Quite an impressive game by USC yesterday. To your point, I would attribute the victory 2/3 to USC's talent and 1/3 to Lloyd Carr's incredible incompetence. The two things we can be certain of are that USC looked much quicker and more physical than UM yesterday, and Carr made no adjustments whatsoever to what was happening on the field.
Lion, I don't know if it's really Lloyd Carr's fault so much. USC is a tough team to play, especially for their non-conference opponents. The only non-conference opponent to beat USC since 2002 is Texas last year in the last couple seconds, so Carr has a lot of company. The Pac-10 opponents see them every year and the familiarity helps. Speed on a team is one thing, but the speed at which they execute out there is a little different for teams who haven't played them a lot. But here's the thing. In pre-game discussions with other USC people out here, I told them that Michigan looked like a solid, upper level Pac-10 team and that maybe the closest comparable was Cal. Both teams had really good quarterbacks (Henne is really good, better than Longshore), Michigan had more depth, Cal had a much better running attack, and that Cal's defensive backs are better and that Cal hits harder. And I know I'll get hammered by Michigan honks for saying that, but I still think it's true. Carr will take the heat again, but USC is pretty good. Even Mike Hart said after the game that "USC is a lot better than Ohio State, at least defensively." Which means only that he was impressed with how fast, strong and difficult their guys were to compete against.
Pete Carroll's teams have a long history of great second half performances because of adjustments he makes based on what has transpired in the first half.
This is kind of a 'glass-half-full' discussion. Did Carr fail to adjust or were Carroll's adjustments significant enough to have off set and surpassed any adjustment's made or attempted?
Truth is, probably a bit of both.