Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: New York Giants Super Bowl XLVI Ring Unveiled

'SC recruiting moving along nicely

Photo

Update #1: USC also picked up a commitment today from junior college OL David Garness, who is presently ranked No. 4 junior college OT by Rivals. He will enroll in January. - JK

(Apologies for the heavy reliance on the OC Register but I'm short on time and this is decent news...)

It's no secret that Lane Kiffin is looking to use junior college transfers and midyear enrollments to plug some of the gaps on the lines/ defense, as well as address the pending scholarship reductions.

Over the last several days, there's been some success on the transfer and general recruiting front:

  • Isiah Wiley, a cornerback JC transfer from Arizona Western Community College, gave a verbal commitment and looks likely to enroll in January
  • J.R. Tavai from Mira Costa High committed to SC. He's primarily a defensive lineman but plays some offense as well, there's some thought that he could be penciled in to play at fullback as well
  • George Farmer from Serra HS of Gardena has given a verbal; he's rated very highly overall in the nation, never mind at his position.

On top of the solid results in November and early December, this is encouraging. Obviously we have to see if these become solid written commitments, but it's exciting to see that good young players still want to play at SC.

Fight On!

Comment 4 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Hey DC

What are the chances that Coach Kiffin and/or AD Pat Haden say “Fuck this, because we’re still appealing this bitch- we should just go full-bore and sign the 2011 class like we would under any other ‘non-sanction’ recruiting year! Yeah, that’s right Paul Dee and his subservient minions! You fat fuck and your Merry-Mary Bitches!”

Well, I don’t think Pat Haden has a cuss-word in any molecule of his body, however Lane Effin Kiffin? . . . . .???? . . . . . .you get the gist!

Can we, will we (USC) consider signing a full class, as allowed because our sanctions are under appeal?

"Every rock that someone threw at me, I just used as a steppingstone." (Allen Bradford USC Tailback aka: "B-Rad"- Conquest Chronicles)

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 14, 2010 1:16 PM PST reply actions  

As I understand it, the sanctions don't go into effect...

until the appeal process is complete. So, technically, USC could sign a full class for 2011 if the appeal is still active on NSD (and it looks like it will be). But I’m not sure that’s the wisest thing to do.

As you probably know, shortly after the COI ruling, USC self imposed an immediate (beginning during the appeal process) one-year bowl ban and a gave up 15 schollies (5/yr x 3 yrs). This was half of the COI ruling, and there was good reasoning behind it. If USC had not done this, then they would have been eligible for a bowl this year (since the appeal is ongoing), and would have to serve a two-year bowl ban in 2011 and 2012 if the COI ruling was ultimately upheld. This would have killed this year’s recruiting class, as they would have faced the prospect of missing two bowl games instead of one. The best thing USC could do to move forward was to put the bowl ban behind them ASAP.

I think the same logic applies to the scholarship reductions…USC should put it behind them ASAP. Because of good planning (or maybe just good luck), USC is able to take up to 10 EEs this year (which don’t count against the 2011 class). If USC honors it’s self imposed 5/yr scholarship reduction, they would still be able to sign 20 recuits fo 2011…for 30 total with the EEs. If they were to ignor any recruiting limitations this year, they could probably sign 35 this year, but then they’d have to serve the full force of the scholarship reductions (whatever the appeal determines it will be) in the 2012-2014 classes. And if USC decided to suspend it’s own self imposed limitations…that might not be viewed favorably by the appeals committee (pure speculation).

Personally, I think that a one year bowl ban and a 15 schollie reduction is a ridiculous penalty for Bush’s violations, especially when you acknowledge how rampant such activity is in CFB and how reluctant the NCAA is to take ANY actions against the Cam Newtons and LaMichael Jameses of the world. There is little doubt that the COI agenda was to fuck USC, but there is also little doubt that the only way out of this is for USC to play by the NCAA’s rules…even though the NCAA doesn’t enforce them against all their schools. USC is stuck with AT LEAST a one year bowl ban and a 15 schollie reduction, so might as well begin now.

If USC wants to fight back, the best way to do it is take down those bastards is in a court of law…where they can’t write their own rules and their own version of reality.

by TrojanJAG on Dec 15, 2010 7:07 AM PST up reply actions  

My understanding is slightly different

USC did not self-impose in football. Only the portion of the sanctions that are appealed are stayed. The non-appealed sanctions are implemented as soon as possible after the decision. Thus, USC is under an 80/20 scholie limit/reduction in 2011, as we only appealed 5 of the 10 scholie sanctions.

So, look for USC to take a class of 27 – 30 with 2010 EEs plus 2011 LOIs, which will be slightly above 80. But, we will have more attrition over the offseason. The scholie limits apply to ENROLLEES, rather than SIGNEES, so USC may oversign in attempt to be right at 80 on Sept 1.

That’s my opinion on this complicated subject.

A Quick Note for the Quitters
No comment from this thread will be deleted. You will have to own them when we get it turned around and beat Southern Cal. You will never ride the bandwagon when we come back. Not on BN. GO BRUINS.
by Nestor on Sep 4, 2010 9:24 PM CDT

by DFWTrojan on Dec 15, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Perhaps you understand it better than I do...

The NCAA handed down 2 years and 30 scholies. I was under the impression that USC self imposed half of that and appealed the rest. And you state that USC only chose to apeal half of the sanctions, and that any sanctions not appealed would be in effect immmediately. Correct?

It does make sense that USC will probably sign 27-30 (EE + 2011 LOIs), and be bound to 80 (pre-appeal) and possibly 75 (post-appeal, which would be 2012) if the sanctions are upheld. It all adds up to bad news for the walkons.

by TrojanJAG on Dec 15, 2010 1:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Conquest Chronicles the SB Nation blog about the USC Trojans.

Community Guidelines

Managers

Images_small Paragon SC

Avatar2_small DC Trojan