Answer Tuesday! (Part 3)

Even more questions and answers.

Q: dtksr1 said:
Scott,
Who now will be the runningbacks coach? Any info on who Kiffin is talking to? Seems to me there would be some interest in this position amoung the better coaches since SC has a number of top runners and pays well.

A: I understand Kiffin is talking to people right now. Kennedy Pola’s name has come up but he would not do it without the title of offensive coordinator and some additional duties since he will not get to call plays. Otherwise it might be difficult to get a marquee coach. Just look at who has been hired on the offensive side of the ball. There seems to be more difficulty getting big-name guys because Kiffin will control the offense.

Q: spedjones said:
So, it turns out I was right about Baxter’s alleged phone calls all along. Scott, what will SC do to Baxter, if anything, here? This was a ton of unnecessary egg on the program’s face.

Q: gotroy22 said:
Do you think the multiple transfers may actually make USC stronger by opening up more rides for new recruits and make ucla weaker as Lane and Ed steal more recruits out of Skippy’s grasp?

A: That question can only be answered by how many recruits are brought in via the mid-year rule plus the 25-maximum that can be signed in February. If USC does a good job evaluating prospects, yes. Some of the recent transfers were not impact guys, so it is entirely possible to strengthen the squad for next season.

12 thoughts on “Answer Tuesday! (Part 3)

  1. Way to dodge a legit question, Wolfie. But don’t fret, I’ll ask again, and again, and again (sort of like SC and its NCAA violations – again, and again, and again).

  2. how did you like those recent felonies, sped? (sort of like UCLA fans ducking when you mention Sam Gilbert)….

  3. along with Slick Rick’s office pools and your handicapped parking placards…

  4. actually, I think the staff did exactly what it should have. They didn’t wait to see how it played out – they handed down punishment and moved on. Dumb move by dumb kids and now they’re gone.

  5. And speaking of unanswered questtions, datrout still hasn’t answered my question — what did he mean when he talked about “tops and bottoms”?

  6. which means they will be back in a semester, right sped?…if they are dumb kids, I guess Slick Rick didn’t do his homework, huh?

  7. you definitely won’t see all three back at UCLA. As for the overall impact on UCLA and what it says about Rick, I’ll leave that to you. I don’t think that three purse snatchers, however, reaches the level of the alleged rapes, assaults etc. SC has seen over the years. At the end of the day, these are kids and they do dumb kid things.

  8. Spedjones’ comment that “I don’t think that three purse snatchers, however, reaches the level of the alleged rapes, assaults” deserves a response. None of the three alleged purse-snatchers has yet been convicted of (or has pled to) anything, as far as I know. Yet, judging by Neuheisel’s relatively swift reaction, it seems the evidence against them must be pretty solid (didn’t someone mention a video tape?), so it seems fair to throw some mockery UCLA’s way.

    However, the bruin posters on here seem to treat every accusation against a USC player as if it was a proven fact. I’m assuming spedjones’ reference to “alleged rapes” is at least in part a reference to the accusation against Sanchez. As everyone knows, that accusation did not lead to a prosecution, let alone a conviction. Now, bruins can accuse USC of buying its way out of justice, or owning the police, but unless Sanchez or the accuser herself is posting on this blog, not one of us knows whether that sexual assault accusation was any more legitimate than the false accusations made against the Duke lacrosse team several years ago. (Granted, those Duke guys were probably jerks, but jerk does not always equal rapist).

    So to say that an actual purse-snatching is not as bad as a sexual assault WHICH MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED AT ALL is rather dubious, it seems to me.

  9. there will be no charges against the purse snatchers. Difference is that Rick didn’t wait for it to play out on the legal side before deciding what to do. They got the boot immediately. Shirley will likely end up at UW because of this so it’s no small thing.

  10. Depending on the circumstances, there may be nothing wrong with waiting for the legal process to run its course — especially in a “he said / she said” situation, which unfortunately is often the case with sexual assault accusations. If there was something more, like a video tape, or multiple witness accounts, that might be a different story, even if the player maintained his innocence. I don’t think there can be a blanket rule as to whether a coach, A.D., or school should move swiftly or slowly to boot a player accused of criminal acts. Anyway, my original point was that the posters on here should not be too quick to lump accusations and allegations in the same category with established facts.

    But as for OJ, we all know he did it.

Comments are closed.