Talk to the Hand: NCAA Upholds USC Sanctions, What’s Next for Troy?

This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, as this information has been leaking out over the past couple of weeks. They are now looking at a single digit recruiting class for 2012 and have serious problems at OL and LB. This will impact the team and program for the next 5-7 years easily. I agree that this isn’t good for college football overall, and not good for the Irish SOS in the coming years, but you get what you deserve. Its just too bad that it took the NCAA this long to investigate/rule/finalize. Reggie Bush has been out of college football for what, 5 years?

Is it just me, or has a heater just been added to Kiffin’s seat?

Kiffin being hired at USC is so shocking that it’s not shocking. You know what I mean?

People think he’s the fall guy now and will be the one to get the program through these years and so everyone can blame him afterward. But why do that if you’re USC?

Is Kiffin’s seat hot? I don’t even know! How someone like Pat Haden can actively support a coach like Kiffin is completely and totally baffling.

I disagree with the notion that a subpar USC is bad for Notre Dame. I think it’s great for Notre Dame, as it makes them that much easier to beat. You know what was bad for Notre Dame? A powerhouse USC who they couldn’t compete with. Sure, a subpar USC makes for a less interesting storyline, but storylines aren’t what get placed in the record books, wins and losses are. I just want to beat USC, and if that means they get worse in the process, so be it.

The biggest problem USC has going for them is Lane Kiffin is their head coach, and the guy is a complete incompetent. After the USC game last year, I came on here and posted about how bad I thought he did in that game. Frankly, the guy has never earned a job promotion in his life, and yet he somehow gets to coach the Raiders, Tennessee and now USC. All of this for being co-offensive coordinator for a few years!

And Notre Dame knows as well as anybody how one bad head coach can send you into a downward spiral that takes years (decades?) to overcome. Notre Dame, to this day, is still paying for the Bob Davie misfire. His firing led to Willingham, which led to Weis, which now leads to Kelly. Hopefully this is the end of it, but in the meantime Notre Dame is still reeling from the Davie years. Losing begets lost recruits which begets more losing…it’s a vicious cycle we know all too well. In my opinion, Lane Kiffin will be that guy for USC. They’ll stop winning Pac-12 titles, and recruits will start going elsewhere (Notre Dame, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, etc.), and that will keep them losing, and then a new coach will take over with a bare cupboard to refill which will take years…I know this song and dance all too well, and so do you.

Chris,

I’m just one of those who wishes to see Notre Dame beat a strong USC team. It’s not like I’m advocating the sanctions be removed, but this is our biggest rival, our primetime game in most years. Sure with the addition of some Miami, OU, and Texas games we might have a bigger game in the coming years, but this should be the big game for the Irish.

I understand wanting to pound USC, especially if they’re down, but I fear the ramifications of a mediocre USC and what that does to ND’s strength of schedule.

Plus, in the modern era, Notre Dame has always won a title whenever USC was also very strong.

In the late 80’s USC was very good going 35-12 from 1987-90.

ND title in 1977: USC was 42-6 from 1976-79.

ND title in 1973: USC was 39-7 from 1972-75.

They had a couple rough years in the 1960’s (particularly early in the decade), but they still racked up a 83-28 record with two national titles.

Bottom line, whenever Notre Dame has enjoyed prolonged success, it has meant playing and beating elite USC teams. Factor in that in the past Notre Dame’s schedules were a little tougher and the reliance of competing against a great USC team is even stronger.

Sure for 2012 it might not matter, but I think it does in 2011 where the schedule isn’t nearly as formidable. An independent Irish program has to rely on USC being a big game, especially with Michigan being down.

I think you’re right that USC will be a perennial 8-9 win team over the next five or six years; maybe they drop to 6 or 7 wins in there once, but not regularly.

USC should still be coming in to ND with 1 or fewer losses when we’re at home, and shouldn’t have more than 2-3 losses when they’re at home. That’s still a big game.

