with a large class last year, and a big start this year, how many spots does SC have remaining given the sanctions which apparantly will stick (no relief from NCAA)?

I'm not sure this has been spelled out explicitly, since the NCAA official statement doesn't come out until tomorrow, but the first guess has to be that they will have 15 for this year and next, and then 20 in 2014, and I think they'll have the 75 schollie limit through 2014 since they didn't play under any limit last year, to my recollection. This is all just guessing. I don't think anybody can know this until tomorrow, or at least until an SC (or maybe Yahoo!) reporter scoops the news.

GMP spelled this out pretty well awhile back, but USC can't just immediately replenish their roster right after their penalty period expires, because they are still limited by the general 25 signees/year rule. Teams often get around this by backdating scholarships, but USC won't be able to do this, since they will already be at the limit for prior years. Depending on their class distribution breakdown, it could take several more years after the scholarship penalties expire before they get back up to the full 85.

I think they have only 15 scholarship seniors.

It seems like this could create a real problem because, if they are at 85 total now and 15 graduate this gets them to 70..

BUT if their max is 75, they may only have 5 to give out..

I cannot find that list but this would make for a disaster for USC; oh darn..

Hmmm.

Tom

TomBalk;512970 said:

---

I think they have only 15 scholarship seniors.

It seems like this could create a real problem because, if they are at 85 total now and 15 graduate this gets them to 70..

BUT if their max is 75, they may only have 5 to give out..

I cannot find that list but this would make for a disaster for USC; oh darn..

Hmmm.

Tom

---

To free up some schollies, I bet they find some players that have 'career ending injuries'. and some that 'just don't want to compete'

[URL="http://usc.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1225393"][/URL]

I believe this is correct. Available scholarships for 2012 for USC are around 7. Look for transfers and expulsions to make room for the next 15 scholarships.

ColoradoBear1;512973 said:

---

To free up some schollies, I bet they find some players that have 'career ending injuries'. and some that 'just don't want to compete'

[URL="http://usc.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1225393"][/URL]

---

More commonly known as the Nick Saban / Les Miles formula for success

OTOH......if this guy knows this for sure...."yikes" indeed"

Quote:

---

USC currently has 82 players on scholarship, including 13 seniors. So if nobody leaves early for the NFL and nobody transfers or "retires", SC will have 69 returning players. Since they can only have 75 for the 2012 season, in that scenario SC could only bring in 6 players. Of course we know that a few players will leave early for the NFL and on average a couple of guys will transfer, so realistically SC will only have room for about 10 new schollies (there are 9 verbals right now)

---

http://wearesc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164995

According to the roster currently available at u$ctrojans.com the following 25 players have only 1 season of playing eligibility remaining, and according to the article DO linked in the other thread could leave immediately if they want and play somewhere else this season:

*Armstead, Armond, DE
Ashton, Taylor,CB
*Bryant, T.J., CB
*Carswell, Brandon, WR
Coleman, Martin, OT
Cumming, Ross, LB
Curry, Nic, WR
*Ellison, Rhett, TE
*Galippo, Chris, LB
Grady, Tyler, DT
Harbin, James
*Harris, DaJohn, DT
*Horton, Shane, LB
Jones, Marshall, S
Kan, Brett, QB
Kusnir, Zack, DE
McGuigan, Tim, WR
Noble, Allen, CB
Noble, Kevin, WR
Roepke, Boomer, CB
Rojas, William, CB
*Tupou, Christian, DT
*Tyler, Marc, TB
Yobo, Peter, OT
Pousson, Chris, SNP

I marked the 9 guys I know or am pretty sure are on scholarship. Of the names listed only Armstead, Bryant, Cumming and Pousson have not used their RS year. So all except those 4 are gone after this season no matter what (barring a medical waiver), and if those 4 play they are gone too.

The other important group for them is going to be the 41 guys that will be draft-eligible after this season:

Alonso, Augusto, LB
Andrew, Will, LB
Auran, John, S
Barkley, Matt, QB
Baucham, Brian, CB
Boyer, Robbie, WR
Burnett, Tony, S
Calistro Jr., Walter, WR
Childs, Eric, TE
Downey Jr., Kevin, TE
Flournoy, De'Von, WR
Freeman, Luke, LB
Galten, Jeremy, OT-OG
Garness, David, OT
Gifford, Cody, WR
Graf, Kevin, OT
Greene, Kevin, DE
Harris, Torin, CB
Holmes, Khaled, OG
Horton, Wes, DE
Kalil, Matt, OT
Kelley, Dallas, LB
Kennard, Devon, LB
Manoogian, John, QB
Markowitz, Abe, C
Martinez, John, OG
McAllister, Drew, S
McDonald, T.J., S
McNeal, Curtis, TB
Negrete, Kyle, P
Perry, Nick, DE
Rittenour, Austin, LB
Romness, Cody, S
Saee, Emon, QB
Simmons, Hunter, FB
Simmons, Marquis, LB
Skene, Cody, WR
Starling, Jawanza, S
Uche, Chidozie, CB
Vehikite, Simione, LB
Wright, James, WR

Not everyone on that list is going to have the opportunity to leave early for the NFL, but there are some notable players there who will/might. What they decide to do will have as much or more impact than the guys who exhaust their eligibility, simply because they're more likely to be high-impact guys if they're able to leave early.

