DeAnthony Arnett Leaning Towards USC

Submitted by gater on July 16th, 2010 at 9:43 PM

It appears that D Arnett is leaning towards going to USC.  If we can't get him, I think that's a good place for him.  Even thought I would love their recruiting to take a hit after their scandal.

 

RT @DArnett13: Just to let everybody know USC is my top school and we gone leave it as that ..... Trojans stand up

Comments

rickiew04

July 16th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^

What is up with these kids still wanting to go to USC? On top of their probabition, they took in a slew of top receivers last year.  Now they have two of the nations best for this year in George Farmer and DeAnthony Arnett favoring them.  What is Kiffin selling them? 

Hoken's Heroes

July 16th, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^

....USC has gravitas and a bunch of great coaches who can make the case that sanctions or not, USC is still a valuable name in college football that will get kids to the NFL hell or high water. But, the kid hasn't signed anything yet so as far as we know, USC will end up empty handed.

TomVH

July 16th, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^

He's selling them the fact that the probation from a bowl game is only two years, Matt Barkley will be a junior and senior when DeAnthony would be there, they have two 4 star quarterbacks committed this year, one of the best quarterbacks in the 2010 class (Jesse Scroggins), Dillon Baxter in the backfield to open up the passing game, only 1 wide receiver commit in 2009, and seven players drafted in 2010. 

I'm not sure why everyone is so shocked about all this. Kids like DeAnthony don't think of themselves as backups, and aren't scared of competition. 

Marcus818

July 16th, 2010 at 10:08 PM ^

I have no problem with him going there, to each his own. But, Barkley is probably not gonna stick around for his senior year and it's reported Kiffin already doesn't think Scroggins will develop into a star. I don't think the 2 year bowl ban is a big deal, but by the time Arnett is a junior the scholarship crunch will probably really hurt the team.

clarkiefromcanada

July 16th, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^

Arnett might like California...it is warmer there than Ann Arbor. Maybe he likes the lifestyle or images of  Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush and Brian Cushing dominating competition. On second thought, forget those last two...Anyway, there is a certain appeal to leaving home and setting out on your own and maybe Arnett wants to take that on. Well, if he doesn't want to come to M then I am sure RichRod will find a recruit to add to the cast of thousands at WR.

The scholarship reduction issues will certainly be evident by Arnett's third year and definitely in his senior year. We saw the impact of "unintended scholarship reduction" on the M defense last year. Regardless of how well Kiffin recruits the skill positions it's not much going to matter if his offensive line depth and front seven depth on defense is compromised and there is no way it could not be.

Good luck to DeAnthony Arnett...but I hope he understands the shit he's stepping in...

clarkiefromcanada

July 17th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^

I don't know why your post got the neg there...I suspect that many of us traveled some distance from our family homes to attend undergraduate or graduate studies. Certainly, USC is going to have it's appeal (aside from the self-serving, smarmy and offensive lies from Lane Kiffin) as would places like Miami (that Miami) or Florida. On that same theme, however, I have always been sort of vexed by how it could be that Arizona State and Arizona have not performed better in recruiting (39 and 26 to Scout in 2010, for example) given the "lifestyle" factors for each school.

PurpleStuff

July 17th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

It is really just a population issue.  There are less than 7 million people in the state at a quick glance (these numbers may not be exact).  By comparison, Northern California has double that number and Southern California has over 24 million people.  Yet all three areas have the same number of BCS schools. 

Arizona and ASU have to recruit Southern California hard to compete.  To do that they also have to beat out schools like Washington, Oregon, and Colorado who are doing the same thing.  On top of that, the schools are competing against each other head to head for a lot of guys (neither is the weaker link that say WSU is).  They get their fair share of guys but when UCLA and/or USC are up they have a tough time just because of the natural numbers advantage population wise, despite the hot weather and often hotter ladies on campus.

