OT - USC Releases LB Glen Stanley from LOI

Submitted by psychomatt on July 29th, 2010 at 12:59 AM

USC has released linebacker Glen Stanley from his signed letter of intent:

The Trojans had reportedly refused to grant Stanley the release upon his first request last month, with first-year coach Lane Kiffin telling reporters he expected him in fall camp once he had taken care of everything. But Stanley, a product of Eastern Arizona J.C., filed an appeal and hired an attorney, evidently changing the Trojans' stance on the topic.




July 29th, 2010 at 1:05 AM ^


USC would have been the fifth school Stanley had attended in the past five years. He spent a season at Bowling Green, a year at a junior college in Arizona and had also committed to UCF and Tennessee at various points in his career.

"This is his final pit stop," Ligon said. "I expect it to be."

With Stanley's departure, the Trojans will have only one incoming player at the linebacker spot, Crenshaw High School product Hayes Pullard.



July 29th, 2010 at 1:34 AM ^

It does not surprise me to see some of the 2010 class getting out of their LOI's, but I am surprised the sanctions have not hurt USC's 2011 recruiting more. Maybe that shoe hasn't dropped yet.


July 29th, 2010 at 8:35 AM ^

If the guys in the 2011 class redshirt, they won't be affected by the bowl ban, right? And even if they were affected for one bowl game, why would one bowl game affect a free education from USC, the chance to live in Southern California, and the opportunity to play for a glamour NCAA program?


July 29th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^

If you are asking why some kids in the 2010 class might want to go elsewhere now that they know the specifics of the sanctions, I can think of several reasons. Of course, only each kid knows specifically why he no longer wants to play for USC. But, whatever the reasons, clearly some want out (e.g., Henderson and Stanley) and have persuaded USC to give them their releases. Good for them.


July 29th, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^

Hey, attorney licensed in multiple jurisdictions, your specific question was why kids in the 2011 class would not want to look around at other schools after committing to USC and learning of the NCAA penalties. I gave you some of the reasons why.


July 29th, 2010 at 11:20 AM ^

If they don't get 9 wins this year, some of those top recruits will fall off. I think a lot of them are saving their spot in the class but are still waiting to see how the sanctions affect the team. Ironically, I don't think the sanctions will really hurt the team that much. I think that Lane Kiffin will hurt the team that much and the sanctions will do the rest.


July 29th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

I am surprised the sanctions have not hurt USC's 2011 recruiting more

I'm not.

Most of these kids' have the goal of going pro. When you step back and think about how these sanctions actually affect the program's exposure (and thus the players' exposure), it's actually very minimal, and may even increase the program's exposure in unconventional ways.

The school won't be able to win a national championship for two years, BUT...

  • They're still going to play 13 games this year.
  • They're still going to play in their rivalry games.
  • They're still going to play Notre Dame.
  • All of USC's games will still be televised, many of them nationally televised.
  • Members of the class of 2011 will only miss out on 1 year of bowl eligibility, and that only goes for the ones who don't redshirt. The ones who do redshirt won't miss out on a thing. 
  • NFL scouts will still be looking at USC just as closely as they always do.

So kids who choose USC to show off their talents to further their goal of going pro don't really have much to worry about.

And think about the conversation that would ensue (and thus, the publicity) if USC goes undefeated in either of their non-bowl-eligible years or is otherwise in a position where many people think they are the best or second-best team in the nation. "Well U of ? only got into the NC game because USC is ineligible", or "U of ? may have won the NC, but that's only because they didn't have to play USC." That exposure has value.

And even if USC has a mediocre season, keep in mind that we're not talking about some obscure program like Cinci or TCU where nobody knows the players' names unless they happen to make it to a BCS game.


July 29th, 2010 at 1:38 AM ^

I heard Kiffin say somthing shitty on ESPN today. He was talking about players leaving the program and he said something along the lines that all the players that left were due to the fact that they were not going to play. I.E. Depth Chart issues. I think that's kind of shitty to cut on former players.(That's how I took it anyhow. I could be over-reacting) I seem to remember RR talking about Boren and Pryor saying he "didn't talk about players who didn't play for Michigan". I'm glad we have a classy coach.


