OT - USC Recruiting Numbers

Submitted by Marley Nowell on June 10th, 2010 at 10:07 PM

There have been a lot of articles written about NCAA sanctions will impede the Trojan's recruiting in 2011 and beyond.  I wanted to see strictly based on the numbers what USC will be able to do this year in recruiting.

The USC Depth Chart lists 16 scholarship players as either a Senior or RedShirt Senior.  I also counted 4 RedShirt Juniors who were low on the depth chart and unlikely to earn a 5th year.  By my count USC will have somewhere between 16-20 scholarships available for 2011.  Take into the NCAA banhammer and they are down to 6-10* available scholarships. 

*This number may also get bigger if Juniors and Seniors on the team decide to transfer

USC already has 7 Verbal Commitments but obviously some of those players may be looking elsewhere.  However 6 of them are from California (the other 1 from Las Vegas) so they may stick it out.  And since there is a scholarship reduction not all of the Freshman would probably redshirt may be afforded that luxury (Michigan fans know all about that).  USC coaches will have to make some tough decisions on what positions they want to focus on recruiting the next 3 years.

In relevance to Michigan football directly I don't think this means too much.  I believe the only recruit Michigan and USC are competing for is OL Andre Yruretagovena.  In 2011 USC will have only 3-4 Offensive Tackles on scholarship so I believe they will still be pursuing Andre.  I am hopeful he goes Blue and Michigan is playing in a bowl game while USC is not.  GO BLUE!



June 11th, 2010 at 1:21 AM ^

Man, they've got some tough times ahead of them to say the least. To echo the Vlad thread earlier, we don't have it bad at all. Alabama was nearly completely irrelevant for many years after their sanctions, and we've seen what sanctions have done to Michigan basketball. I will admit, it will be strange to not see USC in the top 10 every week like we've become accustomed to.


June 11th, 2010 at 6:47 AM ^

I thought Alabama's scholarship reduction went from 2002 to 2004. In 2006 they were 10-2 and obviously have been great the past two seasons. I'm not sure I consider that to be many years. Though admittedly it remains to be seen if Kiffin is any good as a head coach.


June 11th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^

True. I guess after living in Alabama and having to deal with their complaining about Mike Shula it feels like it was a long time. By Alabama standards it was a long time, Bama should very rarely miss a bowl game. Losing 6 in a row to Auburn didn't help either.


June 11th, 2010 at 7:23 AM ^

He's not a great coach, His dad is a great coach, because his dad they went to a bowl game and gave florida trouble when they were at Tennessee. Hopefully though we land Adre to keep the pipeline in AZ and also might help get Hundley if we can't land Marquise Williams.


June 11th, 2010 at 8:30 AM ^

Sam and Ira (or really just Ira) on WTKA this morning claimed that USC cannot sign more than 15 kids during the scholarship-reduction years, so if they graduate/lose 25 in a year, the best they can hope for is a net loss of 10 scholarship players.  I don't know how accurate this is, but it could mean this is even more devastating than previously thought.

oriental andrew

June 11th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

Aside from the whole ridiculously high salary thing, it's no-lose for USC.  They probably had a very good sense that they couldn't avoid some fairly serious penalties, including scholarship reductions.  Given this assumption, Carroll bolted.  Also, it was unlikely that any current top coach or serious up-and-comer would want to walk into a volatile situation. 

So they hired Lane Kiffin.  Terrible record as a college and pro head coach, but a bit of a homecoming, so justifiable.  Also bringing his dad, so bonus.  It was a risk worth taking during these years (we now know) with scholarship reductions, postseason bans, and probation.  He slips up, he's gone.  He tanks after 3-4 years, they can blame it on the penalties, fire him as a head coach, and move on.  If he succeeds in the face of these sanctions, well that's just icing on the cake for them, an unanticipated surprise. 

The biggest risk they face with Lane would be the repeated minor violations he had at Tennessee.  I don't know specifics of how it all works, but I would imagine that piling those up while the program is on probation is a big no-no and could have larger repurcussions.  Still, it's a calculated risk and one worth taking, both for USC and for Lane Kiffin. 


June 11th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

It was also a shrewd move because Kiffin leaving the Vols hanging has made him toxic.  No other respectable program will even think of bringing him in.  Whether he is a decent coach or not is still to be seen.  But USC doesn't at least have to worry about him leaving them for someone else now that the penalties have been announced.


June 11th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

They do not have much depth at all on the OL, only 4 OT's on the roster including true freshmen, only 5 OG's.  I would expect the USC offense to struggle in these next few years unless they get a long of young guys to step up on the O line.  If they get any O line injuries, they're toast.


June 11th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^

this thin. Never a good sign when true freshmen are in your 2 deep, especially up front. Very few 18 year olds are physically ready. Fewer are technically ready. (Santreal may be the exception ... dunno)  I was reading some Phil Steele this a.m. He thinks USC is going to surprise. If that's the case, as you point out, they need to stay very healthy up front.


June 11th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^

With 2 years of sanctions and 30 spots withdrawn from USC over next three years, UCLA, Cal and PAC10 schools have a lot to gain.  But so too does Michigan.  Orange County is one of USC's favorite hunting grounds for new talent.

Also, there will likely be far fewer Nick Perry and Ronald Johnson scenarios for Michigan in the future (I would think).


June 11th, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^

No doubt that the top 5-6 guys on that list are solid, but OC doesn't have the talent that LA County has.  I'm not sure where there's a similar list for LA county, but no doubt it would blow OC out of the water.

EDIT:  For example, USC's 2010 class had 6 guys from LA Country, 3 guys from the IE, and no commits from Orange County.  In 2009 is was 4 from LA and 1 from OC.


June 11th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^

With one rather large caveat. A USC official told ESPNLosAngeles.com on Thursday the Pac-10 would not waive the one-year transfer ineligibility rule in this case. This means, effectively, USC players won't transfer within the conference. A Pac-10 official confirmed the stipulation to the Seattle Times on Friday.

Bronco Joe

June 13th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^

for RR and Crew to be going after those USC players that might consider a transfer. 

Here's hoping Kiffin keeps up his Vol performance and USC gets hit with repeats and maybe the death penalty for a couple of years from the NCAA. Anything less is just ignoring the semi-pro team that keeps playing at USC.