(Sorry if I missed this somewhere else)
(Sorry if I missed this somewhere else)
That's hilarious. I can't wait to see their six [ed: fifteen] person class in 2012.
Too bad it's not Ole Miss or Alabama hit with a fifteen limit. That would be worth watching.
"Scholarship limits will prohibit USC from signing more than 15 players in their next three recruiting classes"
Open season on USC commits and SoCal recruits...
ND is going to have a nice recruiting class coming out of CA this year, I would like to think its at the expense of USC
Considering they took 30 kids for the 2011 class, I think they'll be ok...can we make that limit retroactive to include the 2011 recruits?
No doubt that 30 man class was in preparation for exactly this. Does anyone know how many of those guys will make it to campus? Does the Pac 10 not have rules about that stuff?
I work with a serious USC homer. They signed 31, but eight of them enrolled early and counted against the previous year's class. Only 23 count for this season. Pete Carroll used to sign really small classes if he didn't get everyone he wanted.
On the plus side, the 75 scholarship max for next season limits them to something like six total signees for this year. USC is going to be in serious pain in 2014...too bad only one or two people who were at USC during the violations were actually punished.
OK, that's fine, but in the Big Ten you can't sign 30 players, no matter how many you EE.
It's not USC's fault that the Big 10 restricts itself. No one on USC is going to need to get a medical redshirt or get cut to make room for the class, so I really don't see the problem.
Obviously I wouldn't ask USC to follow Big Ten rules, I was asking a question if anyone knew what the Pac 10 rule was, if there is one at all.
My guess would be that the NCAA rules that allow backdating for early enrollees (I thought that was legal in the Big 10 too) and no more than 25 new players on campus in the Fall.
In the Big Ten you can back date early enrollees, but you still can only sign 28 total LOIs.
I thought backdated players counted for the previous class and had nothing to do with the current class. I think I'm confused.
The official limit is 25 in a class, but that can be extended to 28 as up to 3 early enrollees can be backdated to the previous class. That only works though if there's room to fit them under the 25 maximum. So If we signed 22 the year before, we could sign 28 as there would be room to fit the extra three from this class in the last one. If we signed 25 the year before, we'd be at a maximum of 25 this year.
And that's only the yearly maximum, without considering the overall maximum of 85.
I tried a few times to write this out and that's the clearest I can make it. Confusing as hell. I'm not even 100% sure what I said was right...
Yes, that's correct. I think the part he didn't understand is that if we signed 20 the year before, we cannot sign 30 this year, even if 5 enroll early and we have 30 spots available in the 85 overall limit. This is what USC did, and in the Big Ten that would be a no-no. Apparently the Pac Ten hasn't such rule.
EE's don't sign LOI's because they are already enrolled and taking classes on signing day. They sign financial aid papers instead the year prior.
How does that make a difference? The point is, for a given recruiting class, you can't bring in more than 28 guys, no matter whether or not they enroll early or what kind of paperwork they sign.
They had a ton of EE's, I don't remember the Pac12 having limit
Anybody wanna make a list of recruits we're going head to head against USC for? I know Magnuson comes to mind.
That would be a better list. Now that it's permanent, maybe some minds will change...
... the provision that allows Trojans seniors to transfer to another FBS school without sitting out the usual one-year penalty will remain.
Ronald Johnson? How old is Nick Perry? Come home, guys!
We're already trying to crunch numbers for our recruiting class, I don't see how we'd make room for transfers too.
Due to the post-season ban, NCAA rules allow any USC players who only have one year of eligibility remaining to transfer without sitting out a year. So, if someone like Ronald Johnson wanted to come to UM and we are not currently at our 85 scholly limit, we could take him. And it would only be for one year, so it will not impact how many kids we can sign in the 2012 class.
Except that Ronald Johnson already played 4 seasons of college football at USC.
I just grabbed his name as an example because it was suggested by the person to whom I was responding. My point was that USC players who have only one year of eligibility remaining can transfer without sitting out a year. If RoJo is out of eligibility, he is out of eligibility.
FWIW, if Kiffin "assured" any commits signed in the 2011 class that the appeal would be successful, those players also might be able to get out of their commitments a la Seantrel Henderson. No guarantee, but it depends on what the kids were told and how badly USC wants to retain (and fight in public with) kids who do not want to be there.
Kyle Murphy OL from San Clemente
Max Tuerk OL from Santa Margarita committed to USC
Andrus Peat OL from AZ
Jordan Payton WR from Westlake
kiffin should've insisted on a out clause in case the appeal was denied.
