Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

because the appeal ruling will not come until after signing day the 15 scollie limit will not apply. Sc applied to reduce to 20. they are assuming they will be granted that, But SC found a loophole. 9 of their commits are early entries and count towards last yrs class so they will be taking 29 this class, this is per SC fans.

The way U$C is trying to weasel around the sanctions is not going to look good to the NCAA for reducing the penalties IMO.

They'll lose the appeal, and the restriction of 15 per year will be pushed to 4 years instead of 3. I'm not stressing their class though, you can only have so many WR's and RB's on the field at one time. They're still weak where it matters most. The trenches, the LB corps, and the secondary.(Especially if they don't get Lee)

Supreme wrote:They'll lose the appeal, and the restriction of 15 per year will be pushed to 4 years instead of 3. I'm not stressing their class though, you can only have so many WR's and RB's on the field at one time. They're still weak where it matters most. The trenches, the LB corps, and the secondary.(Especially if they don't get Lee)

They really haven't addressed addressed their OL depth. They tried to get some help at OL and LB with some JC transfers, but they aren't as highly rated as past JC transfers they've gotten before. Using a lot of JCs isn't good because it shortchanges the freshman class when they get to be upperclassmen.

Sc applied to reduce to 20. they are assuming they will be granted that

uh what? they aren't assuming a damn thing. when the AD even says they have a 10% of winning their case, they are assuming the worst, not the best. good lord where do people come up with this stuff?

hines wrote:

Sc applied to reduce to 20. they are assuming they will be granted that

uh what? they aren't assuming a damn thing. when the AD even says they have a 10% of winning their case, they are assuming the worst, not the best. good lord where do people come up with this stuff?

Agreed, I think the only person assuming anything is Kiffin, and we all know how bright he is.

I'm not really concerned about the loophole either. Isn't part of the sanctions that they can carry only 75 players also? If so this will force them to cut some of their talent eventually or some kids will transfer out.

Supreme wrote:They'll lose the appeal, and the restriction of 15 per year will be pushed to 4 years instead of 3. I'm not stressing their class though, you can only have so many WR's and RB's on the field at one time. They're still weak where it matters most. The trenches, the LB corps, and the secondary.(Especially if they don't get Lee)

I didn't know we had some NCAA employees over here.

USC is taking 29-30 in this class and taking 15 (per year) the next couple of years. They are appealing a couple things, but the number of recruits in this class has nothing to do with the appeals, or that USC feels confident (something that I have also heard) about the reduction of sanctions. They are taking this many because they can, and they won't be able to load up the next couple of years.

Braveheart wrote:

Supreme wrote:They'll lose the appeal, and the restriction of 15 per year will be pushed to 4 years instead of 3. I'm not stressing their class though, you can only have so many WR's and RB's on the field at one time. They're still weak where it matters most. The trenches, the LB corps, and the secondary.(Especially if they don't get Lee)

I didn't know we had some NCAA employees over here.

USC is taking 29-30 in this class and taking 15 (per year) the next couple of years. They are appealing a couple things, but the number of recruits in this class has nothing to do with the appeals, or that USC feels confident (something that I have also heard) about the reduction of sanctions. They are taking this many because they can, and they won't be able to load up the next couple of years.

I've heard the direct opposite about USC's chances at winning the appeal, mainly from wearesc.

ppilot wrote:

Braveheart wrote:

Supreme wrote:They'll lose the appeal, and the restriction of 15 per year will be pushed to 4 years instead of 3. I'm not stressing their class though, you can only have so many WR's and RB's on the field at one time. They're still weak where it matters most. The trenches, the LB corps, and the secondary.(Especially if they don't get Lee)

I didn't know we had some NCAA employees over here.

USC is taking 29-30 in this class and taking 15 (per year) the next couple of years. They are appealing a couple things, but the number of recruits in this class has nothing to do with the appeals, or that USC feels confident (something that I have also heard) about the reduction of sanctions. They are taking this many because they can, and they won't be able to load up the next couple of years.

I've heard the direct opposite about USC's chances at winning the appeal, mainly from wearesc.

Never said USC is going to win, I'll be the first to say they aren't. I just said word is people around the program feel confident. Btw, WeAreSC isn't the best place for USC info, but for something free...it's alright. It's a terrible board half full of homers/idiots.

It'll be interesting to see what the NCAA does with the appeal. I think even the biggest USC homers would agree that they deserve some kind of significant punishment, and I don't think 15 schollies for three years was really that harsh.

Tray Dub wrote:It'll be interesting to see what the NCAA does with the appeal. I think even the biggest USC homers would agree that they deserve some kind of significant punishment, and I don't think 15 schollies for three years was really that harsh.

I think it was pretty Harsh considering only SMU got worst, and all these other programs (recently) in trouble haven't got anything (and it doesn't look like they'll be getting anything in the future). It's not just the 15 schollies though. It's a two year bowl ban, four years probation, erasing wins, only playing with 70 people on scholarship.

It changes the way USC practices (they don't practice tackling in fear of injuring much needed players). Almost nobody is allowed at practices (including family and ex players). The program is still under a large scope, and USC's image in the media is hurt (something very important in recruiting). USC is still USC, and the university speaks for itself. Tough times these next 5 years, but USC will ride it out.

Braveheart wrote:and USC's image in the media is hurt (something very important in recruiting)

Clearly....

Braveheart wrote:

Tray Dub wrote:It'll be interesting to see what the NCAA does with the appeal. I think even the biggest USC homers would agree that they deserve some kind of significant punishment, and I don't think 15 schollies for three years was really that harsh.

I think it was pretty Harsh considering only SMU got worst, and all these other programs (recently) in trouble haven't got anything (and it doesn't look like they'll be getting anything in the future). It's not just the 15 schollies though. It's a two year bowl ban, four years probation, erasing wins, only playing with 70 people on scholarship.

It changes the way USC practices (they don't practice tackling in fear of injuring much needed players). Almost nobody is allowed at practices (including family and ex players). The program is still under a large scope, and USC's image in the media is hurt (something very important in recruiting). USC is still USC, and the university speaks for itself. Tough times these next 5 years, but USC will ride it out.

No offense, but my hope is that USC crumbles, and ends up very much like SMU.

karlhungis wrote:

Braveheart wrote:and USC's image in the media is hurt (something very important in recruiting)

Clearly....

It doesn't look like it at first glance, but it does affect recruiting. USC is still USC though, and they control SoCal for the most part (regardless of sanctions).

No offense, but my hope is that USC crumbles, and ends up very much like SMU.

None taken. I don't hate UO, I just wish they would've beat Auburn.

Even with these sanctions, I just don't see USC being down for that long after the sanctions ending. They just have too much history and too many positives to stay down forever. I just don't see the Trojans getting back up to the level of Pete Carroll's team with Kiffin at the helm, as Carroll is a far superior coach to Kiffin.