First USC Defector

Submitted by NomadicBlue on June 15th, 2010 at 8:20 AM

This came out yesterday, but with all the expansion hoopla it seemed to get looked over. Jordan Campbell is the first player to leave USC for greener pastures. He didn't see the field a whole lot with USC and seemed to clash a bit with Kiffin. He has already stated that Boise State is the front runner for his services. Who's next? I doubt we will see a lot of these, but I do expect a couple more over the course of the next month or so.

Here's some links for info.

http://usc.scout.com/2/977388.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5287292

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/tracker/player?recruitId=3861…

Comments

Magnus

June 15th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^

They win games, win bowl games, and can get you to the NFL.  To some people, things like that are more important than whatever it is you don't like about Boise.

Besides . . . he hasn't played much at USC.  Do you think he wants to transfer to Texas or Alabama where he'll be vying for playing time with a bunch of highly touted recruits? Boise State is the type of place that we should expect to see USC kids end up: good teams, solid but unspectacular talent.

WolvinLA2

June 15th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^

I agree.  People were talking about these guys coming to UM, or to OSU or the SEC, but the schools off the bat I said would get the most transfer types were Fresno St., SDSU and Boise St.  Many of these guys are from the west coast, so they'll probably stay there.  But the guys who leave aren't the starters, they're the guys who got USC offers but couldn't cut it with the other USC talent, so they'll go somewhere they can play. 

Think about the guys who left UM during the transition (other than Boren) - they went to schools like WMU, Ball State, Youngstown St, etc. 

WolvinLA2

June 15th, 2010 at 8:15 PM ^

Yeah, good call on that one.  Mallett was a special case too, whether you believe he left because he wanted to play Arkansas once Mustain left, or because he didn't fit the drastic system change. 

Blazefire

June 15th, 2010 at 8:26 AM ^

at just the right time.

Now there's nobody around the program to remind the superstars that not playing in a bowl this year WILL knock them out of the first round and big money in the draft.

MGoDC

June 15th, 2010 at 8:32 AM ^

Brandon Graham would've been drafted at birth were it not for our two year bowl drought.

Logically it doesn't make sense, but it's a bit butterfly effect handwaving that brings it all together.

NomadicBlue

June 15th, 2010 at 8:35 AM ^

The smurf turf is a definite advantage for Boise State.  Perfect camoflauge for their secondary.  They should lead the nation in interceptions on their home turf. 

Tater

June 15th, 2010 at 8:40 AM ^

Not playing in a bowl won't make a lot of difference at USC.  Not having enough great players on the field to put one in a position to succeed might, though.  To give three examples: WR's look a lot better with really good QB's getting them the ball, RB's look better behind a great line, and CB's look a lot better with a safety behind them who can atone for an occasional error of aggression. 

If USC was banned from TV altogether, I think it would make a big difference, but most of their games will still be televised.  I'm not so sure how great their product will end up being, though. 

jg2112

June 15th, 2010 at 8:59 AM ^

Tater -

Typing without thinking?

Did Matt Barkley transfer? No. Are Ron Johnson and Kyle Prater still on the roster? Yes.

As for RBs and O-linemen, Baxter, Bradford and Gable are still on the team, and none of their O-linemen (including Tyron Smith, O'Dowd, and Seantrel Henderson) have gone anywhere.

USC starts this process with 23 five star players on their roster. Even if they lost half of them, that'd still be about 4-5 more than Michigan has right now.

PurpleStuff

June 15th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^

This guy wasn't allowed to work out with the team in the winter and was suspended for all of spring practice and never reinstated.  Tons of grade and behavioral problems throughout his career and buried on the depth chart.  This is a case of a guy getting not so subtly booted from the team to free up a scholarship, not somebody searching for greener pastures because of NCAA sanctions.

http://insidesocal.com/usc/archives/2010/06/morning-buzz-520.html

PurpleStuff

June 15th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^

When you have limited scholarships, you don't have any room for dead weight like Campbell.  With the ability to redshirt players and the occasional walk-on getting a scholarship, they should be operating right at the overall limit of 75.  They also need to lose a number of guys this year (they don't have 20 seniors) if they are going to get down to 75 and still sign a full class.

M-Wolverine

June 15th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^

...uh, stuff? Because you were pretty sure it was all bogus, and nothing was going to happen.  And, well, a lot happened.  

This isn't a "ha ha, they got nailed" question.  I'm just curious on your take on all that's come down from the NCAA.  How it met your expectations.  How it didn't.  And being in part a USC guy, how you feel about it all.  Did it reveal more than you thought it would? Or do you think it's mostly bogus?  And, just for fun, what do you think about Garrett?  ;-)

Maybe you've gone into it, and I haven't seen it.  And I've seen you post, but it seems more appropriate to ask in a "USC post", than sidetracking some post about expansion or Izzo or whatever...

PurpleStuff

June 15th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^

The thing that was unexpected (or at least I hadn't seen any evidence of beforehand) was Todd McNair's contact with Lake and Michaels.  That turned it from outside shenanigans by shady wannabe agents to something the school could/should get hit hard for.  I know there are still some folks around SC that say there is an explanation and that McNair didn't know about the benefits, but I don't see any other reason for him to be on the phone (even if only for two minutes or whatever it was) with Lake/Michaels unless he is or should be aware of what was going on. 

At the same time, I think one player being on the take from non-boosters doesn't warrant the sort of hammer they got (if we're going by NCAA precedent).  Miami had over 50 players implicated when they got hammered and their punishment was lighter (same scholarships but only one year bowl ban).  Alabama got less for an organized operation of boosters paying multiple players.  Even the Ed Martin scandal produced fewer sanctions.  I think something like a one year ban with 5-8 scholarships (instead of 10) cut per year over the three year period would be more appropriate to what happened.  If McNair is the key to the NCAA case (in terms of an actual connection between Lake/Michaels and SC), I would require him to be fired.  I think the Bush ineligibility timeline should also be altered to when SC could/should have known about what was going on.  For me vacating the bowl game against OU makes no sense if Bush just started getting benefits that winter because I see no way a school could police something like that without a massive invasion of privacy for student athletes and their parents (something that isn't the norm at any school at the moment).

I think the NCAA wanted to hammer SC football because of the high profile of the case, otherwise there isn't much explanation for the sanctions to football being less than to basketball (where it was obvious to anyone that Mayo was on the take from the get go and SC did nothing to investigate).  Still, some severe penalties are in order if a coach could've/should've known what was going on (and that coach having any contact with guys like Lake/Michaels is sufficient evidence for me).

Oh, and Mike Garrett used to be a very good running back.