Hoken's Heroes

July 17th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^

....I have  no idea why I get negged other than I am enemy #1 with the circle jerk brigade that roams around here with nothing better to do than to neg those they disagree with. As for AZ and AZ St, it might be partially that it's way too HOT there. I am going out to AZ in Aug and currently it's 111 degrees. It's ~90 in South Central and there are enough liquor stores to cool yourself off with a 50 oz malt liquor! :P As well, there's a beach not so far away. Not so in AZ. And AZ doesn't have Hollywood or Snoop dog to entertain the kids like USC has. And did I mention Will Farrell?

stankoniaks

July 17th, 2010 at 12:11 AM ^

I agree with everything you said Tom.  I also think that kids hae short attention spans.  I think we'll see a hit (how major nobody knows) to USC recruiting after 1 or 2 years without being i a bowl game.  How many of these kids who are citing Michigan's record remember that we were in the Capital One Bowl 2 years ago and the Rose Bowl 3 years ago (calendar years not football seasons).

2014

July 17th, 2010 at 12:25 AM ^

But they should doubt his ability to coach. I understand Arnett's reluctance to come to UM given the offense. Although, a special talent, a la Chris Henry can overcome that to succeed in the NFL (yes I know what happened to Henry, but he also had one of the all time high TD/catch ratios when healthy/sane). Putting Mich aside,I can't help but think kiffen is going to ruin a lot of kids lives over the next couple of years before he gets fired for a string of major violations..

psychomatt

July 17th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^

Kiffen is unproven as a HC. He would not have the USC job if it weren't for the scandal and sanctions and, even then, he was not USC's first choice.

Kiffen was a successful Assistant Coach and OC at USC, though let's face it he had more talent to work with than any team in the country. He accomplished nothing as HC of the Raiders. He was the most bizzarre first year HC at Tennessee (I wonder if he would have even gotten that job if his Dad's first name wasn't Monte). The most amazing thing is the 3 years of scholarship reductions at USC will give him 3-5 years of excuses if he underpeforms. This is Charlie Weis all over again.

befuggled

July 18th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^

I have no idea how good a coach Kiffin really is, and I don't think I will for a few years yet. He coached for less than two years at Oakland under an aging and increasingly inept Al David. He coached for one year at Tennessee. He hardly has a track record.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not he survives at USC. The sanctions will affect his ability to recruit, which he does seem to do well.If he manages to keep his job after the sanctions start to hit, he may be a real head coach.

Personally, he reminds me of Rick Neuheisel--who has to be ecstatic at USC's sanctions.

Bluerock

July 17th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^

Crompton was the future for the Vols,living here in the south I can tell you everyone thought this kid could play,but  like so many other players he got injured and then rehab and then surgery and rehab again.He played less than 100% in 08, and it showed.

I would say his health had more to do with where he went in the draft.

PurpleStuff

July 16th, 2010 at 10:12 PM ^

History both distant and recent, a school with three times as many Rose Bowl victories as anybody else (including more than the rest of the Pac 10 combined and as many as the top five Big-10 schools combined).  Arguably the best program of the last decade (don't forget that these kids were ten years old when Carson Palmer won the Heisman and were only five back when Woodson won).  A school that in recent years has gained as good an academic reputation as just about any that takes football seriously.  And you get to live in LA.

Throw in the ridiculously fertile recruiting ground in SC's backyard and Kiffin doesn't have to do much selling, even with the sanctions. 

BiSB

July 16th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^

But like a petulant child, if we can't have him, I don't anyone else in the Big 10 to have him.  The west coast is fine by me.

Transatlantic Flight

July 16th, 2010 at 10:27 PM ^

USC is riding a high. It will be interesting to see if it lasts or not, from a purely scientific perspective. My only real investment in them is wanting to see Kiffin fail badly, other than that, I am ambivalent.

Don

July 16th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^

Arnett has made it clear that he only wants to go to a currently winning program, and one that sends guys to the NFL. He thinks that his chances of getting to the bigs via Michigan are low.

No Michigan fan should be crying the blues over this. He may be very talented, but he and Michigan are not good together.

PurpleStuff

July 17th, 2010 at 12:43 AM ^

Mike Williams, Keary Colbert, Steve Smith, Dwayne Jarrett, Kareem Kelly, and Patrick Turner all got drafted.  Kiffin coached all of them as either wide receiver coach or passing-game/offensive coordinator in his five years at SC.  All but Kelly went in the first three rounds. 

He has a pretty good record of getting guys to the NFL and judging by the not so stellar production from this group in the pros, he probably got the most out of their talents.

Pea-Tear Gryphon

July 17th, 2010 at 8:45 AM ^

Good point, but I don't think kids coming out of HS care about that as much as just being able to get to the pros. They just want to go to the place that can give them the best chance to showcase their talents, help them get drafted, and sign that huge bonus and set themselves up for life.

johnvand

July 17th, 2010 at 12:59 AM ^

Well put.  He's an outstanding talent, just don't think he fits the Michigan mold.  Let him go to USC where he'll be praised and worshiped.  It is what he wants.

 

Kudos to Kiffin for somehow convincing kids that only having 75 scholarships per year isn't a big deal.

jg2112

July 17th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^

Right. Keyshawn Johnson sucked.

You're all missing the point. It's not Lane Kiffin's job to turn them into NFL stars. It's Lane Kiffin's job to get these guys drafted into the NFL. What happens after they're drafted is not Kiffin's responsibility.

PurpleStuff

July 17th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^

Steve Smith just had a 1,200 yard season with 7 receiving TD's to lead the Giants in both categories.  That is better than any former U-M receiver did last year and better than all but one season in Braylon Edwards' career.  Keary Colbert also had a solid rookie year (over 700 yards) before chronic injuries derailed his career.

Do people blame Lloyd Carr because David Terrell and Marquise Walker sucked in the pros?

2014

July 17th, 2010 at 12:14 AM ^

The current stable of coaces have never won a thing on their own, in fact, Kiffin has only lost gloriously as a head coach. And they do not produce NFL WRs. These are facts. Michigan aside, USC would be a bad long term decision IMO. Shite, even state has produced succesful nfl recievers. Granted, they all ended up in jail...

clarkiefromcanada

July 17th, 2010 at 12:36 AM ^

Kiffin will get to experience more of this in the Pac 10 this year; it will be interesting to see what happens after the season when a few bad losses come and how that impacts the selling of USC to recruits.

PurpleStuff

July 17th, 2010 at 2:05 AM ^

The guy managed to win five games in the NFL despite being saddled with Al Davis as his owner and Jamarcus Russell as his quarterback.  I don't know many folks who would have done better.

He coached at UT for one season.  He inherited a 5-7 team, but improved them to 7-6 while going .500 in the SEC.  They finished second in the SEC East, going 4-1 in the division while beating Steve Spurrier and Mark Richt.  Not to mention they played Florida close and the eventual national champions needed to block a couple of kicks to beat them.  Then he got offered double the salary to take over the top college program of the last decade.

I get that people dislike him personally and hate USC on top of that.  I get that people think he hasn't done enough to earn his position.  But acting like he's been some disaster as a head coach in his limited experience ignores his actual record.  I think the guy we've got is a pretty great coach, but the fact is Lane Kiffin won more conference games in one year at Tennessee than RR has in two years at Michigan.

2014

July 17th, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^

I stand by my "lost gloriously" statement.

a) He had a lot of returning talent on his '09 team, including the best defender in the country.

b) Tennesse finished tied for 2nd in the their division with Georgia and behind Florida. You could also call that tied for 3rd out of 6 teams. Georgia had their worst year in a decade. Tennesse finished 4-4 overall in the SEC. They finished 4-1 in their "division" because their division is top heavy. They finished 0-3 vs. the other half of the SEC. They finished ahead of a 3-5 South Carolina team, Kentucky, and Vanderbilt.  Arguably the 3 worst teams in the SEC. Here are their 7 wins: W. Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, South Carolina, Memphis, Vanderbilt, Kentucky. S. Carolina and Georgia are the only "good wins. Beating spurrier means less when his team went 7-6.

d) The Raiders won 4 games under Kiffin in 2007, not 5. Russell didn't start until week 17, he only played in 1 game the entire year. Josh McNown and Culpepper were his QBs. Not Hall of Famers, but not Russel. They won 5 games in 2008 after he was fired with Russell as the QB. So yes, they got better without Kiffin.

e) I explicitly said I understand why Arnett wouldn't choose Michigan. RR has nothing to do with my comments. 4 wins in the NFL is pretty terrible regardless of the team.  His year at Tennesse was not a good year. Especially considering his D coordinator is one the best defensive minds the NFL has seen. He has zero history as a head coach that would lead me to believe he'll have any success.

