Cornerback Nickell Robey finished second in the long jump at the USC-UCLA dual meet with a jump of 23-11.5. Wide receiver Marqise Lee was third at 23-8.75. Robey and Lee were also on the 4 x 100 relay team that finshed second at 39.51.
Inside USC with Scott Wolf
USC football, Trojans basketball and other sports news
Uuuuh, finishing “second” in a dual meet is a euphemism for coming in last.
Since Scott did not complete the post I presume that SC lost.
typically in a dual meet each team can enter up to 3 individuals in each event. so by placeing second he actually out jumped 4 others.
Thanks Mr.”separate but equal”. Interesting to note the #6 Ranked $UCks Men’s track and Field LOST to the UNRANKED U_C_L_A Bruins while the $UCks women defeated the Lady BRUINS.
As reflected in the recent Directors Cup, w/o women’s sports, LIMBO U would truly have no where to go except UP!
FIT ON LIMBO U!
Thaimex,
How many times do I have to tell you that it’s not healthy for you to be up in the middle of the night in your exotic time zone fretting over something so trivial as college track & field. Why are you still worrying about something so provincial now that you have gone big time?
Where do you live again?
To 611 gayley:
I was speaking of the SC relay team that finished
last, I mean, “second.”
I knew when Scott didn’t have a headline on the track meet it meant we lost. Without the football players pitching in we would have lost by 40 points!
thanks for the gumball wolfman!
keep on scoopin’
USC typically doesn’t fare too well against UCLA in dual meets. This is largely due to scholarship limitations and the lower tuition at UCLA. UCLA can load the bottom of its roster with decent athletes (on partial or no scholarships), resulting in UCLA having an overall better roster top to bottom.
But USC’s elite athletes (those on full scholarship) are better than UCLA’s elite athletes, which is why USC does better in nationals. USC’s best athletes are among the best in the nation; whereas, UCLA’s worst athletes aren’t as bad as USC’s worst.
That’s how a nationally ranked USC team can lose to an unraked one in a dual meet. For those that follow track, it’s not an unexpected outcome. USC’s recent success against UCLA in dual meets is actually somewhat surprising.
Jon…well said. It’s a similar problem with baseball, getting only 11.7 scholarships. Most players get a half or partial scholarship. A half scholarship at SC will still cost a player between $25K to $30K. That’s why the LB and Fullerton States thrive, along with many going out of state to someone like ASU.
On the plus side, USC financial aid keeps getting better and better. But it’ll take tens of billions more in endowment for USC to be as generous with aid as Stanford.
Perhaps the recent commitments of preferred walk-ons for the football team are a sign of USC’s increasingly generous financial aid packages. Though it probably has more to do with the scholarship sanctions being lifted in a couple years, and walk-ons hoping they’ll be the beneficiaries.
Unfortunately for the UC schools, their in-state tuition keeps rising. A half-tuition Presidential scholarship just about makes USC the same cost as a UC.
More excuse making. When did Trojans start make excuses? We compete for championships, not for reasons why we don’t win. If things are so unfair then how did SC mens track beat fucla in 2009 and 2010? And the baseball whining is pathetic. How come private schools like Baylor , Rice, Stanford, Gonzaga, Pepperdine, Miami, Wake Forest and Louisville all seem to be able to handle the restrictions on baseball scholarships this year? Admit it, we are the pits in baseball right now.
That’s right. USC competes for national championships. For track, that means focusing (with scholarships) on USC’s strengths. Would you prefer the track teams be stacked to win dual meets, but do jack at nationals? That’s the reality of track & field in the era of scholarship limitations — it’s not uncommon for ranked teams to lose dual meets to lower-/unranked teams.
As for baseball, agreed that USC should still be able to compete. Perhaps not as well as in the Dedeaux days, but Gillespie won a title notwithstanding scholarship limits.