Reviewing the NCAA Sanctions on USC Football
by Jim Miesle on Jan 11, 2012 7:00 AM EST
Email
PrintFollowing the announcement of Amir Carlisle transferring into Notre Dame from USC, there began an internal conversation (to the OFD writers) about just what was going on at USC. It appears (to the casual observer) that several players are leaving the program because either (a) they are being asked to, or (b) the staff isn't trying very hard to retain them if they are thinking of leaving.
As a result, I wanted to dig a little deeper into their scholarship numbers now that the sanctions will take effect.
For more information, you can read here (LA Times article) or here (NCAA press release).
What we know:
- USC is allowed 15 football scholarships per year (instead of 25) for the next three years
- Additionally, they are allowed a maximum of 75 scholarship football players total over the same period
All told, this amounts to a total reduction of 30 scholarships over a three year period.
More numbers after the jump.
The Numbers:
Based on what I have read, USC will be able to take 17 football players in the 2012 class thanks to early entries during last year's recruiting cycle (which officially stands at 23). Of those 17, two have to be January enrollees.
Note: the rest of the numbers come from Scout, so take that for what its worth. You can view the eligibility chart here.
Current scholarship football players from 2011 season (including graduating seniors): 80
Seniors out of eligibility: 10
Seniors eligible for 5th year: 3
Transfers (6): Dillon Baxter, Brice Butler, TJ Bryant, Amir Carlisle, Kyle Prater, Armond Armstead
NFL Draft Early Entries (2): Matt Kalil, Nick Perry
Current verbal commitments for 2012: 12 (includes 2 Junior College transfers that count toward the 2011 class)
Other reported transfers into USC (2): Joshua Shaw, DeVante Wilson (committed last year but delayed enrollment due to knee injury)
Now for a little arithmetic (and Mouth can help me out if I screw this up): 80-10-3-6-2 = 59 returning players, which assumes that there are no 5th year seniors in 2012.
Considering that they can take up to 17 players in 2012 (which they would more than likely do), they can return a total of 58 players (75-17 = 58).
Meaning: there will be one more "transfer" likely in the next few days.
Current Recruiting Class:
Currently, there are 14 players listed in some state of commitment to USC. This means they have 3 remaining scholarships for 2012.
Finally, a quick view at their depth chart:
QB - 5
RB - 6
WR - 7
TE - 4
OL - 13
DL - 12
LB - 9
DB - 13
K/P/LS - 3
Total: 72
Final Thoughts:
It appears that while the Trojans may be okay for the 2012 season, the NCAA sanctions will take their toll over the next few years as they lose players due to graduation, the NFL and natural attrition. I have read more than a few conspiracy theorists that maintain that Kiffin and his staff are loading up for a run in 2012 and then will move on to greener pastures.
Only time will tell to what extent the sanctions impact the USC program.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I dont understand how the EE thing works as being applied to last years class.
When the Shepard/USC thing was news, Rivals in article had said basically…“if Shepard enrolls early, he will be counted toward last years class along with 6 other early enrolles.” Is this just a way to beat the sanctions…I just dont get it.
Kind of...
Kiffin loaded up on EEs last year to skirt around the sanctions. I think their class was around 30, with 7 EEs, so the 2011 number was “technically” only 23—that is why they could sign 17 instead of 15.
EEs only count against the previous class if there is room (less than 25), otherwise they count for the current class.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
I was wondering how they could sign 17 this year.
So two of them apply to last year as EEs.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 12, 2012 5:45 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Works that way for every team.
Not quite a way to beat the sanctions, but it sure helps. Since you are enrolling before your class is supposed to in the fall, you are considered part of the previous class and counts against their scholarship allotment of 25 instead of the incoming group’s allotment. Thus, if you only took 20 players in 2011’s class (and they all stayed), you could have 5 enroll now and still sign another 25 on NSD. So, you can bring in 30 total.
If BIG LOUIS NIX was a Mississippi Blues Man, he'd be Jellyroll T-Bone McPorkchop, ‘cuz he's all meat, with just a little bit of sweet.
Jonathan Toews will eat your baby if it means two points.
Viva El Churro! El Churro lo ve todo!
Thank you...I have a hypothetical for you. Lets say the Irish have 4 spots left for recruits
and all their “A List” guys like Agholor, Armstead, Wright etc. commit elsewhere, do you fill the class with 3* star players, or would BK even think of going with just what he has and go for a big class for 2013. Say he has 4 EE so he could apply them to 2012 and take 25, if he has that many vacancies for 2013, and have a large class….is this even feasable and would BK, or for that matter any headcoach do that.
