NOTE: I am UPDATING this post top to bottom to reflect new numbers. Thanks to reasonable-USC-fan Tmon for actually providing backup data.
Also note: USC is STILL screwed.
It seems odd, doesn't it? You have a program crushed by the NCAA, bowl-forbidden, and with a shady coach, and somehow USC is still, STILL pulling in an insane recruiting class. I'm sure that the program is still very attractive to incoming frosh - the bowl ban will be over by their sophomore years, it's still USC - one of the best known and visible programs in the country - and Kiffin has a solid staff. Plus, I don't think these kids really get what the impact of the schollie reductions will be down the road.
About those reductions - there's been a lot of chatter recently about USC's current recruiting class and the numbers in it...What happened to the reductions? How can they have so many players? So, I thought I'd address it as I understand it. I may not have it all right here, but from digging around and reading things, this is what I understand to be the case. Please chime in in the comments if you have additional info or if I got anything wrong...
First, the schollie reduction is 'on hold' while USC appeals the ruling. So this means that the 10 per year reduction will not take effect until the 2012 recruiting class. So, this year USC is given a pass. So Kiffykins can sign up to the 25 limit (plus any extra spots they gain through attrition/graduation(ha, right!)/the NFL/pulling a walk-on's schollie. That's 14 spots + any extras freed up from any of those methods.
USC's current class stands at 24, with a reported 9 EE's, and they have a few more guys potentially coming into the fold. So they'll likely have some early enrollees that count against last year, some grayshirting, etc. But regardless, they'll have a full complement this year for sure.
But, next year with the recruiting class of 2012 it will start to hurt USC...and it will only get worse with any losses in any of the classes going forward for any reason (injury, transfer, etc).
Assume that next year USC has a full complement of 85 players given this recruiting class. Yeah, they'll be loaded in the under-classes and not so much in the upper classes, but they'll have a full 85. USC will have 13 or 14 seniors on scholarship next year (depending which USC fans you believe - if you believe some, they will have 14 due to a walk-on getting a scholarship. if you believe others, this guy does not exist), and they can only sign up to 15 next year because of the restrictions. So net-net, they would still have 85-13.5 = 71.5 for the 2012 season. And they're limited to 75 total scholarships, which means that next year's class will be, get this, 3.5 (so 3 or 4 pending the existence of the mystery walk-on man). So, because of that limit, they'll have 75 scholarship players. That's not that bad, but USC will essentially be playing with over 10% fewer total players than their competition.
Also note why this sucks for them: You have a class of 3 or 4 guys! That means you can't cast any kind of net whatsoever. There's no room for error. If one guy doesn't pan out, 25-33% of your class hasn't panned out. And in 4 years, your senior class is 3 or 4 guys! That's not good. Where do you find leadership in 3-4 guys?
The next year, USC will be even worse off. They will lose 17 scholarship seniors that year, dropping their total number of returning players to 58. Assuming they recruit their full 15, they'll play in 2013 with only 73 players. So in 2013, USC will be playing with 12 fewer players than their competition. That's a lot.
And in 2014, it should, in essence, stay the same. They'll have 14 seniors that year and can recruit 15 so they'll be at 74. This is where the USC fans in the comments think they've 'won', but I still think they're screwed. Why?
Because there's no way that they hold on to every player they're bringing in this year. And this year's frosh and sophomore classes could see attrition as well. Even if you expect only 1-2 per class to not pan out in some way (transfer, injury, flunk out), that's another 3 to 6 guys gone from that squad of 74. So USC is down to 71 or...68. Pretty much the same number I had before.
68!!!! Taking away ~20% of a roster is a huge penalty, and it will devastate the Trojans. They'll have serious issues having any depth whatsoever, and injuries will be a huge problem.
Not to mention, I do expect the quality of their classes to diminish each year as well. Why? Well, they won't be able to cast as wide of a net because they'll hit their limit so quickly. They won't be able to go out to guys and sell them and wait on them, because they'll need to ENSURE that they get their full 15 each year. And if they do cast a wide net, they'll end up screwing over a lot of kids when they quickly hit their 15 scholarship limit. (Note that I fully expect this to happen. Kiffin will over-sign like an SEC school to get the best guys in within the limit. It will piss off some kids, but that's the breaks I guess...)
The other thing is that it will take them a lot of time to get back up to 85 because they'll still be limited to 25 in 2015 going forward. That next year's senior class should be about 16 (if they all make it, which they won't) So they'd have, say, 70 players and lose 16 = 54. If they sign the full 25 that year, they'll still only get up to 79 in 2015. And if we assume that they lose 20-25 the next year because of this huge haul this year, 2016 will feature a bit under 85 USC players. So it will be 2017 - 2017!!! - the next time USC has a full complement of players. That's 6 years with some kind of penalty impacting the Trojans. Man, that's a looooooooong time.
Also note that when they lose someone in the next 3 years for any reason - academics, permanent injury, etc they are irreplaceable. There will be no JUCO signing to shore up any gaps. There won't be any signing of anyone. So each guy lost for any of those reasons will be gone forever. Do we really think that all of the 25+ incoming guys this year will be around for 4 years? No freaking way. A few will transfer. A few will fail out. A few will go pro early. This is why 17 vs 16 or 13 vs 14 doesn't really matter all that much. Once you get into the 75 and 15 per year limits, it's only downhill from there.
This all, of course, assumes that the appeal is laughed out of the room (as it should/will be). So we'll see how that plays out. In 2014, as Lynch, Tuitt, Williams, Councell and LNIII are leading ND's D on a championship run, USC will be in pain pain pain. And that pain will last for a while. I hope it was worth it Reggie, Poodle. You've put your guys in a rough, rough spot.
But at least Haden will have an excuse to fire Kiffin.
By Craig January 17, 2011 - 2:39 am
Don’t forget the overall limit of 75, in addition to the per-class reduction. I think you’re crediting them with three more than they’re entitled to in 2012.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 10:59 am
Hey Craig, I had seen mention of this but read conflicting stories so I went with the math without that figured in. I thought the 10 per year was just that so wasn’t sure if the 75 limit was real. If it is, yep, even worse.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:44 pm
Found this out for sure – 75 limit if all stays as is.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By DagerOne January 17, 2011 - 8:12 am
This is simply the result of USC ensuring themselves and their recruits that, in the end, they are above the NCAA and will win their appeal…not tremendously different than the attitude they demonstrated before the sanctions came down. If that happens, it will serve to prove how truly bulletproof that program is.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By TLNDMA January 17, 2011 - 9:44 am
You would hope that the NCAA understands the message that needs to be sent here. Recent rulings, make you wonder just how much they want to clean this up. The difference between 5 & 10 scholly’s a year would seem to be enourmous. Schools that play by the rules have to be hoping they (SC) lose their appeal, in hopes that it helps level the playing field.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tjak January 17, 2011 - 11:43 am
Wondered about the numbers, thanks for addressing it.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 17, 2011 - 12:49 pm
Thanks for the explanation. Some of us have been wondering how $c could have twenty some recruits.
If u$c was being realistic, it would be in their best interest to get this sordid mess, they created, in the rear view mirror. Avoiding penalties for another year will make recruiting worse and lessen the number of players in the long haul. Gambling that the NCAA is going to reduce the penalties does not seem like a wise strategy. u$c is so deserving of making their mess deliberately longer lasting and worse. This is a defiant institution in severe denial.
In my opinion, u$c got off easier than they should have. The NCAA should not reduce these penalties in any way.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Erik '04 January 17, 2011 - 1:53 pm
I will be shocked if the appeal gets laughed out of the room. My guess is they’ll be reduced to 5 schollies instead of 10. My hope is that it remains, and we have 4+ years of schadenfreude ahead of us.
