In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 311
Online now 436 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.
USC has a number of teams still competing this year. 6 have legitimate championship hopes.
Women's Water Polo: We began the season ranked #3 behind #1 stanford and ucla. Early on, we beat both in an invitational tournament and took #1. We then lost a close conference match to stanford while beating ucla again. In the MPSF tournament, we faced stanford again in the title match, winning decisively. This gave us the #1 seed for the NCAAs. We proved it was deserved with a 27-1 execution of 8 seed pomona-pitzer and then cruised to a 16-9 win over 4 seed hawaii earlier today. On the other side of the bracket, 3 seeducla won a tight 8-6 match over 6 seed princeton and 2 seed stanford made easy work of 7 seed iona, 20-3. Today stanford won a tight match over ucla 5-3. Tommorrow we will play stanford for the NCAA title, a rematch of last year's title game. The game starts at 2:15 PST, and will be streamed live on the NCAA website.
Women's Golf: We entered the season highly rated after finishing a close second to alabama last year. We were ranked #1 the whole season, winning the PAC-12 tournament by a large margin. We entered the NCAA regionals as the #1 seed. We started slow, 2nd after round 1, and 3rd after round 2, but today in the third and final round we took first place in a large part due to an astounding school record score of 63 (-8) from freshman Kyung Kim. This was a school record 6th win of the year, and we will enter the NCAA final as the number 1 seed. We will compete against 24 teams, the top 8 of each regional. Other top contenders are alabama, duke, and oklahoma.
Women's Tennis: Women's Tennis is under ranked, in my opinion, at #5. We dropped a rain match to cal and a close 4-3 decision to #2 north carolina. We're cruising through the first few rounds of the 64 team bracket. The real challenges begin starting in the round of 8, next week.
Men's Tennis: USC is the four time defending national champion. But after losing two seniors, that domination hasn't been there. We have four losses, one to undefeated #2 virginia and 3 to #1 ucla (who we beat once). All of these losses have been close 3-4 decisions, except for a 2-4 loss to ucla in the PAC-12 tournament that looked like it was headed for 3-4 had the match not been called when they scored their fourth and winning point. I believe personally that this is virginia's year, who has for the last four years entered the tournament highly ranked and lost to us in the quarter finals, semi finals, finals, and finals again. They are undefeated, and ucla dropped one to us. Like women's we're cruising though the store few rounds, with the real challenges starting in the round of 8. We can still win this, but We are not the favorites (and I think women's has a stronger chance than men's). USC has a record 20 Tennis chamionships in men's, 3 more than stanford and 4 more than ucla, who lead everyone else by a large margin.
Women's Rowing: We entered the season in the top five, and then after all three scoring boats (Varsity 8, Second Varsity 8, and Varsity 4 won their races over other top teams, we gained #1 in the polls. Our Varsity 8, the highest scoring boat, is undefeated on the year. This is our first legitimate shot at the national championship, which we have never won. The number one ranking is nice, but I'm reluctant to make predictions as I'm new to the sport. Championships are in early June. PAC-12 championships are soon.
Men's Golf: We are a top 10-15 team, and can still win, but it will take our best round of the year to have a chance. Regionals are next week.
Men's and Women's Track and Field: We will compete for individual titles but due to NCAA rules designed to neuter us, we don't have the depth to have a good shot at a team title.
Baseball: Virtually no chance. We probably won't make post season at all.
USC 2013-2014 All Sports Head-to-Head Record: 247-109-2 (0.693)
My USC Football Attendance Streak (Home and Away): 48
Thanks for the update. Great work.
Tommy, Rebel, and our newest rescue Harley!
thanks for the update! appreciate these updates on our other athletic programs since I don't have time to read up on every sport.
"Here are provided seats of meditative joy, where shall rise again the destined reign of Troy." Virgil
This is fantastic.
Thanks for the update!
It seems like one of the men's tennis best players has been injured. Is he healthy now?
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
We've had a few players who have forfeited single matches due to injury, but they usually are back by the next game. I'm unaware of anything more permanent... But then again, I wasn't following much other than the score on Men's Tennis on a regular basis at the end of this season so far because I've been pretty busy. I just went and looked at the singles lineups in recent games, and other than some switching of order, everything looks normal... Keep in mind, we DID lose 2 essentially sure points in Steve Johnson and Daniel Nguyen.
Well! 1 for 1 so far! Women's Water Polo wins! Still looking at Men's and Women's Tennis, Women's Golf, Women's Rowing, and some longshots at the other ones.
Good shit, thanks for the info. I just follow baseball. Damn bums. Best baseball program of all time but now we suck dick. Pat Haden needs to stay on baseball and get us back to championship form. Ucla and Zona excelling these years while we suck is just not acceptable.
I think men's tennis won in round one of NCAA regionals
Men's and Women's are both through to the round of 16, as expected. They should both be able to handle their next game, and then the round of 8 is where it gets hard. If either team fell out in the round of 16, that would be a disappointment. If they lost in the round 8, it would be a lost opportunity, but not a tragedy. Losing the semi's would be okay for the men, considering the bracket and how the season has gone. It would still be a little disappointing for the women, based on where I think they are. Either team getting the championship would make me happy, and a win from either in that would be unexpected and very impressive.
Yes, he does. We play at a disadvantage to public schools (and stanford) when it comes to baseball, as we can't split scholarships, really, and they can. But that's no excuse. Gillespie won in 1998, 20 years after that rule was in effect, and we were still competitive nationally up until the last wish years.
I am very curious about why USC is at this disadvantage in the scholarship situation. Anyone?
Basically, baseball is an equivalency sport like most others (except football and basketball) which means that you get 11.7 scholarships, and you can split them up between players basically however you want (there are restrictions. Maximum of I think 26 scholarship players, and minimum of 25% scholarship to a player on scholarship). So really, you can split them in half and have 22 half scholarships and some left over. Only, we can't really do that, because it's a hard sell to tell our recruits "Yeah, oregon state is offering you a half scholarship where you'll have to pay $5000 a year, but if you come here, you can have a half scholarship and pay $25,000 a year!" This effects us (and damn close to ONLY us) in other sports like track, swimming, etc. This is why you see us have sprinters and swimmers who set records, win relays, and things like that and yet we have exactly one championship between men's and women's track and swimming since the late 70s, and that was women's track in 2001. We used to pile them on. It's because we may win races, but we don't have scholarship athletes in certain events. This is why we lost the dual meet to ucla this year in track. We won a lot of events, but it wasn't too hard for them to place 2nd or 3rd in some, and in many events, like... half the field events and all the distance runs, we didn't have anyone with a chance of winning since we simply don't have the scholarships to give out those positions. Same with swimming. We will have a guy win the 50m freestyle, but that doesn't mean much when other top schools have 3 other swimmers finish in the points. Now, stanford gets around this because they offer full ride scholarships to ANY student who has financial need of a certain level, which, my understanding is, allows them to also offer it to athletes. So while they can't surpass NCAA roster restrictions, they aren't limited by the 11.7 baseball scholarships, for instance. But they're basically the only private school that does that. And hey look, they also happen to be, along with us, basically the only private school with a big name in college athletics. This, to me, sounds like a load of shit that may have been internationally put in place when someone noticed we were close to invincible at track and field and swimming. There weren't really any other super successful all around athletic schools other than us and stanford... I have literally no idea how we do it in water polo and tennis. I guess water polo lucks out from you only having 4 choices (USC, ucla, cal, stanford) if you really want to compete in water polo and tennis has almost enough scholarships to fill a full singles line up...
Why doesn't USC do what Stanford does then? Especially in baseball and track.
As I understand it, USC would have to offer the same financial package to all like students on a financial need basis. In other words, Stanford provides financial aid to all students at a certain financial need basis for their 7000 undergraduate students. For USC to do the same, all 17,000 undergraduate students would have to receive the same financial aid based on their need. Stanford's endowment is several times larger than USC, so there is no way that USC could afford to provide scholarships to that number of students. Stanford does, so they can have more players on scholarships for non revenue based sports. Stanford also competes in far more sports than does USC.
Yep, that's exactly why. We would need a ton of money to do it. ~2.5 as many students and a smaller endowment. However, we actually ARE working up to that. I've heard chatter that it's some of the motivation behind the 6 billion dollar drive. That's not enough, but it's a start.
Figured it was $ but didn't know the details. Thanks for the info. Would be nice if something could be done to help the baseball team.
men's tennis vs. baylor today round of 16
Okay, riddle me this. Rice and Vanderbilt have been pretty good at baseball recently. Both schools are also private schools with a pretty hefty tuition as well. So, how come they can do it and we cannot?
Rice has an annual tuition of $36k, plus $10-12k in room and board. And their endowment is ~$4.5B
And Vanderbilt is showing ~$61k in total costs. And their endowment is ~$3.4B.
just a guess, but certain teams might be successful based on the way they recruit. someone was telling me SDSU was successful for many years because instead dividing up their scholarship they gave full rides to the 12 best players they could find and then filled the rest of the roster up with local walk-on players which worked out for them. all depends on how you recruit and make up for lack of scholarships.
granted, SDSU is only about 10k in tuition a year so it's a bit more difficult to compare to USC. Not sure how Rice or Vandy does things but might be going after players who are most likely to commit and stay, but aren't as talented, so they could have solid squads every year.
because usc has an interim head coach for a fired interim head coach?
and because usc axed one of her own (gillespie) who is now running circles around his old team
I've still never gotten an explanation for what the hell happened with that one. He was gone relatively quickly (a few years) after the 1998 championship right? What gives?
i think he was getting old and his results weren't very good. might have been a mike garrett blunder. i'm just spitballin' though
Well. Can we get him back?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports