FWIW Probable USC commit S'ua Craven has narrowed his list
Paywalled article, but one can click on S'ua's rivals profile to see who the finalists are:
Michigan (yay), Nebraska, and his probable home, USC. Say what you want about Kiffen, but even with their sanctions and scholly limits, he is putting together yet another monster recruiting class.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/player-Su'a-Cravens-115015
I'd credit Kiffin less and the overall draw of Southern Cal + USC football tradition more
Right, he brings so much class and credibility that he just had to hire Kiffin to carry on that precedent of class and credibility.
blah
Mike Garrett hired Kiffin.
Agreed, I can't stand SC, but it's hard not to like PH, he's the type of AD everyone wishes they had.
Ohio State.
Dunno who you're speaking for, Gene Smith is an ass
That makes you atypical of the OSU fanbase.
I can assure you, the amount of people that think he handled the past two years the complete wrong way greatly outnumber the alternative.
USC football tradition?
But with a fanbase like they have (most band-wagony ever), I have a hard time considering them to have "tradition". Even if they do have pretty rich history of winning and producing NFL talent. I guess it comes down to semantics, and what you consider "tradition".
I think a "rich history of winning and producing NFL talent" would literally fit the definition of tradition. So... you just said, even if they have tradition, you don't consider it tradition... Which makes very little sense
Not to mention the most wins and times playing in the Rose Bowl, which has now become the de facto marker of tradition.
I am fairly sure that Ronnie Lott, Lynn Swann, Marcus Allen, O.J. Simpson, Tim Rossovich, Anthony Davis, Rodney Peete, Chris Claiborne and numerous others would disagree.
Anthony Munoz, Junior Seau...
Keyshawn Johnson, and an obvious slew of more recent guys.
I typed that name but then remembered that he was a dick, so I left him out.
Take that, Keyshawn.
We don't need no stinkin 5 stars. We are just going to take all of your 4s.
that is what I have to say about Kiffin.
/insert so-youre-saying-theres-a-chance.gif here
But I'm not hopeful.
Down to three with visits lined up to Nebraska and Michigan before deciding. Since this is on his dime he is at least giving us serious consideration otherwise why spend the money.
Yeah, he's a really good recruiter to begin with, but even Dantonio could pull in recruits like this if he was at USC. Of course he wouldn't though, because everyone knows all of the national talent in the country is in Toledo, regardless of what the recruiting services say...
but I'm pretty fond of our players imported from Toledo.
I'm pretty sure Ebenezer Scrooge could recruit well at USC. Just sayin'.
It is between November and January!
Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, July, Aug, Oct, Nov
Although I have no idea where it's from, I must say this made me laugh.
Scrooge McDuck?!
+1 for any Duck Tale reference.
So why was USC mired in mediocrity in the 90s until Petey-boy rolled into town?
I think USC has been REALLY helped with the demise of UCLA football. UCLA is located in such a better part of town than USC, better academic school excluding USC's film-related stuff...
This has been on my mind lately, too. It's pretty amazing that UCLA has been so irrelevant for so long. There's more than enough talent in southern California to sustain two elite programs, and USC draws a lot of talent from outside the area anyway.
I don't follow the west coast programs that closely -- why exactly has UCLA been mediocre for so long despite all the advantages listed above? Is it just the string of mediocre head coaches since Terry Donahue? (Bob Toledo, Neuheisel) Bad facilities? Something else?
I think a run of bad coaches, in addition to the fact that UCLA plays 30 minutes to an hour (including traffic) @ the Rose Bowl away from their campus, thus killing any game day experience, has run their program down into the ground.
S'why you see guys going to Cal (at least Berkley has an on-campus stadium), Oregon (Phil Knight will give you plenty of toys in their brand-spanking new stadium facilities), in addition to USC.
I've heard some of the problems are that they salaries for the assistant coaches is substandard based on the UC salary structure. The coaches don't get paid enough to live anywhere near the more affluent campus area.
They're cheap. They don't want to spend the money on facilities and salaries necessary to be an elite football program. Even in basketball (which is really the flagship sport at UCLA), Pauly Pavilion was shockingly outdated for a program of UCLA's stature until the recent renovation.
probation for violations during their late 80's run of success.
USC has pretty much always been better than UCLA at football, other than for brief stretches in the mid 80s and late 90s. I don't know why, but that's the way it is. USC's recent decade of success has been a continuation, rather than a reversal, of historical trends.
But why is UCLA so bad? I think FrankMurphy gives some good reasons for it above. For whatever reason I feel like UCLA's management has not made it a priority, and has squeezed it out a bit.
With limited scholarships, maybe he is telling them he is only focusing on the best of the best???
With limited scholarships comes lack of depth which translates into early playing time. Luckily for Michigan, that is not the case at Safety for USC... safety if probably one of their deepest positions with at least 5 guys who could start right away.
When you look at the offers, USC has only given out offers to premier recruits. Having such a large number of instate recruits to go after coupled with the USC brand in a a great location, not much of a sales pitch needed. "Hey, come to USC and play with other great players, in a great locale, and receive a great education." Not ground-breaking stuff here.