Jump to content

Talk:Pete Carroll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 14 November 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

How to record records after sanctions

[edit]

Since the official NCAA records show that USC and Pete Carroll vacated 14 wins form 2004 to 2006, the official records on Wikipedia should show what the official records of the NCAA are. If you want to put a symbol next to the official records that indicates at the bottom of the page what the records were before the NCAA sanctions, fine. But the first number shown should be the official number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSUsoccerbum (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- I have since edited the page to show official records first. Unofficial records and records since vacated are included either with the use of symbols or behind the officials records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LSUsoccerbum (talk • contribs) 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W/L Record for Vacated Wins

[edit]

The way Carrol's head coaching record at USC is represented for the vacated wins is super confusing right now. It has

2004:

Total: 11-2 (13-0)

Pac10: 7-1 (8-0)

2005:

Total: 13-0 (12-1)

Pac10: 8-0 (8-0)

This makes no sense to me. In 2004, the 2 vacated wins don't become losses. And in 2005, everything was vacated! Where does 13-0 come from?

I'm changing it to the following and making a note of what the parenthetical means:

2004:

Total: 11-0 (13-0)

Pac10: 7-0 (8-0)

2005:

Total: 0-0 (12-1)

Pac10: 0-0 (8-0)

If you can explain why the old system makes sense, feel free the revert and clarify. Jairuscobb (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • There's a wide variety of examples of how to depict vacated/forfeited wins and no one seems to match. Nick Saban, Chuck Fairbanks, and Bob Tyler all have different setups. The two systems that make the most sense are the way Jairuscobb has it now or to have just the original record with a footnote describing the altered record (Saban and Perles way). Anyone else have a preference?

Lurrch (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source article

[edit]

Here is a good article that the editors of this article can use: http://www.lamag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=14D5B253DB1D499F9AD38F459D8E926A&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=FBED63DFDC694D699DA4EAF13E24562D .↔NMajdan•talk 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it went online yesterday --I've got it on my bookmark tool bar for future use (behind a few other). --Bobak 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Losing to unranked Pac 10 teams

[edit]

I've added a note to the intro regarding USC losing to unranked Pac 10 teams over the past four years, and the subsequent reaction to Carroll's coaching decisions in the LA Press (with 5 references) to give a bit of balance here. This article, in my view, needs work to become more NPOV. Jusdafax 08:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. You can go back to the reports after ever single USC loss (once or twice a year) and still find the burst of criticism immediately following the game. The same thing dogs any coach after a loss, especially in marquee programs where the NFL isn't as present. Similarly, we don't see sections dogging Jim Tressel and Bob Stoops for their occasional losses, because their otherwise excellent coaches. Losing one or two games a season is hardly notable as a negative, in fact its quite the opposite --he's the winningest active coach. Now, with all of that said, those kinds articles have worked a lot better in articles that cover a limited time like a season --please see the 2007 USC Trojans football team as a Featured Article example. --Bobak (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding in "respectfully". I too will make an effort to be civil, and hope that you don't take my views as a personal attack.

It is my view that the sentence you deleted is a fact, well referenced and highly notable. It's also my view that I have not added a "section", nor am I "dogging" Carroll, as you put it.

For reference here I quote the deleted sentence in full, including the refs: "However, after four straight seasons with upset losses to unranked Pac-10 teams, he came under fire in 2009 from Los Angeles-area sportswriters, notably at the LA Times."[1][2][3][4][5]

This undeniable fact, that a major national newspaper launched a (in my view) savage series of attacks against a well-known national coach, is notable. Mind you, it may well reflect badly against the source of the attacks, rather than the target. What is most interesting to me, here again, is how little tolerance some editors appear to have for anything resembling criticism of a favored subject in articles that the editors have worked for substantial periods of time, as you have this one.

I also don't think the Featured Article you mention applies in this case, which in any event fails to go to the larger issues. To cite one example: the material on Carroll's NFL career, which appears to me to be glossed over in a highly pro-Carroll POV fashion.

I have a little habit of late of checking the home pages of those who promptly revert high profile Wikipedia articles. Often I find a clear conflict of interest, and in your case I notice you are a USC alum, which you fail to mention here on this talk page. (Please understand I neither blame nor commend you for this lack of disclosure.)

Since I also see you are an attorney I will not revert nor get into wikilawyering, but I ask you openly, in all fairness, should you not recuse yourself from this edit, which rightly or wrongly gives the appearance, at least to me, of editing with an agenda?

