Closing the Gap: UCLA vs. U$C (Part II)

Recruiting alone cannot make a team. While you need talent to compete, we all saw how Lavin so diligently proved that talent alone will not suffice. You need to have coaching. This is where under Dorrell UCLA had a huge disadvantage to $C. Pete Carroll, regardless of what I may think of him as a person, is a hell of a coach. His teams are prepared. His defenses are fast, organized, and hard hitting. That being said, when $C was at its best (2002-2005) it was its offense that was dominant. No one talks about the defense from the incredible 2005 team, unless they are talking about how Vince Young ran all over it. This is where Carroll's personality conflicted with his undeniable ability to coach. Rumor has it that Carroll was not happy with the credit that offensive guru Norm Chow was getting. Soon the two college football juggernauts parted ways.
Since Norm Chow's departure at U$C the recruiting has stayed at an elite level, the defense has improved, but the offense has not looked the same. Since Chow's players left I have never been scared of U$C's offense. In 2005 (the year after Chow's departure) Chow's players made the game against the best UCLA team in a decade about as competitive as a chess match between Bobby Fischer and Simple Jack. Just one year later a worse Bruin team held the Trojans to 9 points, 2 of which coming off a safety. While that was a rebuilding year for the $C offense, John David Booty was not Carson Palmer, Mark Sanchez was not Leinart, and Joe McKnight will never be Reggie Bush.
With an offense that does not wow me, a defense going through a complete overhaul, and arguably the toughest schedule in the country, this could be the year $C comes back to Earth, or at least to within sight of the rest of the Pac 10 (except of course Washington State).