Interesting question.
I’d assume it would come down to if there were still positions that needed filling and couldn’t wait until the next year. Plus, you would have to know that at least 4 of your targets for the next cycle would be on track to graduate in December from HS.
If BIG LOUIS NIX was a Mississippi Blues Man, he'd be Jellyroll T-Bone McPorkchop, ‘cuz he's all meat, with just a little bit of sweet.
Jonathan Toews will eat your baby if it means two points.
Viva El Churro! El Churro lo ve todo!
I think he definitely passes on the lower tier guys...
unless the it is a true position of need (which I think they are fine across the board). Based on my previous analysis, BK and staff need to use these spots for top tier athletes (difference makers) or give them to 5th years (known commodities) and start working toward 2013.
Evidence shows that this is likely what is happening. They never did offer Schyler Miles (HS team mate of Agholor who visited in Dec) and he is no longer considering ND. I think the kid will be a solid player, but the staff didn’t necessarily need him short term, so they essentially parted ways.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Not necessarily
There are some lower tier guys that I think he will take. Miles never fit the size profile that the coaching staff is looking for at MLB. But some guys like Anthony Standifer (CB from Michigan, maybe can play S) or Raphael Andrades (WR from Florida, slot or outside) are lower tier guys that I think they will take pending some of those other decisions because they fit the size and/or position flexibility that they put such a premium on. They seem like they are confident that they can coach up anyone (justifiably so) and when someone fits the profile they are looking for, they would take them. A bird in the hand…
Looks like Kiffin has a tummy ache
Still sticking by my word that the reductions aren’t going to do a ton of damage to USC.
Especially if they are a national title contender next year. They’ll weather this storm and be back to normal before you know it.
Reverse jinx?
Maybe…
But not really.
Sky rockets in flight.
Eric, I tend to disagree with you, but...
it will just take longer for the sanctions to fully impact the team. Here is what I mean:
2012: 15
2013: 15
2014: 15
2015: 25 (no EEs count against 2014 b/c of sanctions)
Total: 70 scholarship football players in 2015, and that doesn’t take into account early NFL entries, transfers, injuries, etc (which they can’t back-fill).
Based on that, it won’t be until 2017 that they are back to 85 scholarship football players.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Agree
There is going to be a delay here that won’t really show up on the field until 13’ or 14’.
That said if there are two guys out there that will be able to navigate this as well as is possible it is Kiffin and Orgeron.
Having a solid season in 12’ won’t hurt either. I’m guessing that most recruits won’t see through the smoke and mirrors and realize that some tough times might be ahead.
If they are able to maximize the “VHT’s” as Phil Steele calls them, in these little classes of 15 it will reduce the impact significantly.
Their success in landing enough players in the positions that need development (OL/DL) is something to keep an eye on. Great skill players can typically compete early but with a broken OL it becomes a moot point.
This will be really interesting to keep a close eye on for the next few years.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
by whiskey OFD on Jan 11, 2012 9:32 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Well the question now becomes
Will the lack of scholarships truly hurt USC?
It seems they will to some degree, but being USC, I think the “punishment” and repercussions will be and have been overstated.
I guess what I’m trying to say (and what Whiskey said as well) is that if there’s any school or recruiters who can put up with the next few years, it’s likely USC and Kiffin & Co.
I’m also building a defense early in case I turn out to be right. We were told top flight recruits would be loath to go to Los Angeles and that USC would tumble in the recruiting rankings two years ago.
So far, they’ve been just fine and dandy.
Of course once they lose Barkley and the scholarships start to squeeze them, things will get more difficult, but I think they’ll be a top 15-20-ish team through all of this.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 11, 2012 9:46 AM EST up reply actions
I'd bet that the schollie restrictions eventually catch up to them
Working with 10 fewer player per year really cuts down on the room for error. There will always be the inevitable busts, injuries, and (non-forced) transfers, meaning that the true number of players that can make a contribution on the field will be lower, and that is going to take a toll. Even though SC will likely still have a starting roster full of 4 and 5 stars, the reductions will really affect their depth, which usually a major component of a championship team.
Any time a team is that far below 85 scholarship players it is going to suffer. Ty never seemed to be able to keep a full roster at ND, leaving us with a turnstall of a line, and I think Florida has been operating with less than 80 scholarships this past year and that didn’t go very well for them.
Even the Pope hates the Trojans
by Publius2010 on Jan 11, 2012 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
I think what everyone calls "reverse jinx"
just means “intentional jinx”.