USC will suffer the same fate we’ve endured for the last ~15 years. A wounded national football power, usually overrated, which ends up being a great poll-boosting win for its better coached rivals.

Good for ‘em…….frickin’ cheaters.

Here’s the breakdown of the impact on USC scholarships:

- With 30 freshmen in the 2011 class, USC will start this season with 82 scholarship players.
  
- They have 13 players exhaust their eligibility, leaving 69 players with eligibility for 2012

- Next year’s roster is limited to 75, so, at this point, they only have room for six recruits in the 2012 class, unless some current players choose to transfer or leave for any other reasons – NFL, more playing time, etc.

-USC currently has eight prospects verbally-committed in the 2012 class. Three recruits ND has offered – Arik Armstead, Jordan Payton and Max Tuerk – are verbal commits now among those eight.

- Assume two transfers, four possible juniors entering the NFL draft (Barkley, Kahil, McDonald, Perry), three from 2011 class as yet not academically qualified. (9 possible total, leaving 60 scholarship players and allowing a class of 15 for 2012.)

- If not all four go into the NFL and/or one or more of the three not yet academically qualified qualifies, then Kiffin and company will try to drive out players who will not make the two deep in their career, especially to make room for some highly rated prospects.

- The bowl and conference championship ban ends after this season, but eligibility losses and further transfers should be more than the 15 per year limit. The overall scholarships by year three have been estimated to decrease to the upper 50s.

- Highest need areas for the Trojans are: OL (need 4-5), DL (need 3-4), LB (need 2-3) and DB (need 2-3). Total — 11-15. They are well stocked at WR, RB, TE and Special Teams.

- Of the current eight commits, they have one DL, one OL, one LB in their four areas of positions of need. Expect the Trojans to try to hang on to Armstead and Tuerk who fill positions of need.

- Four of their current eight verbally committed recruits are at well-stocked positions – 2 at WR and 2 RBs. WR commit, Jordan Payton, is looking around and could take visits elsewhere. The other WR (Darreus Rogers) also plays S, which would be a position of need. That leaves a total of four verbally committed recruits at positions of need with eleven scholarships left to give out for areas above.

How can you be on the hot seat when you come into a situation where you are so limited on scholarships? If they win 8 gpy for the next 4 years, can that really considered underachieving?

MC, can they fill the spots of transfers? I thought I read where they could not. ???

Just to clarify what MC is talking about—the sanctions limit the overall total number of scholarships to 75 (a reduction of 10 from 85) and a limit of 15 incoming recruits per season over the next 3 years. If players leave, the can be replaced, but the total numbers cannot exceed 15 for the year. Expect USC to try to get as many early enrollees this year as well, since the numbers technically count towards the 2011 numbers and not 2012.

Bottom line, the sanctions will have an impact in the short term, but the full effect won’t be seen for a few years when their overall numbers start to get into the 60s or upper 50s for total number of scholarship football players. It will be interesting to see how this impacts the program long term. USC has always been a destination for talented players even when they weren’t winning a ton of games. On the scale of zero to SMU (aka the death penalty), I am not sure where this ends up, other than to say it will be in the middle, but maybe a bit closer to SMU than we think right now.

I think I have to agree with Chris on this broad debate regarding “should we happy about this” or “does it matter to ND if USC is down” (whichever way you choose to define the conversation). ND needs to win games. I think making the assumption that there will be a grave impact on ND if USC is winning 7-9 games a year versus 10-12 a year (felt through effects on SOS) for the next 5-7 years is somewhat misguided or, at least, idealizes the possibilities of where ND is headed. Again, ND needs to win football games. A “down” USC only affects ND significantly if we are competing for the national championship annually (i.e. how ND being down for the last decade probably hurt SC during their [cheating] reign of terror to some degree). While I would love to be wrong about this and while I think Kelly is the right man for the job, I do not envision us being in the NC discussion annually, regardless of how well BK does. Look at what happened to Florida under Meyer when Tebow graduated or Texas under Brown when McCoy left. National powers (with more built-in advantages than ND, particularly vis-a-vis recruiting home grown talent annually) ebb and flow, rising to the apex for a few years and then rebuilding-reloading, falling out of the NC talk intermittently. Hell, even Saban’s Tide went 9-3 last year. This is all a long way of saying, if ND goes undefeated against a schedule that includes, for example, Miami, OK, MSU, MI, and USC, we’re probably playing for the NC. If we lose a game or two in that schedule, we’re in a BCS bowl. I suppose if you take this year (Ore, Auburn, TCU) as an example maybe ND=TCU (being left out of the NC) if they don’t defeat a world-beater USC team, but I still think there is a bigger benefit to ND of beating a weakened SC 8 of the next 10 years versus wringing our hands over the possibility that an 8-4 USC waters down our SOS.