On the other hand, I think there's at least a chance Kiffin was hired into the official position of "fall guy." Let him sweat out the terrible sanction years, then drop him once they're in the clear.
just broke out a box of expensive cigars.
Hahahahahahaha I need to call my brother-in-law FUCK HIM hahahahahaha.
I love this.
I need to call all of my friends who are sc homers. I'm going to be having some fun at the expense of the homers at the bars this weekend.
SC tickets will be easy to find cheap these next few years, because when SC's not good, nobody goes to the games. Hell, outside of ND and UCLA, the stadium isn't that close to full even in good years. I've seen 3 Pac 10 games at the Coliseum, and none of them were more than about 80% full.
I'm glad that the games I went to were not full. Have you ever been backed up in that terrible gameday traffic? I would not go to the games if I didn't know people who went to school or lived nearby. Walking there and eating bacon wrapped hot dogs is the best way to go.
SC fans and Laker fans are one in the same. Show up late and leave early.
Do they come with a side of butter and a stent?
Clearly you've not had a roadside dirty dog in LA. Not all food is healthy Tater, including most of the best tasting.
Joking aside, some of the places (and by places I mean Hispanics with a cart on the sidewalk) will put mayo on your dog, but I don't do that.
Not all food is healthy Tater, including most of the best tasting.
I would accept that as an axiom. If it tastes good, chances are it's bad for you.
Boy, that does not give them very much room to miscalculate on which players to recruit.
USC's reaction to the NCAA: what's your deal?!
Can somebody answer this, when does this apply? Do the recruits who signed a LOI this year (2011) still get to stay on board? So this will be the 2012, 2013, and 2014 classes?
My understanding is that the penalties could not be enforced until the appeal process was over which is why they were able to sign 30 this past class. So the scholarship reductions will be applied to the '12, '13 and '14 classes.
They already have 8 commits for '12 so they're over halfway done. That makes me smile...
They are also subject to a limit of 75 players rather than the normal 85, so depending on how many guys they still have on the roster including the incoming 2011 guys they might not even be able to sign the full 15.
I can't wait to see what happens to OSU and Auburn.
as 350 players a year come out of Los Angeles area high schools to play in the conference.
I take it this number includes every sport. There's no way 350 scholarship (and walk-on) football players per year join the Pac-10/12 conference out of Los Angeles.
Yeah, there might not be 350 players, from anywhere on Earth, who commit to Pac 12 schools in football every year. That would be over 29 players per school.
That's a lot of walk-ons.
That must be the stat. There is no way that 350 D-1 football players emerge every year from the LA school system.
That said, teams from Oregon and Arizona definitely need to take advantage of this ruling and grab the talent. And if UCLA held any dreams of becoming relevant again, the time is now to make their move.
it is 350 of the players in total on PAC 10 (now PAC 12) teams are from Southern California high schools.
Where do we stand with Andrus Peat???
Class of 2010 = 17 signed LOI - 6 played as freshmen leaving 11 with potential 5th years
Class of 2011 = 30 LOI - way to find a loophole and go all SEC.
Class of 2012 = 15
Class of 2013 = 15
Class of 2014 = 15
By the time the Class of 2010 gets to their 5th year, there will be 86 scolar-athletes on the squad barring any transfers, injuries, failures to qualify, decommits, etc.. And we all know there's never any transfers, injuries, failures to qualify, or decommittments.
Good luck Trojans. You and OSU can commiserate with each other.
So if someone transfers, fails to qualify, or leaves after he's signed his LOI, does USC get that scholarship back? If so it seems like certainly beat the system on this one.
I think they are limited to 15 per class for the next three classes (2012, 2013 and 2014) and a total cap of 75. Other than that, they can use all the normal "tools" to fit within those limits. If a player leaves (or is pushed out), that scholly can be used for someone else so long as they stay within these reduced limits.
Those could be the years in which they suffer the most. They'll have at most 15 seniors on those teams (barring transfers in from other schools).
A 2nd point: I wonder if any of the 2010 kids will be released or medically redshirted to make room for the 2011 class. USC can sign 30 players in a year but they can't have more than 85 total by the time the season starts.
Yeah, they'll be in tough shape after that 30 man class graduates, especially if any of the class of 2012 goes pro early (totally possible, since there will be some talented guy in that class).
They only can have 75 players on scholarship, and can take 15 players maximum per recruiting class. If they lose 20 seniors to graduation they can only add 15 players, if they lose 12 seniors and are at the 75 player limit they can only bring in 12 players.