Instead, I will, after deliberation, tag the article as a fansite since, again, it appears to me to be an unbalanced one, both in the intro/lede and in some sections. Happy to discuss with you, and the larger Wikipedia community how to proceed; I would appreciate the tag not being removed until resolution. This is not about Carroll, nor you and I, but about if and how Wikipedia should deal with this type of case. Amiable regards, Jusdafax 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I graduated from USC did nothing to harm the fact that I personally brought the 2007 USC article to FA status or Mark Sanchez to GA, so please drop that worthless argument. In fact, it makes you look like you're looking for an easy way out. I made the comparison to Stoops and Tressel because they are other coaches of similar caliber, also active, who have been subject to the occasional barrage of "what went wrong?" articles when their teams lose the occasional game (I assume you're well read on college football). I read the LA Times sports section everyday, I don't need someone who clearly doesn't to pretend that there's a trend of "savage" attacks coming from the columnists to regularly cover all their games and, just last week, were writing songs of glory, etc. They're columnists, they have to help sell newspapers, etc; these shifts come with the coverage. Whenever one of them uncovers an interesting fact, it gets included. I don't see any problem with Plaschke/etc because they always do this and then revert back within a matter of weeks --and that's the rub, there's no lasting value in the short term stories. If we're talking about someone who's career is behind them like Woody Hayes or John McKay, then we have the ability to assess the total career. Right now we've got an article about someone who's considered by all major sources to be one of the best living coaches in his sport. Fortunately or unfortunately, he hasn't done any horrible things to include here. When we're talking about articles that deal with the short term ramifications of an upset loss (which is any USC loss in the past several years), then it makes sense to work on the season article, where items of short term relevance are useful. This article is already closer to GA status that you apparently realize. --Bobak (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added paragraph on the nationally-televised 'choke' gesture to Pete Stoyanovich

[edit]

Bobak, we will just have to agree to disagree on most of the above.

As a start to take some of the peacock tone off this article, I've added an NFL incident of note with two refs from the New York Times. [6] [7] I remember seeing the game in question and being astonished at Carroll; it was a matter of seconds to google "Pete Carroll Pete Stoyanovich" and come up with numerous hits.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with your view of this article being close to GA, just look at the work needed in the NFL section. It is very thin and what's there has issues... in my view, anyway. Jusdafax 08:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the good faith edit. The incident clearly is not notable in the context of his entire life. The amount of words devoted to it are in disproportion to those devoted to the rest of his life. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, and in my opinion your revert proves what I'm saying above, that there will always be a reason found to whitewash this article despite material that is - to me - clearly sourced and notable, giving this article a fansite's slant. So be it.
Bobak, I am curious, do you concur with the revert? Jusdafax 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whitewashing, it's about what is relevant and notable (and especially so, when it comes to BLPs). Did this receive wide-spread press when it happenend? Does it now? Will it be the slightest bit important in 20 years if someone reads this biography? QueenofBattle (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this proved --as safely assumed-- to be 24-hour news cycle storm in a teacup: no one is talking about it anymore, and instead USC's being pumped up as a potential national title contender (probably too much IMO as an avid, but sober, college football fan --but that's for the season itself to determine). History repeats itself, and --well-- I think it shows that those of us who follow college football can probably gauge the relevance of various issues. Incidentally, John Wooden turned 99 on Wednesday, and it came up that didn't win his first title until 15 seasons into his tenure --I'm sure people could've made an issue of that... until he won 11 titles in 12 years. So yeah, certain things need to be put in perspective --especially the criticism immediately following a loss. --Bobak (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it fails to 'prove' anything, in my own view. In the meantime I tried to give some perspective on Carroll's NFL-era coaching (glossed over to a substantial degree, in my view), and was shot down there as well, but you have failled to comment (see above). I am currently preoccupied with other matters, and frankly, I had hoped that tagging the article would bring some real perspective here to the, imo, openly partisan fans who oversee this article. Someone else's comment was recently wiped out if I remember correctly, as not being complementary to Carroll. I decided to let that one go also. Point being, this article's neutrality is under dispute. I say to you honestly: Let's try to co-operate to make an encyclopedia that deals in cited facts, not fandom. Edit wars are obviously unhelpful, so let's at least keep talking. Thanks, and best wishes, Jusdafax 08:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, from your continued attempts I've got the feeling that you're the one with the POV against Carroll ...for whatever reason I'm not in any interest to uncover --I assume its the total unfamiliarity with the culture of the sport. Oh well, Wikipedia isn't out to please everyone; if it did it would be filled with useless controversy sections about every company, person and political movement that bothers some random person. --Bobak (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Fact

[edit]

Pete Carroll is does not have the highest FBS winning % of a coach who has been at a program for 5 years. That would belong to Urban Meyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.95.90 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seahawks

[edit]