Jim is exactly right that the scholarship limitations will minimize transfers (in). Transfers in from another FBS program – like potentially Forcier or Russell Wilson – would have to sit out a year, which is unworkable unless they are deep at a position and the transfer will be an immediate starter the next year.

The Appeals Committee and NCAA will let seniors to be transfer out this year. Some others who may not be seeing the playing time they want could transfer out down the road. Can all those WR recruits find the playing time they wanted?

Early enrollees – The most EEs for 2012 that USC can get would be two. The bind is that you want to have senior leadership, in general, but if juniors to be this year return instead of enter the NFL Draft (4 potential) then that reduces the overall total of 17 (15 + 2).

Imagine if they had not gotten 30 LOIs, though that may be 26 or 27 unless they meet academic requirements? Imagine if they had started with 77 on scholarship instead of 82….

I expect the coaching staff will want recruits with no potential academic liabilities, top talent that can play early, will cull through their roster to see who should be urged to transfer, and will concentrate on top talent in areas of need first.

USC has generally filled their rosters with local SoCal talent. Eliminate a Kicker (Louisiana) and 3 recruits from Arizona and only four non-special teams players out of thirty were from outside the region. USC’s class of 2012 should be more national, though the OL

Until now, they have also had the luxury of taking players who could take a year off to work on academics. Six of the 30 from last year are on eligibility watch. Three seem on track to qualify. What happens to the other three (Woods – DT, Dillon – DE, and Tavai, Ath) )if they do not qualify for 2011? If they did, the 2012 scholarship count drops to 12. If they do not, those players could be in the midst of the scholarship crunch and will be compared to prospects at those positions who wanted to commit from the 2012 class. Could those three be counted on to maintain their academic eligibility and play three years at least?

Areas of need – Graduations/Leaving early -
Offensive Line. USC expects to lose 7 OLmen in the next 2 yrs
Defensive Line – Three lose eligibility after this year and one junior may turn pro.
Linebackers – Loss of 5 LBs in the next 2 yrs.

Correct me if I’m wrong but, SC won’t be able to put early enrollees in the 2011 class as it was full(25) The 2010 class only had 18 players, that’s how they loaded up this past spring.

The 2011 class was swollen with EEs and taking players who were marginal academically.

Since USC took only 14 in 2010, they ended up with 9 early enrollees from the 2011 class counting towards 2010. One did not qualified academically. If he does, he would count for 2011. Right now they have 21 for the 2011 class with a possibility of 22. A total of six had not met requirements, but three look like they will.

So, they could take 3-4 for the 2011 class as early enrollees despite the huge class size this past Feb. I don’t know that many of their potential class is on track for EE. So far, only two have been mentioned as possible EEs.

Subtracting EEs and the possible three that may not qualify academically, the freshmen class could see only 19 enter in the fall. So there is room for EEs from the 2012 class, but the questions are how many prospects are on track for that and will they be at positions of need?

this is a train wreck in slow motion. In a couple of years they will get down to 60 guys and they will have a couple of injuries by mid season. Then they will be vulnerable to the speed up game with a huge number of plays per game, and to teams with a running game, who keep the USC defense on the field until they are spent.