Is USC's Pete Carroll a Hypocrite?

Saturday night's USC-UCLA game went from a rather dull intra-city rivalry to an exciting and controversial finish in a matter of seconds. While everyone knows what happened (Rick Neuheisel timeout, Pete Carroll throw deep, and near riot on the field) the debate rages about the decisions of these two rival coaches.

Mostly this debate has centered on whether USC coach Pete Carroll was trying to "rub it in" on UCLA, or whether Bruin coach Rick Neuheisel was trying to spite the Trojans by taking timeouts in an already-decided game.

The greatest focus of this debate, however, is whether Pete Carroll is being hypocritical for doing what caused him to ask Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh two weeks ago, "What's your deal?"

Any reasonable look at both incidents should cause anyone to acknowledge Carroll's actions were completely different than Harbaugh's.

Let's examine what exactly happened in the Stanford-USC game on Nov. 14. The third quarter ended with the Cardinal holding a seven-point lead at 28-21. Stanford quickly added to this lead early in the fourth quarter with two more touchdowns, giving them a 42-21 lead.

Then controversy arrived. With 6:47 to go, Stanford's Toby Gerhart scored a TD to give them a 48-21 lead. At this point, the Trojans had for all intents and purposes quit playing, and a PAT kick would have given the Cardinal an insurmountable FOUR-touchdown lead.

It was here that Harbaugh decided to go for two, hang half a hundred on the scoreboard, and rub it to the already-defeated Trojans. Considering the way USC was tackling Toby Gerhart, the Trojans couldn't have come back with the help of a miracle.

Fast forward to Saturday night. USC regained possession on the UCLA 44-yard line with 54 seconds to go, and the game most likely decided by the Trojans holding a 14-point lead. Seeing the Bruins were defeated, Pete Carroll ordered his offense to take a knee, thus allowing UCLA and Neuheisel to walk away with a 14-point loss.

All he had to do was walk away, but Neuheisel instead chose to take a timeout, stating later he wanted "to force the Trojans to punt and get the ball back." Had that scenario played out, UCLA would have got the ball back with 35 to 40 seconds on the clock.

What if the punt is returned for a touchdown or is blocked and returned for a touchdown? Then UCLA is only an onside kick and a Hail Mary away from a victory.

Far-fetched? Likely. Impossible? No way.

There is no need to recap the sequence of Saturday night's play-calls, but Pete Carroll's decision reflects an understanding of the game situation, not an intention to "rub it in" on UCLA, though I would admit, it did have that effect.

Pete Carroll is no Jim Harbaugh. Harbaugh was being his arrogant self, trying to get another dig on a coach he has consistently been going after. Pete Carroll was just coaching a football game.

You can follow my random thoughts on the sports world on Twitter at @plh55.