In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 449
Online now 469 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Can a team with 75 players make it to a BCS bowl?
Yes. USC has one of the 10 most talented rosters in the country. Making a BCS bowl is very much possible. Btw....IIRC, USC started the season with close to 75 in 2005. I dont recall a bunch of concerns about number of players then.
USC does not have a talent problem. USC does not have a numbers problem.
Oklahoma won the AP NC while bowl inelgible in 74 I think. With Barry switzer at the helm
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
I really don't think it's possible.
When USC started the season with 75, how many we're lost due to injury before the season. That means USC can't have any injuries before or during the season.
Ok, so maybe it is possible. Thanks
Although we should concentrate on winning the pac12 south first.
We need the obvious to happen and stop worrying about the number of bodies but working on teaching and coaching and we will be all good in the neighborhood!
Do they have a depth problem?
The 2005 team was decimated by injuries during the season. Lost several of starters, particularly on defense. Terrell Thomas, Dallas Sartz, etc. Also lost important role players like Desmond Reed.
Most CFB teams play about 50 players in a game. 75 gives us 3 deep at every spot and 4 deep at some spots. We have a ton of talent, among the most in the nation. We have enough depth. Sanctions is just an excuse for horrible coaching.
Last season, the sanctions cost us about 6-7 true frosh....none of which would have been impact players. I know this because we did not even fill our 15. The idea that 6-7 non impact true frosh is the difference between winning the conference and going 7-6 is ridiculous.
Where sanctions make a big impact is recruiting...with 15 slots there is almost no margin for error. When you only have 15 slots, recruiting mistakes are severely magnified. That is why USC is uniquely positioned to manage sanctions....the power of USC, the local recruiting base and one of (if not THE) best recruiting staffs in the nation really mitigates the critical dagger of the sanctions...the 15 limit. That and the timing of the appeal which allowed USC a full year and an extra recruiting class to shape the roster for sanctions.
Which is why I think Penn St will be in much worse shape than USC with sanctions. Not only are the numbers smaller for Penn St, but they dont have as much of a natural recruiting base and they did not get a year to shape the roster for sanctions.
No. No more so than other teams in CFB. USC has the numbers to be 3 deep and every spot and 4 deep at some spots. Any team getting down to their 4th and 5th string has a major problem.
I've read your take before, but not sure I agree entirely.
Teams may play with 50, but prepare with 85.
Missing on any recruit and Injuries is too much of a toll to play at championship level, jmo! Could be the difference of a few plays, which can be the difference in a loss or two. Basically enough to not be a BCS team.
Numbers just give you options, and to win at a high level you need everything to go your way, including a few breaks.
So if we had 6-7 more non impact true frosh, it would make a difference in how we prepare? That makes zero sense. Any decisions about how to prepare are on the coaches, not on the sanctions. I was at most practices in 2005 and low numbers had no impact on how we prepared.
It makes a difference when 10 USC caliber recruits sign with our competitors each year. It's a two-fold penalty, we are down 10 new recruits each year and the rest of the PAC 12 gets better recruits. F-the NCAA.
Well, anything is possible right? We can win with 75 on schollies. Maybe you're saying it's improbable.
This prep thing is just an excuse. Here is what I mean. Look at 2003 vs 2012
In 2003 we started the year with 81 kids on scholarship. 3 of those were former walk ons. That is 78 initial scholarship players. Of those 78, were 3 special teams (not used in full contact prep) and 5 were quarterbacks. So that is 70 initial scholarship players (not former walk ons) available to be used in true full contact prep. That team went 12-1 and won a national championship.
In 2012, we started with 75 kids on scholarhip. 3 of those were former walk ons. That is 72 initial scholarship players. Of those 72, 3 were special teams and 3 were quarterbacks (not used in full contact prep). So that is 66 initial scholarship players (not former walk ons) available to be used in true full contatct prep. That team went 7-6, producing one of the most disappointing seasons in USC history.
The difference in true scholarship players available for full contact prep.....4 PLAYERS. I just dont buy it. The facts and history show otherwise. If people want to claim that 4 more non impact true frosh is the difference in prep, I will just flat disagree.
This post was edited by mb2trojan 15 months ago
I agree. USC needs to tackle in practice
That's a start
They received only 21 scholarship reductions over three years, nine less than USC..same with The Gators and Alabama for much worse sh*t.
"Here are provided seats of meditative joy, where shall rise again the destined reign of Troy." Virgil
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports