Weekly Answers, Pt. 6
Check after the jump for this round of Answers...
1) How many scholarships can a school give? - BostonBruin85.
2) Are Grants-in-Aid seen as scholarships, or are they added-on to that number? - BostonBruin
They're included.
3) I'll make the case UCLA's class is stronger than SC's because 1)Henderson is not yet part of it 2)USC had so many WRs and TEs, but big holes elsewhere, whereas UCLA's class is balanced and is only really missing a QB. Thoughts on my thought? - Anonymous
Balance means nothing compared to talent when evaluating a class. If UCLA had 22 3-stars, but one at every position, is that better? If Henderson ends up at USC, it's in the top 4. If not, top-10. I think the No.1 ranking is ridiculous anyway.
4) Any chance in the world that Henderson ends up at UCLA? - AnonymousNo.
5) Sua Filo is gone for the 2010 and 2011 seasons. If he comes back and plays lights out in 2012, could he be eligible for the 2013 NFL draft (meaning he'd only have played 2 college seasons)? - Anonymous
Yes, you just have to be out of high school for three years or more.
BostonBruin: My daughter received an athletic scholarship. On the document it's titled "Athletic Grant In Aid". So, scholarship and grant-in-aid are the same thing.
I'm a big UCLA fan and I love the recruiting class Neuheisel came up with but, I have to be honest, some of the skill guys USC recruited are scary with their big play possibilities. I hope our defense can match them but that USC group is going to put up some points. I hope some transfer or can't hang academically (which I know is not real likely at an academic beacon like USC).
Jon, balance does matter if you only sign talent to one position, or to a position not of need.
For example, USC needed linebackers badly, but only signed 2. They needed a couple of WRs and TEs as well, and signed 7. Accordingly, although USC signed "talent," their class is deceptively weak because it is unbalanced.
With the talent stuck at a couple of positions, USC won't be able to get much of it on the field.
Although we didn't sign as many 5 stars, we did sign as many 4 stars, and at different positions. So, UCLA will be able to get more of the talent on the field. And, therefore, we probably have the better class.
I agree with you, Dr. Mario, but the one thing that a class like 'SC signed gives them is the ability to "miss" on a player or two. If two of the WRs don't live up to the hype, they will still have talent there. If 2 of our DT recruits don't pan out, we're in trouble. In the end we really will find out 4 years from now what the best recruiting teams were - everything up to there just adds "buzz" to the program which helps future recruiting a bit but not much else if the players don't pan out...
I remember when SC had 5 5* RBs. Only the smart one(s) (i.e, those who transferred) won NCs. Look for several WRs to leave next year.
Anon @10:24 Congrats on your QB, WR, TE and DT
RB - UCLA Malcolm Jones Scout #17 overall
USC Dillon Baxter #33 overall
OG - UCLA Chris Ward #240 overall
USC nobody
DE - UCLA Owa #49 overall
USC nobody
OLB- UCLA Anthony Barr #100 overall
UCLA Josh Shirley #120 overall
UCLA Aramide Olaniyan #170 overall
USC nobody
S - UCLA Dietrich Riley #152 overall
USC nobody
CB - UCLA Anthony Jefferson #164 overall
USC Nickell Robey #238 overall
Mike H, How about what Rivals has for position rankings? Ambles #3 Bailey #7 Baxter #1 Brown #35 Di Poalo #20 Grimble #1 Morgan #3 Prater #1 Pullard #15 Robey #9 Scroggins #5 Telfer #6 Thomas #4 Uko #3 Vainuku #1 Woods #1 Wright #8
That is impressive...and, then you throw on Henderson.
Bruins obsession with SC is sickening.
vainuku isnt eligible buddy, kiff just added him so he can get a higher rectuiting class knowing that he would be able to play... he ended up screwing soma over. i was talking to his brother in a bar in humboldt county and he said he really wanted to go to ucla, he went to the camp and everything. ucla just couldnt offer him.
Anon @11:38 Again, congrats on the WR, QB, TE and DT
Per Rivals, Owa #2, Zumwalt #4, Barr #5, James #8, Riley #9, Jones #9, Ward #10, Jefferson #14, Olaniyan #21, Smith #1, Young #29, Richardson #30, Innes #33, Bryant #34, Richardson #38, etc.
No complex...just pretty happy with our guys, too. See you Dec. 4.
"emasculate" is such a big word for a trojan. either you are a bandwagon fan or use the thesaurus to make yourself sound smarter. btw, the use of "its" is used incorrectly because "its" is a possessive pronoun. your spell checker must not catch grammatical mistakes you troll. now who is the one justifying their superiority?
Let's talk about USC some more.
To paraphrase an old comment about sports talk radio and apply it to sports forums and blog comment sections, "It's a bunch of losers talking about a bunch of winners."
The recruiting classes for both schools rock. These young men are winners. Unfortunately, many of them are single-dimensional and will flame out or not live up to the hype. But only time will tell.
What happens at SC is out of our control. Worrying about that is just a waste of energy. I wish them luck, to do anything less is simply not right. What happens in Westwood is up to our recruits, our veterans, and our coaching staff. Let's hope the UCLA staff can shape these raw recruits into the best in the Pac-10, and, eventually the nation.
Nice post, Positive - - however, the first sentence in your 3rd paragraph should be corrected to the following:
What happens at SC is way out of control.
The question, nor the answer, didn't specify the sport, but 85 scholarships is the total number of scholarships for football (FBS) in any given year. Included in the 85 is a limit of 25 "initial counters" (students who receive financial aid for the first time). There are all sorts of rules based on when the student first receives financial aid: beginning of the fall term, after the fall term, afer the first year, etc.
For mens basketball, there is a limit of 13 scholarships during the year (womens basketball is allowed 15 scholarships).