I disagree that they’ll only pull in 20 per year after the probation ends. They’ll easily get their 25, with promises of early playing time and a return to prominence.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Craig January 17, 2011 - 3:39 pm
Agree about the post-probation. Look no farther than ND after Ty-bation.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 17, 2011 - 6:04 pm
It takes a few years to recover from poor/lack of recruiting (Ty). But u$c has the best recruiting class this year in the PAC whatever. And by far. This is totally bazaar. Why would any young football athlete want to attend u$c under Kiffin (with his rep)? …$ or other gifts?
The kiffin gang must know how to present wants of young football players. And think they can get away with it!!
Can anyone say 4-5 years of probation?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Craig January 18, 2011 - 9:40 am
It takes time for performance on the field to recover, yes, but I don’t think it will take time for recruiting classes to rebound, particularly if SC has the right coach.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 5:37 pm
Of course. I was referring to the number of graduating seniors, not the number of HS seniors they would sign. You’ll see in there that my math has them adding 25 per year. But even with that it will take a while to get back to a full roster.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 5:41 pm
Anyone here post at Rocks House on NDN? Bc a poster there named pipeline just poste my entire post and said it came from ‘another board’ from a guy named SEC something or other. I don’t even have a handle there so if anyone does post there and can let folks know that was us, I would appreciate it.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By TUT January 17, 2011 - 6:04 pm
de·lu·sion
noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
Definition of DELUSION
1
: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
3
: any of the subset of college football fans known as “Domers”
— de·lu·sion·al \-ˈlüzh-nəl, -ˈlü-zhə-nəl\ adjective
— de·lu·sion·ary \-zhə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
See delusion defined for English-language learners »
Examples of DELUSION
1. He has delusions about how much money he can make at that job.
2. He is living under the delusion that he is incapable of making mistakes.
3. She is under the delusion that we will finish on time.
4. As the illness progressed, his delusions took over and he had violent outbursts.
Origin of DELUSION
Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
First Known Use: 15th century
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 17, 2011 - 6:21 pm
u$c precisely!! DELUSION!!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 18, 2011 - 2:09 am
More examples of DELUSION:
u$c has delusions that the NCAA will increase the number recruits they can take each year.
u$c has delusions that they can continue to cheat while under probation and there will be no consequences.
u$c has delusions they can continue to pretend they have no sanctions and deceive gullible recruits of such BS, only to have recruits bolt a year or two later when they discover the truth.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:12 pm
Douchebag. DOOSH-BAG: TUT.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By shoutboxx January 18, 2011 - 10:13 am
Biz, thanks, I actually laughed out loud when I saw this.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By MrSC January 17, 2011 - 6:22 pm
USC has only 13 seniors in 2012 and 17 the following year. Also, 14 players currently for 21014. Nice try!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:19 pm
There were 28 Juniors on the Roster this past year. I had to make some assumptions around how many will stick around (and yes, some aren’t on scholarship), but I’m not sure how you get all the way down to 13.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:35 pm
You’re right that my original roster that I used was off. But there are actually 14 next year (walk-on got a scholarship). But, it doesn’t matter. The 75 limit means that next year you’ll be forced down to 75. From there you’ll lose more than 15 each year, and can only sign 15 max, meaning you’ll be down to the upper 60′s MAXIMUM within a few years.
And this isn’t me ‘trying’. I’m just laying out how the sanctions will impact USC. I’d rather beat USC straight up, but this is the reality you’ll be facing, so get used to it.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 6:53 pm
The last 7 USC recruiting class sizes.
2010- 17
2009- 18
2008- 19
2007- 18
2006- 26
2005- 18
2004- 19
Aside from 2006 when they took 26, no other class even reached 20 players. Please explain how they will be losing 20+ players every year when they didnt ever take in 20+ players. Furthermore, by your logic, they should already be suffering since they appear to have been self sanctioning themselves the past 7 years with such small classes. Nice research, LOL!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:06 pm
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Newc January 17, 2011 - 7:35 pm
Biscuit, I don’t know where you are getting those numbers, but they are not correct. Are you including walk-ons in the 28 number? USC will only have 13 scholarship seniors next year. So even if there are 2 defections USC would still be able to replace every scholarship athlete who leaves next year assuming the appeal is denied.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:43 pm
There are 28 Juniors on the roster, not all are scholarship. But the roster I had used said 22. I took a look at a few others and found that mine was wrong – 13 is actually wrong too since they gave a schollie to a walk-on so it will be 14. But the math all stands the same because of the 75 overall limit. I updated the post to reflect this. Doesn’t really change anything though.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By 1bowlwinsince96 January 18, 2011 - 9:02 am
Atleast get your facts straight before putting out this bullsh*t. Sounds like a hater who lost 8 in a row.don’t you got a rape and suicide to cover up.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 11:06 pm
Sounds like a hater that lost this year, and got caught cheating and doesn’t want to own up to it.
And my facts are straight. Unlike your face. Hahahahahaha!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 18, 2011 - 10:09 am
The figures I have from a reliable source of u$c high school recruiting class size, not counting transfers in and JUCOs. Some of your figures don’t jive, Fatty.
2010 = 20
2009 = 18
2008 = 19
2007 = 18
2006 – 24
2005 = 16
2004 = 19
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By mikeD January 17, 2011 - 6:58 pm
Any way you slice it Kelly has his system in place, 20yrs. coaching NO NCAA violations….
GREAT PLAYERS coming in by the bucket load, Some in dorm tonight..!!!!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Newc January 17, 2011 - 7:48 pm
No NCAA violations, but a history of covering up homicides.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska January 18, 2011 - 10:40 am
I know Notre Dame well for 50+ years, past and present, from parents/family, personal experience, friends and other venues. In that time period, there has not been a homicide or a cover up of a homicide involving the Univ. of Notre Dame.
That ignoramus statement, Newc, just earned you a Scum Bag award for life.
I do know of a near homicide at u$c. In was an act of premeditation on the part of Cheatee Petee, Mikey (the NCAA regulations are for everyone but u$c) Garrett and Reggie (give me the moolah and broads) Bush. All three narrowly failed at murdering the u$c football program. Commonly known as the “Death Penalty.”
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 7:20 pm
Hey Biscuit, like I said, do better research. Of course you can have transfers and JUCO’s, but please look at the USC roster and tell me who those players are. Doh! Those signed classes are the players, and if anything, people have transfered OUT making them smaller, not larger. USC has a lot of walk ons and non-scholarship players on their roster. The scholarship players are the ones you are referring to, and based on their class sizes, the 15 scholarship limit wont be nearly as devastating as you claimed. If it was, the fact that they routinely signed less than 20 players would have been killing them for years.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:22 pm
You know, you’re right. The site I was using is wrong. Fixing it up now.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By mikeD January 17, 2011 - 7:31 pm
Fact is, Cheaters keep cheating, Kelly keeps winning…..!!!
Choke on it scum…..
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 7:28 pm
Furthermore Biscuit, USC redshirted 13 kids last year and is taking a class of at least 29 this year (20 New and 9 EE’s). Thats 42 players that will be freshman and red shirt freshman and last through the sanctions. Add 15 new players per year (no matter what they lose) and you have a potential pool of 87 players. Factor in transfers or injuries as you said, and they will VERY EASILY make it to 75 or 80 scholarship players at the END of the sanctions. Incidentally, they played with less than that THIS YEAR. Keep doing your guerrilla math and hoping for a weaker USC team.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By mikeD January 17, 2011 - 7:33 pm
more excuses fatty, face it, hell is coming….
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:33 pm
This isn’t hoping, I was just trying to spell out for folks how/when the sanctions will hurt. And you’re wrong on all of this because of the 75 max scholarship limit. I wasn’t sure on that, but I’ve gotten a few emails and it looks like that’s the real deal. So you’ll be forced to be down to 75 next year. Then you lose more than you can bring in each year after. So even though I had that initial class size wrong, it doesn’t matter, you’re still screwed.
