Southern Cal Talented and Energized

Exit fired coach Lane Kiffin and expectations are running high at the Los Angeles school...expecially by an opinionated fanbase. A look at the depth chart shows why. Nearly every position group shows top-end, widely sought after talent, if judged by Rivals and Scout recruiting services. There are at least a dozen future NFL players currently on the team, and even more will arrive when the rest of the recruiting class enrolls in school. This is an incredible talented, deep football team with an energized coaching staff...........

Guess my question is how could a school be in such good shape in the wake of a coaching turmoil and NCAA penalties?

Beware of the Trojans during 2014.....................:toast:

cloverleaf said:

Exit fired coach Lane Kiffin and expectations are running high at the Los Angeles school...expecially by an opinionated fanbase. A look at the depth chart shows why. Nearly every position group shows top-end, widely sought after talent, if judged by Rivals and Scout recruiting services. There are at least a dozen future NFL players currently on the team, and even more will arrive when the rest of the recruiting class enrolls in school. This is an incredible talented, deep football team with an energized coaching staff...........

Guess my question is how could a school be in such good shape in the wake of a coaching turmoil and NCAA penalties?

Beware of the Trojans during 2014.....................:toast:

Click to expand...

Clover: Southern Cal is one of the "flagship" programs of college football with an illustrious history rich in tradition with a lot of wins in their record book .....They will always have a chance to recruit sufficiently via their extended alumni network to field winners and there always seems to be plenty of money "floating around" to lubricate the necessary components to field a winning team. Couple the above with the enthusiasm and expectations that seem to be running high this year along with and the added "spark" being ignited by their new coach, USC could be the "surprise team" in the Pac-12.

Mack, another reason USC can recruit so well is because of location. No cold winters in LA. Plus USC is one of the few schools who can recruit within driving distance of the campus.

15 of 19 recruits in the 2014 class are from the Southern California area. Ton of good players in that part of the state.

Am I the only one not enamored by Steve Sarkisian's record at Washington? I guess 5-4 consistently is ok, but shouldn't the ceiling have been higher for him?

RunLeeRun said:

Am I the only one not enamored by Steve Sarkisian's record at Washington? I guess 5-4 consistently is ok, but shouldn't the ceiling have been higher for him?

Click to expand...

He went 9-4 last year. His only losses last year were to Oregon, UCLA, ASU, and Stanford. Stanford was a 3 point loss, UCLA a 10 point loss, and it was close for a while against Oregon, the only home game of the three. He had a winning record and had decent/good wins over Arizona and BYU in a bowl game. In 2012 he went 7-6 wins good wins over Stanford and USC. Previouis two years they had seven wins. He was at a disadvantage with recruiting. He was working with minimal talent at best. The Huskies are the sixth best team in the PAC 12. They have to go into California and compete for recruits with the likes of USC, UCLA, California, and other schools outside California like Arizona, ASU, and Oregon. How do you sell your program over the likes of the aforementioned? It's not easy. His record was trending upwards as you can see with his last two years. He made some inroads with local HS coaches, and learned how to run a program. Now he inherits a team stockpiled with talent and a team/area he is familiar with. If he can achieve 9 wins @ Washington i believe he can successfully achieve 10 wins a season with a down year here and there. It may not happen next year, but the pieces are in place.

Dr. Lou said:

He went 9-4 last year. His only losses last year were to Oregon, UCLA, ASU, and Stanford. Stanford was a 3 point loss, UCLA a 10 point loss, and it was close for a while against Oregon, the only home game of the three. He had a winning record and had decent/good wins over Arizona and BYU in a bowl game. In 2012 he went 7-6 wins good wins over Stanford and USC. Previouis two years they had seven wins. He was at a disadvantage with recruiting. He was working with minimal talent at best. The Huskies are the sixth best team in the PAC 12. They have to go into California and compete for recruits with the likes of USC, UCLA, California, and other schools outside California like Arizona, ASU, and Oregon. How do you sell your program over the likes of the aforementioned? It's not easy. His record was trending upwards as you can see with his last two years. He made some inroads with local HS coaches, and learned how to run a program. Now he inherits a team stockpiled with talent and a team/area he is familiar with. If he can achieve 9 wins @ Washington i believe he can successfully achieve 10 wins a season with a down year here and there. It may not happen next year, but the pieces are in place.

Click to expand...

Great comments/observations Lou.......I've been following Southern Cal football since the mid-40's.....the 1945 Rose Bowl winners over Tennessee (on the radio of course...ha); They , like most "heavy-weight" programs run "hot and cold". This year they do seem to have many of puzzle-pieces lined up. They could be the surprise team in a tough conference.

Dr. Lou said:

He went 9-4 last year. His only losses last year were to Oregon, UCLA, ASU, and Stanford. Stanford was a 3 point loss, UCLA a 10 point loss, and it was close for a while against Oregon, the only home game of the three. He had a winning record and had decent/good wins over Arizona and BYU in a bowl game. In 2012 he went 7-6 wins good wins over Stanford and USC. Previouis two years they had seven wins. He was at a disadvantage with recruiting. He was working with minimal talent at best. The Huskies are the sixth best team in the PAC 12. They have to go into California and compete for recruits with the likes of USC, UCLA, California, and other schools outside California like Arizona, ASU, and Oregon. How do you sell your program over the likes of the aforementioned? It's not easy. His record was trending upwards as you can see with his last two years. He made some inroads with local HS coaches, and learned how to run a program. Now he inherits a team stockpiled with talent and a team/area he is familiar with. If he can achieve 9 wins @ Washington i believe he can successfully achieve 10 wins a season with a down year here and there. It may not happen next year, but the pieces are in place.

Click to expand...

I don't think recruiting is as much selling a program. That's not to say that being USC doesn't have it's advantages, it would be foolish to say so. USC is a legacy program and its region is loaded with talent. Some of that can be mitigated, imo. To me, modern recruiting is about relationships. Plenty of cfb coaches are able to recruit from areas far away from where they cut their teeth, yet they go into those areas and are able to lure out talent. I see it every year with Nebraska. Their fertile-regional grounds are Missouri and Colorado. (In comparison, Washington has Utah and its home state, all of which are ahead of those mentioned Midwestern states in talent produced that last five years. I hesitate in adding Hawaii and Arizona, because they really aren't that regional, even though my point is to prove it can be overcome. Then you add in California, which is 5 times larger than Missouri/Colorado combined, and well, to me it isn't that insurmountable factor.) Yet, Bo Pelini's history at LSU has allowed to pick up at least one recruit per year in five of his 6 recruiting classes (3 in the 2014 class). Other guys on staff are from Texas and they've done well there too. A recent January addition to the staff opened the door to Georgia just a month before signing day to dividends.

And as I look over Sarkisian's record, I don't see much of an upward trend, rather I see the same repeating theme: 4 conference losses. Always losing to an Oregon school and in two years both, having trouble with the Arizona schools and Stanford. Now, losing to Stanford and Oregon carries no shame, nor losing to LSU by 38 or allowing 65 points to Stanford or giving up 50 points to Nebraska, twice, because perhaps all those programs carried more talent and I firmly believe that "players lose blowouts, coaches lose the close games". I'm not blown away by his close game record. And yet he not only seems to be getting a pass, but he landed one of the great jobs in cfb. Are guys like Brady Hoke getting a pass, even though he won his first 18 home games and won a BCS game in year 1? Or Be Pelini, for all the media vitriole thrown his way, who has won 9 games in each of his first 6 years as a head coach, something that has been done by 6 other guys......ever? Now, neither of those guys should get a pass either, I just find it odd that Sarkisian pulls a Houdini on this one.

Mack Donald said:

Great comments/observations Lou.......I've been following Southern Cal football since the mid-40's.....the 1945 Rose Bowl winners over Tennessee (on the radio of course...ha); They , like most "heavy-weight" programs run "hot and cold". This year they do seem to have many of puzzle-pieces lined up. They could be the surprise team in a tough conference.

Click to expand...

You've come a long ways my man I bet listening to a game on the radio would be quite fun in a way. Have to use more of your imagination. Sarkisian may not turn it around this year, but give him 2-3 years and USC will (again) be one of the upper echelon teams in the PAC 12. They have a rich tradition, plenty of former NFL players come back to USC, and they're in one of the hottest recruiting beds in the US. Im high on them this year.