Right?
I dunno, I think they’ll have a hard time down the road with depth. If they have a bad year with injuries in any of the next three years, they’ll be screwed.
I hate USC as much as the next ND fan...
but, I’m still upset that the people who were responsible for this mess get away scott-free and are paid millions and millions of dollars to play and coach something that they love. As a budding journalist, if I was paid by a company or person outside my place of employment to write a story that eventually won awards and I was caught years down the road, sure I would have made my money, but I would be blacklisted from ever getting another writing job. Furthermore, my credibility goes right out the door. It disgusts me that we celebrate and reward fraudulent behavior, while the kids who stick around or come in years later get hit with the sanctions and are essentially robbed of their full college football experience. Yeah, I’m looking right at you Pete Carroll and Reggie Bush…
Anyway, I agree with the sentiment that we’ll eventually see how this impacts USC, may not in the immediate future, but I’m sure it’ll do some damage to their program. Hopefully, lil Kiffin is there because he deserves a little negative karma after what he did to UT.
/rant
"Although I really thought that you were 'Anti Internet-Tough-Guy.' But no, you’re a tough guy who’s against the internets? I see." Mouth of the South
Only a little negative karma?
Even the Pope hates the Trojans
by Publius2010 on Jan 11, 2012 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
by "a little" I mean "a boat load"
"Although I really thought that you were 'Anti Internet-Tough-Guy.' But no, you’re a tough guy who’s against the internets? I see." Mouth of the South
Don't forget Lane
Lane Kiffin was the OC back when the nonsense happened, and when you consider the sophomoric garbage he pulled in Tennessee, I doubt that his hands were very clean. Yet he gets a promotion.
Also, SC employed only had one NCAA compliance officer for 1000 student athletes; it makes sense that the whole organization should be punished. The kids coming in the last few years were well aware of the sanctions, so I don’t feel sorry for them. They will still get a quality education (if they want it) and a shot at the pros. After all, isn’t the education what it is supposed to be all about?
Nicely done, Jim
First, I have a lot of respect for USC – the university and many of its fans, plus not a lot for Carroll and more for Haden than Kiffin.
Bush and Carroll screwed them. Every program worries about someone going off the reservation and it could happen at ND some day. Vigilance and follow-up (read compliance) are key to minimizing NCAA impacts. Looking at recent decisions w.r.t. Ohio State, North Carolina, Auburn, Miami, it’s debatable for a USC fan to argue that the NCAA went overboard.
This year they get below 75 with the transfers, but there is no give in future years – no EEs since they will have maxed their 15 each year. If a Barkley leaves early for the NFL, that has to accounted for in the recruiting. As numbers thin at a position, say they have three QBs, they don’t want to just learn that in January, but ideally be recruiting for a QB over the course of the recruiting year.
With more transfers and leaving for the NFL, the total numbers will just diminish. 2015 will have to make up for those losses and will be limited to 25.
by Michael Collins on Jan 11, 2012 11:08 AM EST reply actions
Rate of Attrition
This is just speculation based on past performance with a lot of estimates added in, so take it with a grain of salt.
If you look at the NCAA GSR numbers from last year, USC only graduates 61% of its student athletes in any given six year period. If you count players leaving early for the pros, the number is reduced to 54%. Now you have a roster of 75 scholarship athletes and apply that rate of attrition over the next four years, the numbers look bleak.
Based on four years of eligibility, by 2016 only 40 or so of those players will still be on the team in their fourth year of eligibility. Now using the 75 number and factoring in the graduation rate based on that number, you are also going to lose about 10 players per year to graduation.
Now here is where the math gets sketchy. 35 or so lost to attrition averages to 9 per year. Add in the 10 graduates and you are losing 19 players per year, but are only allowed to replenish at the rate of 15 per year. This leaves you with 71 scholarship athletes in 2013, 67 in 2014 and 63 in 2015. For 2016, you are back up to 69 with a class of 25 recruits.
Now the bulk of the team is under classmen which works into their favor and I guarantee the numbers above will be wrong. That being said, there is also some truth in the math, despite the high level of estimation. What you should take away from this exercise is that the sanctions will hurt over time. USC has a high rate of attrition compared to other schools (average 68%). Under normal circumstances the rate of attrition doesn’t hurt them as they recruit as well as anyone. Losing ten scholarships makes keeping those players on the roster paramount; otherwise you will be seeing quite a few walk-ons on the roster.
TB18
Not to sound to spidery, but where did you get those numbers, especially the academic attrition?