Technically Carroll is still coach at USC, he hasn't made any announcments and neither have the seahawks organization about his coaching job, there have only been unidentified sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.23.63 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done fixed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it looks like Carroll will be hired, neither the Seahawks themselves nor Carroll has officially confirmed it. In addition, the Seahawks still have to interview somebody else to satisfy the Rooney Rule. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's more of a formality/maybe you'll come along in some other capacity kind of thing at this stage. John Clayton made a good point; if it really really wasn't true, Carroll would be putting this out with a fire extinguisher, not just water. That's not a case for it's addition to the article, I'm just saying. Leonnatus (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even NFL.com calls it a done deal right now. This is all but officially announced. --bender235 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the Seahawks are interviewing Leslie Frazier, and the interview has been going on for the past four hours. Don't know how "done" this deal is right now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't know where NFL.com is getting their news from, since the Seahawks and USC spokesmen have not been saying anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pending NCAA investigations for infractions during Carroll's tenure at USC

[edit]

The Reggie Bush lawsuit is heading to court and the Joe McKnight "free SUV" allegations are still being investigated. He is leaving a program (if confirmed) with two pending investigations for NCAA rules violations and facing major sanctions if they rule against USC.[8][9]. The fact the open investigations are not even mentioned in this article is a glaring omission. --Nusumareta (talk), January 9, 2010

actually, mr anonymous sports fan, if they are connected to something he actually did, then they are relevant. please take the fan forum-level connections and analysis to those levels. --200.48.72.95 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize I was supposed to sign my submissions -- thought it would be pulled from the edit history. My point is that Carroll is leaving a program in trouble at USC and he could end up getting sanctioned personally if he stays, depending on what comes out in the Reggie Bush trial. Without this information in the write-up, most will scratch their heads and wonder why on earth he would leave the situation he has in LA, when, to most college football fans, it's fairly obvious that this is a factor -- at the very least -- in his decision to leave. Also, a major factor in evaluating college football coaching success how "cleanly" the programs are run: several coaches have been toppled (or at least had their career accomplishments tainted) by scandals whether they were directly involved in them, or not. --Nusumareta (talk), January 10, 2010
This is the topic of Pat Forde's article posted on the ESPN site today: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4815412. There's a lot of press on the cloud hanging over USC athletics right now, and yet no mention anywhere in this article. A neutral article should contain this information. --Nusumareta (talk), January 11, 2010
I gave up on making this article close to neutral some time back (see above) as the USC grad/admin who is in open violation of WP:OWN is not open, in my view, to anything close to reason, even claiming it was close to GA. But perhaps that is about to change. I did tag the article as being written from a fan's POV, but the peacock terms, rewriting of history and obvious slant remain blatant. Jusdafax 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! This is even more on point: http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncb/news/story?id=4816942. Apparently, USC and Carroll have known for at least three months that these allegations were on the NCAA infractions calendar. Too bad no one reading the wikipedia article on Pete Carroll will ever no anything about this: apparently, they'll have to go to go elsewhere to get unbiased content. Nusumareta (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say write it up, and if the two people (see above) who used to keep this article under their thumb persist in their rigid views, then other measures can be taken. Do read the above material to see what my own experience has been. Enough is enough.Jusdafax 00:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make more sense to start a new topic on the pending investigations at USC and cite from all the places where it's relevant? There are two different sports and three athletes involved, and the NCAA has already said that it plans to look at the Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo allegations together. Nusumareta (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The matter is notable, and Carroll is a major player in the issue. The gatekeeping here is over. This is an important issue that is well sourced, and not to have a section regarding it is out and out censorship. Jusdafax 03:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a subsection regarding the NCAA sanctions. The two paragraphs will no doubt be added to as further developments happen. Jusdafax 08:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"NCAA sanctions There were many." D'oh! So many it hurts to read what they were? 76.105.216.34 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-dufresne20-2009sep20,0,4312833.column
  2. ^ http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-plaschke20-2009sep20,0,4387554.column
  3. ^ http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-dufresne21-2009sep21,0,5099267.column
  4. ^ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/09/pete-carroll-usc-football.html
  5. ^ http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-usc-football-fyi22-2009sep22,0,1753516.story
  6. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/14/sports/pro-football-dolphins-just-love-to-let-him-boot-one.html
  7. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/07/sports/pro-football-guess-what-the-jets-are-not-taking-the-dolphins-game-lightly.html
  8. ^ Fiutak, Pete (January 9, 2010). "Instant Analysis - Pete Carroll To Seattle". College Football News. Retrieved January 9, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  9. ^ David Wharton (January 9, 2010). "Pete Carroll close to signing deal with NFL's Seahawks". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 9, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"Live in Rolling Hills, California"

[edit]

This should probably be changed, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. Can anyone come up with something? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category Suggestions?