RunLeeRun said:

I don't think recruiting is as much selling a program. That's not to say that being USC doesn't have it's advantages, it would be foolish to say so. USC is a legacy program and its region is loaded with talent. Some of that can be mitigated, imo. To me, modern recruiting is about relationships. Plenty of cfb coaches are able to recruit from areas far away from where they cut their teeth, yet they go into those areas and are able to lure out talent. I see it every year with Nebraska. Their fertile-regional grounds are Missouri and Colorado. (In comparison, Washington has Utah and its home state, all of which are ahead of those mentioned Midwestern states in talent produced that last five years. I hesitate in adding Hawaii and Arizona, because they really aren't that regional, even though my point is to prove it can be overcome. Then you add in California, which is 5 times larger than Missouri/Colorado combined, and well, to me it isn't that insurmountable factor.) Yet, Bo Pelini's history at LSU has allowed to pick up at least one recruit per year in five of his 6 recruiting classes (3 in the 2014 class). Other guys on staff are from Texas and they've done well there too. A recent January addition to the staff opened the door to Georgia just a month before signing day to dividends.

And as I look over Sarkisian's record, I don't see much of an upward trend, rather I see the same repeating theme: 4 conference losses. Always losing to an Oregon school and in two years both, having trouble with the Arizona schools and Stanford. Now, losing to Stanford and Oregon carries no shame, nor losing to LSU by 38 or allowing 65 points to Stanford or giving up 50 points to Nebraska, twice, because perhaps all those programs carried more talent and I firmly believe that "players lose blowouts, coaches lose the close games". I'm not blown away by his close game record. And yet he not only seems to be getting a pass, but he landed one of the great jobs in cfb. Are guys like Brady Hoke getting a pass, even though he won his first 18 home games and won a BCS game in year 1? Or Be Pelini, for all the media vitriole thrown his way, who has won 9 games in each of his first 6 years as a head coach, something that has been done by 6 other guys......ever? Now, neither of those guys should get a pass either, I just find it odd that Sarkisian pulls a Houdini on this one.

Click to expand...

Every coach is selling their program to recruits one way or another, some just more than others. Go read the bag man article on sb nation and you will see just a small fraction of what goes on behind closed doors. Why do you think schools have bag men that dole out money to these kids? It's to sway (sell) them to their school. Even if they know the kid is not going to sign with the school they still give them $$ to maintain a positive relationship in hopes he talks them up to friends. Washington is a hard(er) sell to a recruit than say USC, UCLA, Stanford. Yes they can go in to other states and pull talent. In fact, ANY school can, but its not about the ability, but more so the type of talent you can get which hinges on a number of factors. Miami of Florida built their program in the 80s recruiting from the Miami-Dade, South Florida area. They had that section of Florida pretty much on lock. Anyone competing for kids in those areas faced stiff competition. When Shannon got fired, that area was open for pickings. FSU made some great inroads down there with certain high schools as did UF. Could Georgia cherry pick recruits from there before when Miami was dominating just because they were a neighboring state? No, as years went on and Miami started to fall apart they could. I see a similar thing happening with USC. They were under such horrendous coaching for so long after Carroll left, other schools poached their talent (to an extent.) Washington COULD sell their program to kids in the area, especially with Sarkisian being a former Trojan coach. He knew the area, the coaches, and had a great pitch. Now Sarkisian is at USC and Chris Petersen has to start the Washington program from scratch. That means evaluating his talent and finding a style of offense to meet said talent. Then making new inroads with local high school coaches then recruiting his players to play for UW instead of other schools. Can he just go into the L.A. (and surrounding) area and just pick his recruits because he was successful at Boise? Not necessarily. Stanford is starting to establish their self has a top team in the PAC 12. Same with UCLA, Oregon, and USC. California is larger than Missouri and Colorado, but how many flagship programs are in those states? In Colorado you got two schools and in Missouri, one. Nebraska CAN go into those states and successfully poach talent from schools that are inferior to them. In California you got a good 5-6 schools kids can choose from. I think Kiffin tried to broaden his recruiting map too quick and burned a lot of bridges with local high school coaches. Thus allowing other schools to put their hand in the pot. Once Sarkisian focuses on locking down the surrounding area, getting in good with the coaches he knows, it will be harder for other schools (not impossible, just a lot harder) to come into his area and steal recruits. I saw similar things happen with FSU last year. Miami stole a former assistant (who was recruiter of the year a few years ago) from FSU. He had most of the South Florida area on lock. Noles still got their share of talent from the area, but it was a lot harder and we lost out on a few. I see similar things happening with USC & Sarkisian. Comparing Sarkisian to Hoke and Pelini are bad comparisons. Hoke inherited a storied program, rich with talent and failed. Pelini is an above average-to-good coach. Both program are light years ahead of where Washington once was. Hell, back in 2008 Washington did not win ONE SINGLE GAME! Not ONE! The year before they only won 4 games. I would say he got that program trending upwards.