As a cursory follower of USC, from a rival’s perspective obviously, I have never heard that much academic attrition from the program, and I think that the low GSR includes those who exhaust their 4/5 year eligibility without receiving a diploma, not necessarily thise who wash out over the 4/5 years in South Central.
Or I am completely misreading the argument. In either case, a little help?
Well hello there hangover. Fancy meeting you here this bright Thursday morning.
by Cranked_Irish on Jan 11, 2012 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
So when we say USC will be hurt over time, does that mean they will probably just be an 8-5 team or a 10-3 team that still beats ND every year?
Because that’s all I see really happening to USC. If they suffer at all it will be in the way of competing for BCS games rather than for a championship. Their suffering will still be better than our success/improvement.
Im a proponent of quality over quantity, and at USC they will get as much quality as they want. A place like ND or Iowa needs more quantity because we can’t count on getting the best quality year in and year out.
The only punishment USC really had to deal with was losing Pete Carroll and having a coaching change. Top recruits have not and will not stop coming to USC because of any NCAA sanctions….there was only a minor blip because of a coaching change, and now that’s over.
No university in the NCAA nor the NCAA itself truly cares about education in comparison to the game of football, except for Stanford, ND, Duke, and the Ivy League.
Mr. Sunshine over here
A top level program needs quality and quantity you need to have quality backups in order to keep the starters fresh and replace production after the inevitable injuries that occur during the season. The point is that SC will continue to have great starters, but their two deep will suffer as the sanctions take hold, leaving them less capable of replacing production lost through injury or graduation, not to mention forcing more minutes on the starters, which will tire them.
Even the Pope hates the Trojans
I think your view is a bit myopic...
and is largely based on the success that USC enjoyed over the past decade. For example, from 1983-2001, ND was 15-3-1 vs USC, and while most of that was the Holtz era, it also includes Faust and Davie. They were pretty average for a long stretch before that. They have always produced NFL talent, but so has Notre Dame.
College football programs are cyclical. They always have been, always will be. Case in point would be Alabama. Five years ago, they didn’t look like anything special…now they won 2 of the last 3 NCs.
The Trojans will always get athletes based on tradition and location. I am not going to argue with that point. But to say that the sanctions will not hurt the program, I have to disagree.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Your point about it being cyclical couldn't be more true.
That is something that people tend to forget. We have short memories.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
by whiskey OFD on Jan 11, 2012 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
An analysis of predicting the top recruits (Rivals 250) choices showed
that:
“…high school athletes prefer winning programs that arePrediction Model article
close to home, are in possession of good physical facilities, and are in good
graces with the NCAA. Interestingly enough however, reduced scholarships increase the likelihood of choosing a particular school, holding all else constant. This is likely because reduced scholarships imply reduced competition for exposure and playing time in the future.”
Also, in an SI study,
“Of the nine schools that won 50 or more games from 2004-08, seven signed more than half their recruits during that span from within their state or from within 200 miles of campus.”
So, a winning USC program that sits in the heart of the recruiting hotbed of SoCal under scholarship reductions that force it to concentrate on top prospects will have top recruiting class (by stars). They will be thin at overall depth and have to short some positions some years. Attrition rate, transfers, opting out early will be key factors from here on out.
by Michael Collins on Jan 11, 2012 10:43 PM EST reply actions
Did a little research and found
an article from the OC Register after Carlisle and Prater have left that says:
As of this writing, I count 68 scholarship players on USC’s roster. That includes receiver Brice Butler and defensive lineman Armond Armstead, both of whom are expected to transfer.
Assuming they do, and assuming USC signs 15 players come February, Kiffin still will have to figure out a way to trim six players by training camp. Or not.
"In every program … there’s always natural attrition, whether that’s transfers, whether that’s academic casualties. It always happens," Kiffin said last week. (Italics mine)
Five players have just entered USC early – the four listed here plus Josh Shaw, transferring from Florida. Ten more to sign for this year with seven of those ten verbally committed. Three scholarships left with four to trim. Butler is going to SDSU and Armstead is nearly his decision. Both brothers are visiting Auburn for four days this weekend.
by Michael Collins on Jan 12, 2012 10:47 AM EST reply actions
Four days at Auburn?
Me no likey. If they’re thinking tat hard about Auburn, they havent learned their lesson about getting burned by a big time CFB factory. Good luck to em.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 13, 2012 11:15 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
They're actually only there Thurs-Saturday
From what I read it would be extremely shocking if Auburn was where Arik landed – not even in his top 3. But stranger things have happened!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on One Foot Down
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE ONE FOOT DOWN STORE
