a national championship.
Apart from the last-second controversial win over Notre Dame, the documentary also acted like USC was untouchable in 2005. A lot of mention was made of how many yards the Trojans (Reggie Bush in particular) put up against Fresno St. in the second-to-last game of the regular season, but somehow the fact that they gave up 42 points and only beat the Bulldogs by 8 wasn’t mentioned at all. You would have guessed from the information provided that USC won by several touchdowns.
The point being that there were some cracks in the façade. USC was not seen as unbeatable by any sports fan I remember talking to that year, and I talked to a lot more people about sports back then. They were in 2004 by some but not in 2005. It was similar to the difference between the perception of the 2013 Florida St. team and the 2014 edition. They were still expected to win every game during the regular season, but they weren’t seen as invincible.
I remember going to Louisiana for Christmas in 2005 and people asked me how close USC would make it, implying Texas was going to win and the only question was the margin. Of course, I insisted USC was in fact a very good team even though I picked Texas myself.
I know that’s an indication of regional bias, but there were people in other areas who saw USC as vulnerable. Based on the Notre Dame performance, there were also some Midwesterners (and Notre Dame fans from other regions) who saw the same thing.
Anyway, I had a lot of respect for Pete Carroll even going back to the Patriots and I still do. I wanted him to lose once USC became a prominent team in 2003, but when I cheered for other teams to beat him I knew they were facing a prepared and formidable opponent. It just bothers me not to correctly characterize what actually went on, and not just trying to bolster a simplistic cardinal-and-gold-tinted recollection of events.
I’m not even saying this as a USC detractor. Why not give Carroll some credit for not being a bad coach (though I guess you could say he was mediocre) in the NFL? Why not give the 2002 team credit for only losing a couple of early games to good teams (the other was to Kansas St., who would finish 11-2) and then finishing strong? According to Jeff Sagarin, that was the best team in the country that year despite the losses. I thought they at least had the best second half of the season.
I understand you can always highlight some things and not other things to tell the story a certain way, but don’t pick a game that’s a bad example of what you’re talking about and distort what happened and who the other team was.
One thing I was glad they didn’t do was mention whether Vince Young’s knee was down in the second quarter. I think the ball was already coming loose from his hands when the knee touched (if we were evaluating a fumble rather than a lateral, I don’t think it would even be very controversial); but even if he were down, he already had a first down on the play. Texas would have had first and goal at the 10. The game was decided by who did (or didn’t do) what in the fourth quarter, not by that call.
I just think getting it right is more important than telling a dramatized story, which was compelling enough on its own in reality.