Just keep this in mind about the Bag Man story. Even though it was well written, there is nothing there that can be corroborated. I may not have written it as good or been as convincing. But I guarantee you I could have made up all of that stuff and more. But I'll will concede that it's probably more or less true. Probably more so for some schools than others. But still nevertheless, whenever money or school pride is involved, there's always going to be stuff like this happening. We just have no way of knowing how much or to what extent it happens.

I've seen many $100 handshakes after games over the years........

Not so much in the past 5 or 6 years....but I'm not around the players/hitters like I once was.

It's always gone on in major college football and will continue in the future...............

College football needs USC to get back to where they were during the Carroll era. The sport is as high is it probably ever can be. Would be great for the sport if a west coast powerhouse comes out of the ashes. I am not sure of what Oregon will be in the post Kelly era, but to have 2 dominate forces out west. ...coupled with Ok/Texas and Ohio State mixed in the Southeast. ....boom!

The new pumped and jacked.

Dr. Lou said:

Comparing Sarkisian to Hoke and Pelini are bad comparisons. Hoke inherited a storied program, rich with talent and failed. Pelini is an above average-to-good coach. Both program are light years ahead of where Washington once was. Hell, back in 2008 Washington did not win ONE SINGLE GAME! Not ONE! The year before they only won 4 games. I would say he got that program trending upwards.

Click to expand...

Obviously, Sarkisian did improve the program. I think he's a good coach, and he's a first timer too, so things have to be learned o the fly. But, On paper he didn't max out, IMO, at least to warrant being handed the USC job. Say what you will about how bad the program was when he got there, it wasn't all that bare. He did have 4 players drafted by the 3rd round (locker 8th pick) in the first 3 years, inherited players. That there was a draftee drop off in years 4 and 5 is on him. Perhaps he's just one of those coaches that needs elite talent to get it done, then being at USC is a fit.


I mentioned Pelini and Hoke because they are both recent hires replacing bad coaches, oat least bad fits for the program. As I mentioned before, they seem to be getting that heat that Sarkisian has avoided. Now, perhaps the fan base makes it hotter for them, but I remember when Washington was a national power. And just so we are keeping track, Nebraska hasn't won a conference title since 1999, so they haven't exactly been killing it the last decade either. In the case of Pelini, hired the same year and also a first time coach, I'd agree that he did inherit a better team. But he also had to change cultures, twice. First the losing mentality of the team trying to play a west coast offense on a wind-swept and isolated plains with little chance of drawing the QB needed to be successful. Second, when he had some momentum with back to back near misses in CCG's, he had to change the entire schedule with the move to the big ten.


Michigan is an altogether different issue. They are almost equally devoid of conference titles, and definitely NC's. I'd say Rodriguez did a number on that program. How about this grease fire of a recruiting class. 2010: 8 players in the rivals top 250 or scout 300. Only Denard Robinson made a mark. If they didn't transfer, or get suspended, they had a career with 18 tackles. That was 7of the top 8 bombing. Not as loaded as one might think. Link

Runner, good read but I differ that Bo Pelini replaced a bad coach. Coach Solich may have had some personal issues but the damn guy was a winner for the Huskers. Solich was 10-3 his last year before getting the back door at Nebraska. In 1999 he was 12-1, followed by 10-2, 11-2, 7-6, and 10-3. Enter Bill Callahan who went 5-6, 8-4, and 5-7. Enter Bo.

Some of you Husker guys please explain to the forum why Frank Solick was discarded. He's done a damn nice job at Ohio.

cloverleaf said:

Runner, good read but I differ that Bo Pelini replaced a bad coach. Coach Solich may have had some personal issues but the damn guy was a winner for the Huskers. Solich was 10-3 his last year before getting the back door at Nebraska. In 1999 he was 12-1, followed by 10-2, 11-2, 7-6, and 10-3. Enter Bill Callahan who went 5-6, 8-4, and 5-7. Enter Bo.

Some of you Husker guys please explain to the forum why Frank Solick was discarded. He's done a damn nice job at Ohio.

Click to expand...

