And the above is for wiping his arse of all the bullsh!t that comes streaming out of it.

You're dead on Paragon! (again)

btw: great take on the 4-year commitment for incoming freshman. very salient points on that topic. and as far as those boneheads across town, I too, read about how Coaches Dorrel and Walker have "made their cupboard bare" with regards to recruiting. are they ever gonna stop with the blame game and just accept that they've underachieved and were just plain outplayed the past couple of years. i am soooooo glad i was born to be a USC Trojan!

FIGHT ON!

...given what those clowns across town have been saying about Pete's vision & charisma. So if RN follows PC's model, will Nestor call him Pom-Pom Redux? Or may be Pom-Pom Jr?

not too sure where you get the "obsessed" idea re RN and Carroll. Obviously, the local press is going to be asking RN about Carroll, because he's a) incredibly successful and b) the coach of UCLA's biggest rival. Considering the state of USC football when Carroll took over, and his record after his first year, I see no reason why RN can't look to Carroll's example as something to aim for. And there's certainly no harm in acknowledging the success Carroll has had and that shouldn't be sufficient to warrant a label as "obsessive."

As for results, the situations are very different. While both took over from lousy coaches who left the program no better or possibly worse or (as far as on-field performance) than when they came on board, RN has far worse talent, particularly on offense, than Carroll did. Hackett was a crummy coach, but he was a decent recruiter. We have nobody like Carson Palmer or some of the other players USC had that made up the core of that Orange Bowl team in Carroll's 2nd year. We lost a ton of starters, don't return much in the way of quality underclassmen, and everything you need to know about Dorrell's recruiting skill has shown up in the NFL draft the past two seasons, with no first-round selections and only a few players who actually made an NFL roster. We do have a good recruiting class coming in, but I don't see anyone who can make the kind of impact that would be required to put UCLA in contention for much of anything next year, since our best recruits are on defense and we need the most help on offense.

IMHO, Carroll had great success very quickly due to several factors, only one of which exists at UCLA: quality coaching in all phases of the game. I am happy with the UCLA staff, but good coaching will take some time to show results. Carroll came in during a time when UCLA was falling off the cliff, which enabled him to out-recruit UCLA for the best local players in LA and SD, plus the Pac-10 as a whole was down (except maybe Oregon) and none of the programs doing well in the Pac-10 had much of a national profile. With less local competition for top recruits, his own skill at recruiting and the talented coaching staff he had, plus USC's undeniable tradition to sell, he really got it going. And then he was blessed with the kids who comprised the 2004-2006 teams, the core of which has to be one of the all-time great recruiting classes. A unique set of circumstances, and kudos to Carroll for getting it done.

With USC being so far ahead of the Pac-10 now, not to mention UCLA, RN and UCLA will have a very hard time matching up in the near future. Still, USC has dropped back somewhat as the Pac-10 has started to recover its competitive balance and USC lost Leinart & Co. I see no reason why RN can't restore UCLA to competitive battles against USC going forward. He may have a greater challenge that Carroll did trying to restore UCLA's football culture at a time when USC is obviously the superior program. But nothing says that it will always be so, and the initial indicators are good.  

Frak, I don't agree that next season the USC game will be the only game that matters. They all matter. Now obviously, the USC game matters more than the rest, since IMHO we will be struggling next year to reach bowl eligibility and beating you guys, who are likely to be Top 5, would be the likely highlight of the season. We do care about championships and bowl games. In recent years, we haven't come close to a BCS bowl so all we have had is the USC game. But don't make the mistake of thinking that is all we care about. When UCLA was getting to the Rose Bowl and other major bowls in the 80's and 90's, those were very big deals. Maybe you're just too young to remember when UCLA actually had a strong football program:-)

but just a few notes here:

1. I'd expect RN to talk about USC and not talk about other programs in the Pac-10. Who else has won the conference since he left Washington? Nobody else has been close (OK maybe Cal, but they couldn't get it done on the field and 2nd best isn't what a good HC should be setting his sights on.) As for raiding your (former) coaching ranks, a) he got Chow on a lucky bounce and b) inherited Walker. That hardly qualifies as being prone to picking up your former coaching staff.
   
2. You may have friends (maybe family, if you're lucky:-) who are Bruins, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that I might be a little more in tune with the UCLA fan base and what our desires our. I can say that there is a fair minority of UCLA fans that would be willing to take the 6-6 with a win over USC instead of 10-2 and a USC loss. I know a a few people who are dumb enough to want that. But I am certain (and I don't need a poll) to say that the majority of UCLA fans would take the 10-2 season.
   
3. I had no idea how old you were frak, that was just a joke since it seems like an eternity since we had a really good football team that was good for the whole season. Just figured that you might not remember those musty olden days when UCLA actually could beat USC and it wasn't an aberration.