July 29th, 2010 at 8:13 AM ^

I heard this little blip on 'depth chart' woes and kids transferring because they weren't going to play, but I figured that this was a load of crap because these kids were going to have that problem sanctions or not.  I mean every 5* can't be THE 5* on a team...


July 29th, 2010 at 1:45 AM ^

Regarding their recruiting: I bet that Kiffin is talking about how they are appealing the sanctions and that the ban will be lowered. Or that the sanctions will not be as harsh. I have nothing to prove this, it just seems like the type of guy he is. We'll see when their appeal gets denied.


July 29th, 2010 at 1:48 AM ^

A nice little 4-loss season should start some defections.  I don't buy in to his coaching ability at all, never mind the scholarship losses.  Colin Cowherd was saying the other day how it didn't matter if Kiffin had ever accomplished anything prior to his USC gig because he can recruit so well...Ron Zook anyone?


July 29th, 2010 at 8:21 AM ^

Not be a downer, but a 4-loss season is what USC had last year. I dont think another 9-4 year is going to cause defections. What really needs to happen is for highschool kids to get their heads out of their asses and realize that as great as SoCal is, spending 3-5 years with Kiffin isn't worth it regardless of the number of games you win.


July 29th, 2010 at 10:28 AM ^

True, however, combine those losses with the lack of scholarships and bowl bids, throw in Lane's spotty coaching resume`, which rival recruiters will no doubt bring up,and I think you'll see a noticeable change.  The pendulum always swings in this sport, and USC should be fading.


July 29th, 2010 at 2:13 AM ^

I know Michigan rarely takes JUCO recruits, but my mouth drools just at the thought of getting this 4* LB to come here this season.  Something about a 6'2" 245 lb LB who can run a 4.42 40-time....I know it won't happen, and it says he's looking at FSU.  But still, I can dream of Ezeh and Moutan having to compete against something other than freshmen and walk-ons.


July 29th, 2010 at 2:21 AM ^

This one might not fit the Michigan academic profile, but hopefully they are aggressively pursuing some of the kids USC is favored to get for 2011. Assuming USC's appeal is turned down, some of those kids might have second thoughts about spending the next four years at a school that will be seriously hobbled by lack of depth.


July 29th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^

They won't. Reasons why:

1) Both their scholarship number and their number of five star players is going to drop, drop, drop over the next three years. 

2) The sanctions will probably be upheld and that will be a blow to the current recruiting class.

3) With reduced numbers and deteriorating quality, USC will gradually fall further from the standard set in the Pete Carrol era. The team will lose their PAC 10 dynasty aura. Win forever will sound even more ridiculous and bloated than it already does today. USC won't mean the same thing to recruits in three years as it does today and USC will get stuck in a cycle of mediocrity.


July 29th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

I'm not sure they'll be fine either.  Sure, they travel with 60.  But when you only have 70 to pick your 60 from, and 18 of those are true freshman (many of whom will need to be redshirted, or should have been redshirted), some will be injured at some point in the season, and some are guys that just didn't pan out like you though they would, your 60 isn't as good as many other team's 60, or at least not as good as the 60 you'd pick if you had a full 80-85 to pick from. 

Look at OL - Seantrel was supposed to be #2 on the depth chart at LT.  He's now gone, and USC doesn't have much depth at any OL position right now.  A couple injuries on the OL (an oft-injured position group) and they're in big trouble.  Based on their numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case at other positions as well.


July 29th, 2010 at 7:30 AM ^

it takes this kid a little bit longer to figure things out.  After a year of a juco education, he figured out what the rest of us already knew to be true:  Lane Kiffin is a douchebag and steering clear of him is the thing to do.


July 29th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^

why would he want to go to a school that has no chance of playing in a bowl game?  He made the right decision and I wish him luck at his next school. 


July 29th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

How many have transferred so far? All I know is of this guy, Seantrel and one other that I seem to recall went to Tennessee. They had 20 in this recruiting class. It would be interesting if the net gain was dropped below 15 due to people leaving.


July 29th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^

They will be hurt in 4-5 years, when they are feeling the sting of having only 15 recruits for three classes straight.  Assuming normal attrition, they could be looking at a few senior classes that are really really small.