Solich was fired because of an ambitious AD wanted to leave his mark on Nebraska Athletics and I guess enough boosters went along with it. That is still a heated debate even today. Solich was a victim of success. He had the misfortune of following a 60-3 five year run. Frank was a fine coach. He just wasn't Tom Osborne.

Runner, a number of my old football gang members likes your knowledge and enthusiasm for CFB.

Thanks Bud....need more loyal guys like you here at RX CFB.

College football experts are a dine a dozen.....the good ones are easy to spot!

Hi Fellas,

Here's an excerpt from the other thread with various Pac-12 current events mentioned throughout.

If you wish you can read up on the latest info in post #38, or just read the following situation I happened to notice about USC that has yet to play itself out. I like posting this sort of thing because it can easily affect the outcome of a few wagers that were made when the cards lined up. Anything that indicates a possible edge, especially when a difference in talent on the field rears its head can be very useful in a betting sense. In this case, USC could be at a disadvantage, especially vs opponents that protect their quarterback pretty well. I post this here just to help posters from allowing their opinion of the Trojans to run away from them in a real sense. That being said, I am impressed with more than just a post or two in this thread because they show insight. Just be careful not to let your bankroll get too involved without the full picture.

Here's a quote that I expanded on concerning USC from the Pac-12 thread.

On the flip side, I picked up something that could be worth noting about USC's defense. It's worth a shot mentioning this way before the season starts. What do you suppose it means when all 4 of USC's top candidates in the recruiting game for the class of 2015 involve 5* defensive ends? Also 8 out of 17 of its top recruits overall are defensive ends ranked 4* or better. (source) There is nothing like a DL with a poor rush the QB, especially at DE to make life hard on a defensive secondary. Without a good pair of DE's and a decent pass rush, that could add a lot of pressure on their LB's on passing downs or possibly force USC's safeties to play a lot tighter to the LOS than they'd like. USC's #1 DE Leonard Williams had better stay healthy or there could be big problems. This issue definitely deserves to be revisited in the fall.

There may be an indication here that USC won't win more than 8 games this year -- as I am reminded of some of the Pac-12 QB sharpshooters that could easily take advantage of USC's problem with plenty of time to throw the ball due to USC's lack of an effective pass rush, slicing up USC's secondary like a Thanksgiving turkey perhaps by throwing to backs out of the backfield, or a QB with plenty of time to find his receiver downfield... just sayin. We should see the extent of it when USC travels to play ASU with Taylor Kelly taking full advantage of the situation in the first week of October. A month after that WSU's QB Conner Halliday gets his shots in with Mike Leach's aerial attack which is just 2 weeks before UCLA and Bret Hundley play the Trojans to close the season and very likely claim the south once again. Let's see what the linemaker thinks about all of this when it's time. I promise you that USC's resurgence last season will cost USC bettors dearly. I believe that overall, the linemaker will probably overrate the Trojans as he usually does most years.

I will be keeping an eye out for the right situation to develop, maybe even scoring a few wagers on that account by choosing my spots wisely. All those DE's in USC's recruiting plans definitely throw up a possible red flag. At least USC's DL as a little depth to mention here, unlike their OL with just one returning starter. Overall, the NCAA sanctions have reached their maximum impact this year with depth on both sides of the LOS looking as anemic as ever over the past 4 seasons.

It means they are on deafcon 5 at DE. Not only the passing game, but how many teams have some kind of zone read in their arsenal in the PAC? That play is often dictated on the unblocked DE. I think there are a few teams that could exploit that as well.

RunLeeRun said:

Solich was fired because of an ambitious AD wanted to leave his mark on Nebraska Athletics and I guess enough boosters went along with it. That is still a heated debate even today. Solich was a victim of success. He had the misfortune of following a 60-3 five year run. Frank was a fine coach. He just wasn't Tom Osborne.

Click to expand...

The situation with Solich at Nebraska after Osborne and Gary Gibbs at OU after Switzer were very similar. Gary Gibbs got fired after compiling a 44-23-2 record. I don't know about Solich, but Gibbs biggest problem is he couldn't win the big games (Texas, Nebraska). But he also had the chore of cleaning up the program and it's image at the same time. Plus NCAA sanctions. So no matter what Solich or Gibbs did, they were both pretty much destined for failure in the fans eyes, even though both were good coaches by any other standard. As Solich went on to prove at Ohio. And Gibbs is doing well as DC at Kansas City...