[edit]

Is there a suitable category for Carroll such as "People Who Got Out Just in Time" and/or "People Who Caused a Disaster But Left Before Things Blew Up"? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article for USC under Pete Carroll?

[edit]

I notice there are Wikipedia articles for "[Trojans football under Larry Smith]" and "USC Trojans football under Ted Tollner." Those coaches, quite frankly, weren't as important to the program as Pete Carroll (Smith, for example, only won one bowl game). Should Carroll get his own article? Or should those other two be somehow merged into the general USC Trojans football article? QuarterbackSneak (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages are actually just several seasons that are not notable by themselves grouped together by coach. Most of Pete Carroll's teams have individual articles, because they are notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is Carroll's USC career as a whole notable? Or, to put it another way, was the USC program under Carroll notable? In my opinion, it seems backward to say that unsuccessful, insignificant coaches should get their own articles but Carroll was SO successful that he shouldn't. Again, one solution to this would be to eliminate the other articles, not necessarily to create one for Carroll. But personally, I favor the latter.QuarterbackSneak (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the other coaches got their own articles, it's just that their careers were so insignificant that none of their individual seasons received any articles alone. The point I'm getting at is, the article that says "USC Trojans football under Ted Tollner" is an article, not based on Tollner's tenure alone, but of a group of several seasons put together. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Eagles247 is saying correct. The strategy formalized by WikiProject College football with season articles is either to create an article for individual seasons (perhaps of high note) or to create article that cover many seasons (perhaps of lesser note) bucketed either by decade, a coach's tenure, or some other serviceable period of time. In practice what has happened is that individual articles of have been created for just about every DI FCS program for the last 4-5 or seasons, and many historical seasons covering teams that won a national title or had a Heisman Trophy winner, plus a slew of other seasons that don't seem to have been selected for any particular reason other than maybe the whim of particular editor. On top of that, many of the more significant programs have been covered in full historically either with the tenure/decade bucket strategy or with individuals articles. In late 2009, I created scores of articles so that every season of Michigan football going back to the program's inception in 1879 is covered with an individual articles, many of which of still in stub form, but some of which have been significantly expanded. I've never been a big fan of the bucketed articles because they can get unwieldy with expansion, work against the ideal of a nice, neat parallelism between the programs, and evidently promote the counter-intuition regarding notability that we are encountering here. Since we already have articles for each of the nine seasons that Carroll coached at USC, we don't need a "USC Trojans football under Pete Carroll" article. Any need to convey a summation of his tenure ought to be incorporated at Pete Carroll or at USC Trojans football. If anyone wants to break up articles such as USC Trojans football under Ted Tollner into individual season articles, I would support that effort. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss, when I brought this article up at WT:CFB, I was actually referring to the edit war regarding the revocation of USC's championship in 2004 (see article history). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No conference title in 2005?

[edit]

Try as I might, I cannot find any specific reference that states with certainty that USC was forced to vacate their PAC-10 title for 2005. Although it stands to reason that they should have, since they were forced to vacate all victories and the BCS title as well, every source that I have consutled still lists USC as the 2005 PAC-10 champs. Can anyone clarify this? And if USC was NOT forced to vacate the 2005 conference title, then shouldn't that season be highlighted in yellow in Pete Carroll's coaching summary?151.213.40.224 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Fitzgerald

[edit]

...is the coach of the Northwestern Wildcats, not Northwestern Vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.178.148 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Truther

[edit]

No mention of this?

[1]

Thismightbezach (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know I hate 9/11 truthers, with a passion, every single thing they say can and has been proven wrong. Lets not get into a debate here about it but it is well documented that Carroll is a 9/11 truther, so I personally don't have a problem adding this flaw to his profile. There are enough sources about it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teams as a Coach / Administrator section in right box display is not correct

[edit]

I'm seeing an error in the display of the Teams coached section.

It's looking like the USC section 2001-2009 is empty and the USC is listed against the last bullet: 2010-current (which should only be Seattle Seahawks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.52.31 (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a newline (
to fix up the formatting so that the 2001-2009 element is on the same row as the USC (Head Coach) entry. --gamedaytribe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamedaytribe (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pete Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Pete Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pete Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pete Carroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we Get Consistency in Years as Coach at USC?

[edit]

In the Infobox, his USC years are listed as 2001-2009, but the heading over the USC section reads 2000-2009. He was hired on December 15, 2000; is there a standard for how wikipedia considers years of football coaching tenure? Intuitively, it would seem that we would list the years when someone coaches a team during the regular season.Bro rick (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scorigami

[edit]

I believe we should also consider adding his achievements in the made up art of scorigami as invented by Jon Bois 84.150.106.83 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Carroll&oldid=1257371176"