I really don't understand why you'd be playing with stats to try and support this guy. Strange.

USC is a great destination, but given the situation with probabation and kiffin, there are at least a handful of other schools that make more sense. My opinion, but i think it's pretty vaild. Arnett wants to go someplace where he is going to win now. USC seems to have a lot of risk involved in that arena given their scholarship reductions and their non-proven head coach.

Michigan fans know better than anyone how important depth is to fielding a winning team. USC will have real depth issues when Arnett takes the field due to the sanctions. That's a fact. That's a risk. It sounds like an iffy move to me to go to USC at this point.

PurpleStuff

July 17th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^

a.) How do you have a lot of returning talent from a team that went 5-7?  UT got better with Kiffin than they were the year before, and he did a pretty damn good job recruiting there.  One player doesn't make a defense.  We had Brandon Graham last year and still managed one of the worst season's in school history on that side of the ball.

b.) If you finish with the same record, head-to-head record and divisional record are the two tiebreakers most commonly used.  UT blew out Georgia.  UT went 4-1 in the division while UGA went 2-3 (they lost to Kentucky as well).  Tennessee finished 2nd.  Spurrier and Richt have both won multiple major bowl games and both have won the SEC.  They've also had plenty of time to build their programs.  If Kiffin is such a disaster why couldn't they beat him?  Three of his losses came against top-10 teams.  The only coaches to beat him were Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Rick Neuheisel, Frank Beamer, Houston Nutt, and Gene Chizik, not exactly a string of lightweights in the profession.  How well did you honestly expect that Tennessee team to do?

d.) Don't know why you skipped "c", but Kiffin coached the first part of the 2008 season as well.  He finished with a record of 5-15 overall (the reason I said he won 5 games).  That 2008 team then won 4 more games after he left to finish 5-11 (a massive one game improvement over Kiffin's lone full season in charge).  The team was 2-14 the year before he got there, so by your standard he also made them significantly better when he arrived and went 4-12 (making him two for two with respect to making the team he coaches better than they were the year before).  They sucked before he got there and have sucked for basically two full seasons after he left (back to back 5-11 seasons).  Obviously he wasn't the problem in Oakland.

We really don't know how good a coach Kiffin is or will be.  Thinking he hasn't proven himself is just fine, as I stated earlier.  Acting like he's been a failure in his two brief prior head coaching stops is insane and would only come about from people holding him to a ridiculous standard simply because they don't like the guy.

2014

July 17th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^

Look, the guy's a jackass that has a head coaching record of 12-21 going by your revised numbers. Arnett says he wants to go to the team that gets him the best chance to win the National Championship and go to the NFL.

A Kiffin-coached USC team playing in this reduced scholarship environment is not the best option for what he's looking.

12-21 = lose. A 12-21 record that somehow gets you at the healm of one of the top 5 coaching jobs in the country? That = losing gloriously. And done. Feel free to root for the guy, but I'm not giving him or his 12-21 record the benefit of the doubt if I'm a top notch recruit like Arnett...

BTW, the Vols had 6 players drafted in '10, there was talent on that team...

psychomatt

July 17th, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^

I don't follow the Raiders enough to remember all of their games, but going 5-11 is hardly something to give the guy a trophy over. It really isn't the toughest division.

As for Tennessee, they had plenty of talent and survived mostly on defense. I give Monte credit for that. Of course, Monte is 70. By the time USC gets off sanctions and works its way through the impact of having only 15 scholarship players in each of the next three classes (my estimate is at least 5 years), Monte will probably be retired. Lane better brush up on his defense.