Plus, each kid that gets hurt, transfers or leaves early for the NFL can’t be replaced. So if that 75 becomes 74 or 73, you won’t start catching up until 4 years down the road.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By mikeD January 17, 2011 - 7:39 pm
When he unloads that last borrow, pull out your pistols and cut this scoundrel down…
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 7:39 pm
Biscuit, I appreciate your efforts, and I agree that sanctions will obviously have an effect, but the fact is they will have 42 players this year that will have freshman status. Thats a crap load of players to get them through 3 years. I am well aware of the 75 limit, but losing 18 and gaining 15 is not nearly as bad as what you were claiming. You are changing your tune now to claim that the 75 number is what will kill them, when in reality they have been operating at or near that number for years already. Why will it all of the sudden cripple them. You need to understand, losing 10 scholarships at USC is more like losing 3-4 at other schools because USC never takes more than 20 anyway. Thats my point.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:50 pm
But as it stands you’ll have 67 scholarship players 4 years out. The 75 isn’t my ‘new claim’ it just forces a reduction equivalent to the 22 class size I had there originally.
If you think you’ll be just fine with 67 players, more power to you. But 20 fewer guys to recruit, train and hope they pan out is a big deal. And it could be even fewer with any early defections, injuries or NFL declarations.
Plus, I don’t see how USC operates far below the 85 usually. They average 19 players a year – so there’s 76. JUCO’s and transfers are typically in there too, plus a walk-on here or there. So usually you’re at 80 or so. 67 (max) is a good bit below 80.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 9:02 pm
Biscuit, where are you getting these horrible numbers you keep getting wrong? Seriously, they are making you look silly. How do you have them ever with 67? 13, 17, 14 are the next 3 years of losses. Taking 15 a year actually ADDS 1 player by the time they can take another full class of 25. How do you have them losing 13 net scholarships (assuming they have 80 this year) when they have such small classes leaving. You should just take this article down altogether because it keeps looking worse and worse.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Newc January 17, 2011 - 7:46 pm
The problem is your numbers aren’t just incorrect for next year. Your numbers for the following year are wrong as well. You said USC will lose between 18-19 seniors in two years. In actuality USC will only have 11 scholarship seniors that year. So even if they lose a couple more they’ll still be able to replace them with the 15 they are able to sign. The 75 man limit will limit USC more than the 15 a year, but look at how many USC has played with the last 5-6 years. Carroll routinely left 6-8 scollies unused or gave them to walk-ons. Sorry to break it to you, but your math sucks.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:51 pm
What happened to the other 8-9 guys that were in that recruiting class? I assumed some would have left early/transferred, but I also know you guys picked up some JUCO’s. How’s it 11? My math is fine. I may not know everything about every class though. I fixed up next year, but how are you getting to 11 for the following?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Newc January 17, 2011 - 8:03 pm
For the other guys in that class, some of them redshirted and some are no longer with the program. If you count the 4 JC guys coming in this year and assume they don’t RS that would bring the number of scholarship seniors in that class to 15. I got to that number by going through the roster and counting up the number of scholarship athletes that are set to be seniors that year. As for the math comment, I’m not trying to start a flame war, but it gets a little annoying when people keep on distributing the same wrong information to the masses and USC fans are constantly having to defend ourselves and the program.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 19, 2011 - 9:35 am
Thanks for being willing to look into them and explain them. I think my current post is accurate.
And I think your comment here reinforces my overall point: Guys leave the program. During the sanction years it will be impossible to replace them with JUCOs as has been standard practice. Fatty says this is a non-issue. I think it’s huge.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 7:53 pm
With regards to the 75 limit, USC currently has 60 scholarship players including the 8 EE’s that are already enrolled. So even if they only take 20 more to make a class of 28, that will give them a total of 80 players. You see where your numbers just dont work? USC has to take a class of 28 JUST to get to 80 this year. Getting back down to 75 wont be as hard as you think.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 7:58 pm
It’s not the getting down to 75. They’ll be forced to regardless. So next year, they will have 75 max. By rule.