Wow... I am very surprised by this development. Joshbalt nailed it when he said that there would be no change because the rules for granting an appeal are so stringent. (I figured that the NCAA would cut Haden some slack).

Regarding SC scholies, they have 80 on scholie this year (they granted about 20 in 2011). They anticipated giving out 20 scholies in 2012 (to maintain their total at 80). Therefore, they will have no problem granting 15 (to reach 75).

The way I see it:

2011 - 80 (-5)
2012 - 75 (-10)
2013 - 75 (-10)
2014 - 80 (-5)

Total Lost = 30

This allows them to ramp back up to 85/25 more quickly in 2015.........

71Bear;513031 said:

---

2011 - 80 (-5)
2012 - 75 (-10)
2013 - 75 (-10)
2014 - 80 (-5)

Total Lost = 30

This allows them to ramp back up to 85/25 more quickly in 2015.........

---

As I understand it, their appeal effectively delayed the penalty's start until 2012, but they are limited to 75 in 2012, 2013, and 2014. that they were under by 5 in 2011 doesn't help them. they also can only recruit 15 in a year, so if they have more than 15 leave, the could drop below 75 just because they can't fill all the outgoing spots.


This roster shows that 38 players could depart in 2014, of whom 10 have already redshirted - so they need to either ditch or redshirt a minimum of 13 of 18 remaining players in that class to get up to full strength in 2015. that's best case - if others leave before 2014 they will be below 75 in 2014 and then will need to do more crazy roster management to get up to full strength in 2015. The departing 2015 class will be tiny, so they will benefit from delaying any exits from 2014 to 2015. But that goes at the cost of depth during the suspension.

http://www.tributetotroy.com/team/chart.php

I'm not certain if they will be credited for the 2011 self-imposed restrictions (think of it as "time served"), I just painted a best case scenario for them...

71Bear;513031 said:

---

Wow... I am very surprised by this development. Joshbalt nailed it when he said that there would be no change because the rules for granting an appeal are so stringent. (I figured that the NCAA would cut Haden some slack).

---

Joshbalt wasn't the only one who nailed it. :acclaim:

According to the speculation in the Yahoo article, the idea that SC will get scholarship credit for last year is more than a little tenuous. They signed 22 players, and that uneven number hardly represents some sort of self punishment that they might get credit for later. I don't see the NCAA giving them back 3 schollies in 2014 because of that.

If Yahoo is right, SC might have been too smart by half on this one.

Also, I didn't think Pat Haden's presence was a mitigating factor at all, because that would give cheaters license to cheat with impunity, get caught, and then fire a bunch of scapegoats in order to get off easy. I never thought that was a precedent the NCAA wanted to set.

This is not your father's NCAA, 71B. Stay tuned for severe punishments to Auburn, Ohio St, UNC and probably Oregon, too.

calbear77x;513074 said:

---

This is not your father's NCAA, 71B. Stay tuned for severe punishments to Auburn, Ohio St, UNC and probably Oregon, too.

---

I hope there is some sort of accountability from the NCAA, but they did allow Auburn and Ohio State to play their bowl games despite what appeared to be significant evidence indicating those schools' ineligibility, so I'm expecting no more than a slap on the wrist. Hope you are right though.

oskiwow;513102 said:

---

I hope there is some sort of accountability from the NCAA, but they did allow Auburn and Ohio State to play their bowl games despite what appeared to be significant evidence indicating those schools' ineligibility, so I'm expecting no more than a slap on the wrist. Hope you are right though.

---

I keep seeing this, and I don't understand it.

The Reggie Bush story broke on the eve of the draft in April 2006. The ruling didn't come down until June 2010. The appeal decision didn't come down until May 2011.

Why do people think the NCAA would work with lightning speed to make Auburn ineligible in 2010, a mere month or two after the story broke. Same with Ohio St. We are still scratching the surface of what happened there, and people are acting like the fact that there has not yet been a punishment is a sign that there won't be.

People said the same about USC for 4 years and I kept replying that it'd take time, they won't sweep this under the rug, etc.

These things take time.

with things like bowl game participation, I think "innocent until proven guilty" is a wise policy. But once guilt is proven, I think you'll see the punishments flying!

