Signing Day is getting out of hand. Exhibit A is Jordan Payton, who committed to 4 schools (USC, Cal, Washington, UCLA). Exhibit B is Cyler Miles, who did not announce this morning and then announced he would attend Washington over USC in a hastily arranged press conference in his high school gym.
I’m with Kirk Herbstreit, who bemoaned all the hype and skits and hat-picking ceremonies today. And he even blamed ESPN for contributing to it.
Inside USC with Scott Wolf
USC football, Trojans basketball and other sports news
Scott, let’s make this clear. You agree with Kirk Herbstreit, no way is he letting you anywhere near him.
Why won’t the NCAA only allow 1 (one) commitment in D-I schools, and if you want to decommit you have to go to D-II for a year or lose your redshirt year.
Or do not allow any verbal commitment crap, because that is all it is. These kids, and their parents are so flakey it is incredible. Why can’t these kids be told do not make any commitments until signing day, because you will be held to them if you wish to play football.
Getting tired of this decommit crap, should be no such thing.
In this case I can’t be too mad. He committed to Washington. The young man is honoring his commitment. I’d like him to be a Trojan but I can’t impugn his character, especially the way the coaches jump ship at the drop of a hat. Steve, I’d only want to put something like that in place if the same went for the coaches, and our own coaches have some complicity.
Murphy to Stanford. Big loss. Indians are getting a real nice recruiting class.
So Far, in my book.
SC #1
UW #2
Stanford #3
Oreg #4
UCLA #5
You can’t get fault a 17 / 18 year old kid for having trouble making up his mind where he wants to go to college. When you applied to different schools and recieved multiple letter of acceptance I’m sure it was something that was hard for you to make your mind up on.
First off, I’m sick of this shitty site where you type your response, and THEN it tells you that you aren’t signed in. WTF
Verbal commitments aren’t commitments at all. They’re a joke. And we wonder why these kids have a sense of entitlement? Unfortunately today will be the biggest day of many of their lives, and they won’t live up to the hype.
Steve49:
I hear you, but you can’t bind a kid on a verbal committment. First, the kid should be able to change his mind if the coach leaves prior to LOI day (e.g., Coach Schiano leaving Rutgers for the NFL), or sanctions are imposed after the verbal committment is made. Second, any coach could claim that a kid verbally committed to to the school. Third, the kid should be able to change his mind if the school later lands s 5-star stud at his position. Fourth, schools can pull a scholarship offer, so its a two-way street. Lastly, kids at this age have not yet matured and are prone to changing their mind.
Verbal committments are worth nothing. It is asinine for the coaches, media or fans to rely on them, although there are plenty of kids that honor their committment. The media makes a big deal about those who don’t (like Scott lamenting about Jordan Payton and Cyrus Miles).
Moreover, once the kid signs the LOI, he is bound to the school, unless the school releases him.
uscmike: agreed.
On a related note, I read that Michigan was offering four year scholarships. I think USC and the rest of the Pac-12 should do the same. The only schools who pull schollies are shady schools in the South, so I don’t think it would affect USC or its Pac-12 brethren at all. I know that Kiffin and Co. are suggesting that some guys leave to make room for this new class, but that wouldn’t change with a four year offer. These guys don’t have to leave, they just know that they stand a better chance elsewhere. The one thing that has a chance to bring the SEC to its knees is if they’re the only conference in America not offering four years.
“Signing Day is getting out of hand”….six years ago.
I’m still saying I am tired of hearing one thing from people and getting something else. The whole NCAA system is out of control.
@idiot, who care what you think! facts are facts, according to scout.com:
1. Staford
2. UCLA
3. Oregon
4. USC
according to rivals.com
1. Stanford.
2. USC
3. UCLA
4. Oregon.
SlobDusky, you are soooo right. Fucla is Great. The bRuins are better than SC in football. 8 Clap.
Enough, you’re full of $h!t.
with the expected commits not coming; murphy and/or peat, miles and one or two others – USC can use the difference for EE’s next year. we had 12 signees giving us three 2013 EE’s – so recruiting top HS kids with strong academics will be key. that means heavy recruiting for 2013 starts now.
i can’t believe we only got 12 signees. twelve?! we did get three 2012 EE’s but still. whoduthunkit?
Cerritos Slob, you are absolutely right. USC did not get one good player, not to mention great player, this year. Come to think of it they signed a bunch of guys who are fat, dumb, and slow, just like yourself. Oh, and by the way, last time I checked it’s Stanford, not Staford. I guess that Cerritos JC education is really paying dividends for you.
So is UCLA gonna beat SC in the next couple years, Rob? LOL
JackOff, you dumb a$$, when did I ever post that USC didn’t get one good player? I stated UCLA finished higher in the recruiting rankings…was UCLA’s recruiting class more successfull than USC’s? I think so, why? because UCLA got everyone they went after, and two more they were not even counting on getting, such as Jordan Payton and Devin Fuller who is going to electrify the Pac-12 at any position he plays. USC did not get everyone they went after – USC got the shaft from three recruits they thought they had in the bag…that, Jackie boy, is the reaso why UCLA’s class was better. USC’s class was also excellent, getting that beast OLineman Banner was huge.
@SUC owns, “So is UCLA gonna beat SC in the next couple years, Rob? LOL”
I’m not sayin we’re this year, but in 2013 YES, and 2014, and 2015 for SURE,
BruinRob said: “was UCLA’s recruiting class more successfull than USC’s? I think so, why? because UCLA got everyone they went after, and two more they were not even counting on getting… USC did not get everyone they went after – USC got the shaft from three recruits they thought they had in the bag…that, Jackie boy, is the reaso why UCLA’s class was better.”
BruinRob, maybe you didn’t mean that quite like it sounds, but the problem with that argument is that it would mean that if one man aspires to become President, but only ends up a senator, he is less successful than the man who achieves his dream of managing an Outback Steakhouse.
That said, I think both schools did a good job given their respective obstacles.