Wouldn't this make you think that OSU is really in for it then? Seems like USC's problems were few and small relative to what we are hearing about the Bucks . . .
OSU's violations are all about tressel, they cut him loose and they won't get the same punishment
USC's came down to the AD, the compliance department and an assistant coach. The case was much more about the university than OSU's
Their compliance department failed to catch the obvious problems with cars.
I thought the whole car thing had been laid to rest
That depends on what else comes out. If it is just JT lying, yeah I agree it is not as bad as USC and by dumping him OSU will be penalized less. But if "Car-gate", "Housing-gate" and the other rumors floating around turn out to be the real deal, OSU could be hit even harder than USC. Especially if athletes from other sports are involved (two non-football players' names already have popped up in the car investigation).
Certainly I don't disagree there. One of USC's big problems was how small the compliance staff was, OSU has the biggest one in the country, at least last I knew it was.
USC's problem was not the size of its compliance department. It was the culture within the Athletic Department, starting with the AD himself. It was a cost-benefit culture, knowing the NCAA does little in the way of investigating rules violations. The NCAA usually only acts when something is handed to them on a platter. USC rolled the dice and, against all odds, lost. We are all better off that they did. It has infused the threat of sanctions with a newfound sense of respect, at least for awhile.
USC's other problem was that they were basically contemptuous of the NCAA's investigation at first. It's like telling the judge to go screw himself right before sentencing.
They'll all be 5* and 4* recruits. So USC will still win 7+ games a year. But it does benefit the rest of the conference. Maybe UCLA will finally make its comeback? And Washington has been hurting, in part, because USC can poach its best in-staters. Now they just have Oregon to worry about.
Even 15 4 and 5 star players a year is tough to build a team around.
And I don't think they'll have the same quality of recruits that they've been getting. Top flight players want to be on a winning team, and those recruits also have offers from Oregon, Florida, Alabama, ND, Michigan, Oklahoma, and so on. If it looks like USC is headed for tough times, a lot of those top recruits might decide USC doesn't have the same appeal it used to.
exactly plus they don't have the same staff developing those lower rated guys that built USC into the team they were.
Okay, fine. 6 not 7. Maybe even 5 in a particularly bad year. But the Pac-12 isn't deep, and they will still have, by far, the highest average star ranking. They just won't win 9 or 10, because they won't have the depth, and because Kiffin isn't a great coach.
Oregon will sit pretty atop the conference, and a few other schools will benefit from USC's troubles. But I'd be very, very surprised if they fell that far down. The injunctions are fairly short-term (2 years bowl ban, 3 year reduced scholarship) and they took a megaclass already before the scholarship reductions kicked in.
That still leaves them better than WSU, ASU, CU during the whole period
That leaves them probably better than Cal, Oregon St., UCLA for most of the period
That leaves them probably still better than Washington, Arizona, Utah and Stanford in at least part of the period in question.
And only definitely worse through the whole period than Oregon.
Looking at 2011, I think they win 2/3 non-conference games (Minn+Syracuse) plus Colorado, Arizona State, two of three against Washington, Cal and Arizona, and UCLA at home. 7 wins.
The other problem is that 4 and 5 star players still get into trouble, still get academically ineligible, and still get injured. And they still turn out to be busts, albeit less frequently than their 3 star brothers.
In each of those 15 man classes, USC could have a bunch of Carlos Browns, Cullen Christians, Demar Dorseys, Justin Turners, Cory Zirbels, Darryl Stonums, Tate Forciers, the list goes on. Not that I have anything wrong with any of those guys, but there are many reasons why 4 star+ guys don't end up to be everything you thought, and without depth, you're in big trouble.
Not only is RoJo out of eligibility, he was just drafted by the Niners last month.
As for Nick Perry, he's going iunto his RS junior season. As a RS FR he didn't start but played every game and lead the team with 8 sacks. Last year started 9 games (ankle injury).
I thought I had heard he was a little homesick or something as a freshman. Now he's probably firmly entrenched in the lineup and may be planning to enter the draft after this year, assuming he has a good season. Would love him as a transfer and think he would make the DL amazing, but doubt there's any way it would happen.
The most likely example would be someone whose best years are likely to come when the team has zero depth, and maybe for someone who was highly touted but didn't have a great experience as a freshman.
I think the most likely to transfer would be Kyle Prater, but if he does I'm guessing ND would be his destination.