UNC and Ohio State - I agree..
UO and Auburn - I don't they have anything to worry about...

IMO, the situation at Ohio State is by far the worst of any of the recent violations. Tressel should be given the "Bozeman" penalty....

i don't think it really matters. Lame is going to break a rule and get them a death penalty. All their gerrymandering of scholarships will be for naught.

71Bear;513143 said:

---

UNC and Ohio State - I agree..
UO and Auburn - I don't they have anything to worry about...

IMO, the situation at Ohio State is by far the worst of any of the recent violations. Tressel should be given the "Bozeman" penalty....

---

71B, if you don't think Auburn has anything to worry about, you haven't been following the rumors about Auburn. If those rumors are true, and there certainly seems to be a LOT of smoke there, then Auburn's violations might be on par with SMU's from the Pony Excess days. In fact, a friend of mine said, "Unless the governor of the state is involved and complicit, Auburn's situation can not be as bad as SMU's." Well, in this case, the governor of Alabama tried to intervene, and the main booster/board of director/offender was so powerful that he got the governor replaced in the next election. That's the rumor. No joke.

calbear77x;513157 said:

---

71B, if you don't think Auburn has anything to worry about, you haven't been following the rumors about Auburn. If those rumors are true, and there certainly seems to be a LOT of smoke there, then Auburn's violations might be on par with SMU's from the Pony Excess days.

---

As much as I'd love for these rumors to me be true, I'm not sure how much to buy into them anymore. And I am talking about the supposed federal wiretaps may or may not become public and deliver the goods, but the dates keep getting pushed back. Not sure if LSU or Bama sites are reliable for providing these rumors.

The deal with cam newton's father church is a different matter. But it seems pretty damn hard to prove that as well.

Hey, I was wrong about SC. I could be wrong about Auburn. We shall see...

[I should probably stick to predicting hockey results - I'm doing very well in this year's Stanley Cup playoffs (so far)]...

Folks a few things:

USC appealed their penalty so it doesn't go into effect until 2012 which means 75/15 limit for 2012, 2013, 2014.

SC is current at 82 and loses 13 so they have 6 available for 2012. Of course this doesn't count early NFL entries, medical retirements, etc.

I'm sure Barkley is gone so that would be seven but remember they only have 15 to give.

As for Auburn, remember that it took the NCAA 4 years to hammer SC for Reggie Bush, the deal with Auburn is infinitely more compicated and they're dealing with multiple jurisdictions and criminal activities that relate to principals involved in Auburn Pay for play. It's a nasty tangled web that's going to take quite sometime to sort out because your dealing with failed banks, corrupt politicians, the Dixie Mafia, real estate fraud, illegal tax sheltering, illegal utilization of non-profits for their status, and on and on ....

It's not just Cam Newton getting paid, it also invovles many past, present and even future players getting paid. Not to mention complete academic fraud, dishonesty and whatever other malevolent acts have been perpetrated against the academic community at Auburn.

The main figurehead Bobby Lowder ran Auburn like it was his own pro team and it will catch up with Auburn.

P.S. SMU's violations look like jaywalking compared to the Auburn offenses.

SC is currently at 80 per a number of their fans...

With the usual attrition that most schools realize every year, they will easily be in a position to sign 15...

RaphaelAglietti;513312 said:

---

Folks a few things:

USC appealed their penalty so it doesn't go into effect until 2012 which means 75/15 limit for 2012, 2013, 2014.

---

Is this correct? If so, they are continually making it worse for themselves. They get the full effect of the reductions in those future years and also get some effect now and last year because of the looming penalties. Wouldn't you want to get them out of the way immediately, thus having them effect the fewest number of seasons? Stalling and appealing is going to cause these penalties and their fallout to alter 6 or 7 or 8 seasons instead of 4, maybe 5.

alarsuel;513343 said:

---

Is this correct? If so, they are continually making it worse for themselves. They get the full effect of the reductions in those future years and also get some effect now and last year because of the looming penalties. Wouldn't you want to get them out of the way immediately, thus having them effect the fewest number of seasons? Stalling and appealing is going to cause these penalties and their fallout to alter 6 or 7 or 8 seasons instead of 4, maybe 5.

---

yup....that is correct....

A big, fat caveat:
They are still SC and draw top athletes. What we are all addressing is their depth at various positions. In the absence of injury and assuming the players they choose to start are able to play the entire season, the Trojans remain a hurdle for any other team. We cannot take it for granted that because of the sanctions they will roll over and play dead.

alarsuel;513343 said:

---

Is this correct? If so, they are continually making it worse for themselves. They get the full effect of the reductions in those future years and also get some effect now and last year because of the looming penalties. Wouldn't you want to get them out of the way immediately, thus having them effect the fewest number of seasons? Stalling and appealing is going to cause these penalties and their fallout to alter 6 or 7 or 8 seasons instead of 4, maybe 5.