The issue is that after that, they’ll lose more than 15 per year on average, and those guys won’t be replaceable. And that’s just to loss of eligibility. Any other reason will add to the loss.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 8:52 pm
Biscuit, your errors in your numbers are effecting your argument. You say they will lose more than 15 every year which will cause them to dip below 75, but you fail to realize their current scholarship distribution for the coming season:
Seniors: 13
Juniors: 17
Sophomores: 14
These are the kids they currently have on scholarship at those years. So as you can see, there isnt some giant wave of players that will be leaving that cannot be replaced by the 15 new scholarships. They may get down to 73 or so players, but as I said, they had less than that this year. This situaiton is not nearly as bad as you had hoped for.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 9:02 pm
I don’t understand why you keep saying I’m hoping for anything. I don’t WANT USC to have a hand tied behind their backs. I want USC at full strength. It’s better for us, it’s better for football. That said, I DO want USC at full, legit, strength instead of cheating all the time. So I DO hope for a clean USC. I don’t hope for a limited USC. But having a limited USC is the sanction (a well-deserved one) so I was laying out what I thought the impact would be.
That said, your seniors # is off. There are 14. Look that up. It’s 14. Still a small class, but since we’re parsing numbers so closely…
I’m not sure how your classes of 18 or so recruits have gotten down to 17 and 14 WITH the additions of JUCO’s though. Can you explain that to me? It’s an honest question.
But even if they’re just down to 73 (I think it more likely to be down to sub-70 with injuries, transfers and the like), that’s rough. And it’s not like you guys were all that great playing with that few this year…
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Biscuit, the number of Seniors ON SCHOLARSHIP next year is 13, Juniors are 17, and Sophomores are 14. Those are the numbers, trust me, Im right. They can replace 15 per year, so where are they losing 13 players? You keep saying “injuries” and transfers, but Seniors arent transferring next year, so what are we talking about 1-2 players? They ADD 1 net player after 3 years at 15, so that gets one back. As for injuries, why exactly would an injury lose the a scholarship? Kids get injured, thats part of every season. So now your argument is a rash of injuries in the 75 scholarship players id going to cripple them? I guess its a good thing they will have so many talented freshman (40-42). Come on man, just admit you were wrong and stop the nonsense. There is NO WAY USC dips below 70 players based on the numbers unless they dont sign a class of 15, which wont happen.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 17, 2011 - 9:28 pm
You have 14 seniors on scholarship next year. Kiffin gave a scholarship to a walk-on. 14. But that’s just one small number.
You keep saying that there are 17 and 14 in the two underclasses and I keep asking the same thing: where did the rest of the guys in those classes go. You had 18-19 in those classes right? Where’d those guys go? How’d they get so small? Do those numbers include any of the JUCo transfers? I just want to know.
And of COURSE next year’s guys aren’t transferring as seniors. But the guys that will be Juniors, or the Sophomores could. As could one of your bajillions of frosh.
And if a guy gets hurt, he keeps his scholarship, but he doesn’t play. So it impacts the number of guys you’re playing with. When you’re already down to 70-73 guys, any season-ending injury is a big deal.
Keep telling yourself it’ll all be fine. That’ll work.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 17, 2011 - 11:32 pm
Biscuit, Im staring at the up to date scholarship distribution chart right now which is kept VERY accurate during recruiting season, there are 13 Senior on scholarship next year. You keep talking about some walk on, but you have no idea what the count is. Its 13. As for the other classes, what do you care how the classes got so small, they did. We had like 6 guys simply transfer free and clear because of the Free Agency sanctions, so that could be some of them. As for JUCO’s, they are all included in those counts I gave you. USC didnt take a bunch of JUCO’s before this year. Not sure where you are getting your information, but the numbers are the numbers. Its 13, 17, and 14. Thats all there all, including transfers and JUCO’s. Those are the numbers. Thats how Pete Carroll recruited, small classes with good players. That hurt us most THIS year because we had to red shirt so many people which gave us no depth. The sanctions will not be tougher than this past year, as we will always have more available players than we did this year. Those are the facts. We arent getting much below 75 in any year, which is hardly a change from the past 5 years.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 9:42 am
It matters because it can happen again. You like to pretend that you can only lose players through graduation. Turns out your classes are smaller than when they started. Well guess what? When guys leave before their senior year over the next 3 years, you don’t get to replace them. So it does matter. A lot.
And you have 14 seniors next year om scholarship.
You should stop posting comments here. It’s making you look worse and worse.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Jed January 17, 2011 - 7:47 pm
USC has a great staff of recruiters but a lot of these kids are transfering once they get in the door. Even if SC wins the appeal they probably won’t win because Kiffin isn’t a good coach and the players know it once they play for him.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Newc January 17, 2011 - 7:52 pm
Give me a list of players that have transferred once they got in the door. To this point at USC the only Kiffin recruited player that has transferred out is the WR/KR, Thearon, who transferred from Miami and is now gone mostly due to not being able to pass his classes.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 11:07 pm
He’s been there 1 year.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Jed January 17, 2011 - 7:53 pm
ball room dancing is tough.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By theIrishLion10 January 17, 2011 - 8:18 pm
usc = cheaters with sanctions, and its going to hurt them big time. end of story. and these people sure are defensive for being “well off”
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By mikeD January 17, 2011 - 9:23 pm
you got that right…Panties in a wad, maybe…
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tjak January 18, 2011 - 12:33 am
I think it is so cool how Biscuit got these***** from usc to waste their evening on an Irish Fan website. Well done Biscuit! fatty, newc, tut and mrsc, thanks for joining us this evening, I wonder how long it will be until you feel for kiffin the way the state of Tennessee feels.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By shoutboxx January 18, 2011 - 10:21 am
Yeah, pretty clear they’re all desperately trying to convince themselves that Biscuit is wrong. No point in trying to convince us; its gonna be a fun decade coming up for us either way.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 11:31 am
I actually don’t mind the discussion. It’s not an easy thing to figure out and I did have the first senior class size wrong. Where I get lost is that they keep talking about how all these Frosh are going to be there to ‘make up’ for it. But in Year 1 they can only have 75. And they’ll lose at least 15 guys each year because of eligibility losses, and then add on top of that injuries and transfers (figure 1-3 per year) and you’re sub-70 pretty quickly.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 12:30 pm
I also like how the 2 USC fans that ‘know’ what’s up have different numbers for Juniors. One says 17 and the other 11. Not even close. And they’re mad at me for not knowing the right numbers? Ha.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Tmon January 18, 2011 - 12:48 pm
I emailed the official numbers to you yesterday. Care to reference that?
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 12:54 pm
Thanks Tmon. I will take a look.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Fatty January 18, 2011 - 4:56 pm
Biscuit, I find it hilarious how you have been proven wrong like 3 times, forced to edit your own article, and you claim that the USC fans are wrong. You say “I” should stop posting because I look “worse and worse”. I posted the actual scholarship numbers that were true, not you. Your entire premise was that they will be depleted by graduation and not be able to replace the players, and yet I have definitely proven you to be wrong about that. When that argument failed, you said, “well, uhhh, they will get injured”. Uh, ok then. I suppose if Matt Barkley gets injured they are in trouble. I guess if their starting Tackles get injured they are in trouble. What a shocker, if they get a key injury, they will be effected. Holy Moly!!! Keep editing that article, you might get it right eventually. Maybe if you edit it enough, you can convince yourself that USC will be down to 40 scholarship players in 2 years because the entire freshman class will be academically ineligible.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 7:07 pm
Fatty, I think I’ve shown pretty clearly that I’m willing to dig into numbers and get the right answer. When one of your peers, Tmon, finally gave some back up to his numbers, I published them almost immediately. Your back up was ‘I am right’ and your numbers didn’t work with the roster I was working from. So I didn’t take your word for it – sue me – why would I? I had a source that turned out to be innacurate. When Tmon gave me some backup, I published those numbers because it seemed to be a good solid source.
My entire premise was that the numbers are going to suck for USC. They’ll be depleted by graduation, injury, transfer and academic failures. You like to think that eligibility exhaustion is the only way guys will leave. You’re just wrong on that man, I’m sorry to say it. You keep saying it’s about injuries, and yes that’s one way a guy could leave. But transfers happen. Academic issues happen. Dudes get hurt. All these reasons PLUS graduation will force your team well below 70 scholarship players.
You are trying to mock the fact that I’m editing when I’m doing so just to get it right. To me, that shows a willingness to have a debate. But you’re proving yourself to be a douchebag incapable of a civil conversation so just accept that fact that you guys are literally screwed and move on, please.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By SCTrojan22 January 18, 2011 - 6:18 pm
May want to work on those research skills. The penalty was a reduction in 10 scholarships a year – NOT total scholarships. That means that they can give out a max of 15 a year (instead of 25) when the sanctions hit if they lose the appeal. It has nothing to do with the total scholarships they have as a team.
Also, no word has been said yet as far as if they are limited to 15 this year (the 9 or 10 mid-year enrollees count toward last year). The appeal is set for next week and they may be using their hopeful sanctioned number until an appeal is rules upon (a 5 scholarship reduction). You can also bring in more than you actually sign to LOI’s to allow for grayshirting, academic issues, etc – you just need to be down to the scholarship limit by June/July sometime.
You should be embaressed writing an article for the public to read while being so mis-informed. Must have a domer education…
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By JH January 18, 2011 - 6:22 pm
“is rules upon”
“embaressed”
There’s some education for you.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 7:03 pm
Wrong. There is a 75 total scholarship limit. I had to dig into that myself. But it’s there. You get 15 per year and cannot have over 75 at any given time once sanctions take place.
And sure, go ahead and bring in 20 per year and then get down to 15 by July. The kids you’re screwing over will love that. Moron.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ranulf1 January 18, 2011 - 8:57 pm
I haven’t read all the comments in this thread, but by what I have read, I can tell most of you don’t know your a*# from a hole in the ground.
For the record, after graduations, early entries, and transfers USC has 60 players on scholarship (to include the 9 early enrollees). That means they can sign a full class of 25. Additionally, they have 13 in their final year of eligability this next year. That means they can sign 13 in next years class. So, they can do that or they can either sign 23 this year and 15 next year.
No one from USC is going to take someone’s scholarship and screw a kid. That’s a SEC tactic, not PAC-10.
SC will be fine the next year or two if they are able to fill positions of need. After that, the sanctions will have a severe affect.
And for all you SC haters, get a grip. One player’s misdeeds does not consitute the penalty given, and you know it.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By TLNDMA January 18, 2011 - 10:34 pm
One player? One at a time maybe? Christ you had guys running afoul during the investigation. (McKnight) Reality check.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 18, 2011 - 11:10 pm
Nope. 75 player limit takes effect next year. Your math Doesnt add up.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By tjak January 19, 2011 - 2:28 pm
Maybe, but it is sure fun to watch the whole thing play out. In retrospect it was a good thing for Bush to go to usc as he would have done this even if he was Irish.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Trey January 19, 2011 - 11:28 am
Biscuit, youre a sorry pos. I demand a fully annotated bibliography whith FOOTNOTES, b***, footnotes!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit January 19, 2011 - 11:41 am
Yeah, instead of being reasonable I should have just said:
Source: Your Mom
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0