Alright, so the title of this post does not scream, "I'm going to talk about Senate majority leader Harry Reid and his apparent forays into racism." Well, that's because I'm not. Trust me, I was just as excited to write about as you probably were to read about it. Admit it. Okay, okay, maybe I overstated.

Anyway, the nice thing about the 24-hour news cycle and media today is that Reid isn't going anywhere. Stories stick around considerably longer in politics than they do in, say, sports. Which is today's topic.

Because I am from Seattle. And that is where now former USC football coach Pete Carroll is headed.

In case you haven't heard, after nine years in Los Angeles, Pete Carroll has taken the Seattle Seahawks head coaching job. Most of the best information from the NFL side can be found on Danny O'Neil's blog. He's updating like it's his job or something.

Carroll has been given the title of head coach and vice president of football operations. It's this thing in the NFL that general managers mean nothing. Coaches do it all these days. Often to their detriment. But that's another post.

While the hiring of Carroll has caused some raised eyebrows, mostly of the confused sort, there is no debating the man's resume over the last 10 years. Sure, he wasn't great as an NFL coach in the 90's, but coaches get better. And the word "arguably" is not necessary here. Pete Carroll was the best coach, in any sport, in the 2000's. Period.

Consider the numbers: 97 wins. Remove his first and last seasons at USC and he was 85-9. He won four Rose Bowls, seven straight Pac-10 titles and two national championships. This was the most dominant stretch of football the Pac-10 has ever seen. During one three-season span from 2003-05, the team went 37-2, won the two titles and lost in a third. You tell me who's been better.

And, the fact is, the Seahawks haven't been winning, as was so gracefully pointed out by CEO Todd Leiweke: ""We won nine games the last two years and with all due respect, four of those were to the St. Louis Rams," Leiweke said, "And that's not acceptable to our fans, it's not acceptable to Mr. Allen, and it certainly isn't acceptable to me."

The obvious answer; hire the winningest coach available. Interestingly, it appears the team went after Tony Dungy to be president of football operations at one point, a job that most certainly would have been his if he had said yes. It appears it wasn't to be head coach, however, meaning the team still could've gone after Carroll. That would have been a very interesting dynamic, but one that I think may have worked given the level of respect everyone in this game has for Dungy, the first black head coach to win a SuperBowl and a known mentor to many players.

On the other side of this token is Jim Mora, the hometown guy who just couldn't win enough football games to keep his job. Mora really believed he was sticking around and really was given no reason not to. But, wins are what matters in college football and he didn't get enough of those apparently. The 'Hawks really cleaned house, GM and coach, and are starting anew, with a new face of the franchise.

Speaking of that face, Mr. Carroll might be getting some mud on it before he even starts his tenure in Seattle. Many speculated that the NCAA would come down on USC with sanctions sometime this spring. Now, I am not one of those. I thought that as long as Carroll was coaching the Trojans, they would continue to skirt sanctions. Having an historic power like the Trojans in a media market like L.A., winning football games like I mentioned, well, let's just say that NCAA was in no hurry to cut off that money flow. And yesterday the big office wasted little time making an announcement about its investigation.

This is not a side story. I'm not sure it speaks to Carroll's character either, however. Many say, "this stuff happens everywhere." Sort of. Some of the stuff, not so much. But what it really speaks to is how ridiculously profitable college athletics has become, yet the most important parts, the players, get nothing. Oh, a free education. Which shouldn't be taken lightly. But it is. Come on. Taylor Mays didn't go to USC to get an education. He went to win championships (which he didn't do).

While there is the argument that it is the player's responsibility to make the best of their situation, and there is some truth to that, football comes first, always. And when you're as good as USC, football is it. To his credit, Carroll sent players to the NFL at a much higher rate than most programs, meaning less of his players stepped away from the game with nothing. But some probably did and that is the business that this sport is today. However, if that means giving players a few bucks or finding a booster to help them out, I'm looking past it. It reminds me of the story from the ESPN 30-for-30 about Miami in the '80's. The white quarterback, from a well off family, saw a few of his teammates walking out of the dorms with paper bags and ski masks. "Where are y'all going?" "To get some car stereos." They had to eat. Yes, when you take your kids from Compton and Shreveport, it's that bad.

There were, however, some other things going on to be sure.

Where this leaves USC, easily college football's most glamorous program, is a complete unknown. One ESPN writer calls it a "crossroads" while another basically calls Carroll a quitter. The recruiting fallout could be widespread, or it could be very little. If any school benefits from this, it is the one led by master recruiter Rick Neuheisal, UCLA.

Whatever happens, whatever the fallout or sanctions or anything else, rest assured of one thing: Pete Carroll will be spared. Because in college athletics it only works one way: coaches are paid lavishly, players are punished no matter whether they were there or not.

Welcome to Seattle, Pete. Just know it isn't Southern California, the school or the region.


---

Other sports news:

For those of you who used to care about baseball back in the day, you may have heard that Mark McGwire admitted to steroid use yesterday. I link Geoff Baker's blog for a reason, instead of some news story about it. I've decided Baker is exactly what is wrong with Hall of Fame voters.

Here's the deal: the Baseball Hall of Fame, or any HOF for that matter, is not the Hall of the Guys that Played the Game Cleanest and Didn't Cheat on Their Wives or Gamble or Kill Someone. You know how I know this? Ty Cobb is in it. In the inaugural HOF ballot, Cobb received a whopping 222 out of 226 votes. Obviously, Cobb's baseball numbers speak for themselves. He was the greatest player of the deadball era, albeit the dirtiest as well. He was also extremely racist and violent. He once stabbed a black man. His temperament is well-documented, in movies such as Cobb and Field of Dreams, where he is mentioned in passing not being well-liked. Yet Cobb is one of the best players in baseball history. Period. Which is why he is in the Hall of Fame.

You know who else is one of the best? Pete Rose. Sure he gambled. He still has over 4,000 hits. Did his gambling make him a worse player? Who knows. If it did then it is even more amazing to look at just how good he was. Rose was a more modern day Cobb. A hard-nosed, sometimes dirty player, that was one of the best of his time.

Finally, to McGwire. And Barry Bonds. And Alex Rodriguez. And many others. No asterisk is needed. People will not ever forget that this was the steroids era. No one will ever forget McGwire, HOF or not. Same with Rose. Same with A-Rod and Bonds. The precious HOF will simply lose some credibility because, well, it doesn't include three of the greatest players of all time. Never was there a more feared power hitter than McGwire, until Bonds. He completely changed the way you pitched to that lineup. He hit more homeruns in a season than any other, before Bonds.

If you're argument is that his career numbers weren't good enough, then fine. But don't you dare say that steroids are the reason Mark McGwire should not be in the HOF. The HOF is not about judging character, it is about judging statistics. If baseball didn't catch him cheating while he was putting up those numbers, then that is there fault. But you know what, maybe these guys, especially the veterans committee, forgot what it was like when they played. Think guys didn't take pills in the '80's? Mickey Mantle is in the HOF, yet his transgressions are legendary. And did they forget that cheating is part of baseball? I've stolen more signs in my time as a player and a coach than probably anything else I did. Oh, but that is "just part of the game." Well, I've got news for you, so were steroids. One guy didn't do this. Huge numbers of guys did. And it wasn't just hitters either. It was part of the game. And these guys were the best at what they did, when they did it. That's what matters here. Not their drug choices.

Which leads me to Edgar Martinez and Ken Griffey, Jr. Neither (at least we don't think) did steroids. You might recall that Martinez said he had no idea anyone in the M's locker room was doing them, a bold statement considering they were apparently all over the place in there. I firmly believe that, had Griffey never been injured, he would have 800 homeruns right now. Already. He'd be the greatest player in the history of baseball - at least until Albert Pujols is done obliterating the record books. What happens when his name hits the ballot? First ballot HOFer? Even though it is possible that he took steroids? No one thinks he did, but let's not be naive about this, he played in this era. He had a ton of power. No he didn't look like the Incredible Hulk, but he sure hit a lot of homeruns. More than 600 to date. Where do we draw the line here?

And Edgar. Steroids aren't the question here, but I think the points overlap. Martinez didn't get in the hall this year for one reason: he spent the majority of his career as a DH. How do you punish a guy just because he did his job better than anyone else ever has? People don't forget that he was a DH. On his plaque in Cooperstown it will say he was a DH. What is the Hall protecting itself from? The Designated Hitter of the Year award is named after him for goodness sakes. Isn't that what the HOF is supposed to be about? Recognizing the players who were the best at what they did, when they did it? Not only does Martinez fit that profile, but he was the best at that job, ever.

A person should not be punished for doing their job. Nor should he be compared to someone who "couldn't be a DH because he played in the national league," as Baker said in an earlier post. Free agency existed. They passed on it. Apples and oranges can't be compared.

Nor does that matter. The HOF should be for the best. Not the best that people like a lot. Thanks, Ty Cobb.

Later y'all.