---

Other than the reduced quantity to give, I don't think this in of itself dissuades anyone from taking an SC scholarship. They will have the bowl bans behind them. They will have to abandon redshirting and can now pretty much guarantee you will play as a freshman. SC scholarships will be a scarce commodity. If this were Pete Carrol and SC in the 90s, they would do fine.

What will kill USC football is Lane Kiffin.

calumnus;513359 said:

---

Other than the reduced quantity to give, I don't think this in of itself dissuades anyone from taking an SC scholarship. They will have the bowl bans behind them. They will have to abandon redshirting and can now pretty much guarantee you will play as a freshman. SC scholarships will be a scarce commodity. If this were Pete Carrol and SC in the 90s, they would do fine.

What will kill USC football is Lane Kiffin.

---

My point is that if you take all the penalties immediately, they are done. If you stretch out no bowls with reduced scholies, it changes some of the luster of the brand and slowly makes you a little worse then a little worse. Each year builds upon the last and stays with you. They aren't going to be as good. Now they won't be as good for a longer period of time, making the climb back later and harder. Positive and negative trends in programs grow exponentially and the longer either one lingers the greater impact each has. Surely SC will still be able to compete and has the cache to reclaim past glory (although I doubt it under Kiffin), it just seems that they are making the job even harder and longer than necessary when it is already going to be a long, tough road.

alarsuel;513383 said:

---

My point is that if you take all the penalties immediately, they are done. If you stretch out no bowls with reduced scholies, it changes some of the luster of the brand and slowly makes you a little worse then a little worse. Each year builds upon the last and stays with you. They aren't going to be as good. Now they won't be as good for a longer period of time, making the climb back later and harder. Positive and negative trends in programs grow exponentially and the longer either one lingers the greater impact each has. Surely SC will still be able to compete and has the cache to reclaim past glory (although I doubt it under Kiffin), it just seems that they are making the job even harder and longer than necessary when it is already going to be a long, tough road.

---

Actually SC was aided in delaying in that they took I believe 30 in for 2011.

I've read varying #s but last count I heard was 82 with 13 seniors/redshirt seniors leaving 69 on board without counting early entries

Had SC start penalties in 2011 they would have been limited to 15 schollies which would have meant 67 with 13 leaving guarenteed leaving them with 54 schollarship and they would have only had 15 to give as the penalties are 75 max schollies [U]and[/U] 15 max per year. Which means they would have had max 69 in 2012 and assuming early entries and attrition more likely 64 schollarship guys for 2013 then subtracting the seniors/attrition/early entries + 15 scholarships and we're likely talking about 59 scholarship players or less.

Now they will have 69 at the end of 2011 season likley lose 5-9 more and could end up at 75 for 2012 as opposed to a max of 69 (likely more like 65) had they not delayed the penalty.

It was the smart move in terms of keeping scholarship numbers high. during the penalty years.

71Bear;513332 said:

---

SC is currently at 80 per a number of their fans...

With the usual attrition that most schools realize every year, they will easily be in a position to sign 15...

---

According to a mod @ a SC site Lane plans on signing 17. :axe

And that he can do if he backdates, via early enrollment, 2 of his scholies (which is possible since SC only signed 22 in 2011). Of course, that also assumes SC will only return 58 scholarship players in 2012.

Nice breakdown, RA. I hadn't thought about the numbers so precisely like that, but that extra 6-10 schollies probably does outweigh whatever drawback they see from keeping the dark clouds around another year.

71Bear;513462 said:

---

And that he can do if he backdates, via early enrollment, 2 of his scholies (which is possible since SC only signed 22 in 2011). Of course, that also assumes SC will only return 58 scholarship players in 2012.

---

So either there is housecleaning of all the dead wood they can find, or the number of scholarships is reduced. Of course, another option is any player leaving by choice (perish the thougt with $C) or early leaves to the league, or finally academic casualties. Any way you twist it, $C loses (depth and retention of players others could use) and everyone else wins.

If they can recruit a large number of newbies that are better than what they recruited in the last three years, then it better balance classes, for it sure doesn't speak well that a true frosh is better than a junior or senior that was 3 or 4 star at recruitment.

Yes USC will still attract some very good players. But they will lose some top guys to others over this. What Cal needs to do is add 2-3 top guys a year that might have otherwise gone to USC. 6-9 really good players makes a big difference in your program. Now is the time for Cal. The Bears really need to have a good season in 2011. They have a lot of good stuff in place, now the on field results need to improve.

With SoCal being so important to Pac 12 recruiting the Bears need to take advantage of USC's sanctions and UCLA 's troubles as well.