USC Sanctions: Pete Carroll Should Not Be Blamed

Very rarely do I find myself in agreement with the opinion of Mike Florio. He typically presents unfair arguments against the Seahawks; unfortunately, the Seahawks haven’t been very good lately and his views have been quite accurate.

Florio recently wrote an article addressing the harsh sanctions placed on the University of Southern California. Inevitably, as the former coach of the Trojans, Seattle Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll was a prime target of Florio’s criticism:

"As to Carroll, he should lose his current job. Of course, he won’t; Seattle Seahawks president Tod Leiweke hired Carroll at a time when Leiweke knew or with the exercise of due diligence should have known that Carroll presided over a program poised to be slapped silly by the NCAA. And if the Seahawks had no qualms about it then, they should have none now."

Of course, I don’t necessarily agree that Pete Carroll should lose his current job. But I do think that there is something wrong when a head coach can bolt a program facing penalties for greener pastures. Carroll received a five-year, $32.5 million deal to become the head coach of the Seattle Seahawks. Although his legacy at Southern Cal is likely tarnished, the coach left Los Angeles mostly unscathed and a little wealthier.

I don’t think the Seattle Seahawks were wrong to hire Pete Carroll and put him in charge of resurrecting the franchise. Pete Carroll and Tod Leiweke are not to blame for this unfair cycle; there is something wrong with the system.

Pete Carroll should not be a scapegoat, and Florio is wrong to...