A reader asks if USC had too many backs recently to develop a star and another opens up the UCLA-USC obsession in this segment.
Q: Revenge of Charlie Bucket said:
Mr. Wolfman: with all this talk about recruiting so many wonderfully talented tailbacks, one cannot help but recall the situation Southern Cal found itself in a few years back, when the trOXans piled up schollie tailbacks like Duralogs in ’07!! i recall that a side effect of having so many “top recruits” in one positionn was that few or NONE of them was able to assert themselves, in fact NONE of the TEN schollie TB’s gained 1000 yds that year and they all eventually slipped into anonymity.
a brief recap of their pro careers:
-C. J. Gable: undrafted, waived twice, now “retired”
-Joe McKnight: barfed in camp, a “special teams player”
-Stafon Johnson: retired
-Allen Bradford: 13(sic) career yds rushing in NFL
-Desmond Reed: No Pro Activity
-Chauncey Washington: 9(sic) career yds rushing in NFL
-Marc Tyler: undrafted, still gropin’ & spittin’
-Emmanuel Moody: 2 weeks with Bufalo Bills…waived
-Broderick Green: No Pro Activity
-Hershel Dennis: Indoor Football League journeyman
it is my contention that having too many top ranked players at one position may make the coaches feel secure, but from a developmental standpoint, does not allow the full development of the individual player’s skills!! agree??
A: There were too many tailbacks in the period you mention but more important, I don’t think there was an elite back in the group. Many were average. And the coaches made some poor decisions. I thought Broderick Green was perhaps the most dangerous of the group with his size and power but he was buried, even after a big game against Arizona and grew frustrated and transferred.
USC hopes one of its incoming backs is elite but there are no guarantees.
Q: Jethro G. Sabbath said:
With all the time Charlie Bucket spends here how can he not know that he is limited to one question per open forum?
A: I guess I have to trust the readers..
Q: ftfo2009 said:
Why do you think UCLA is so obsessed with USC? And, do you think it’s a healthy obsession?
A: This is a good question. I believe it stems from a few things: USC was already well-established when UCLA was founded so that placed the school in the shadow of USC at the outset. On top of that, USC was a national football power, which made it difficult for UCLA to establish its identity. And finally, there was the fostering of the “Gutty Little Bruin” image by UCLA.
All of this contributes to the USC obssession and the “second-best” mentality even when UCLA is better than USC like in the 1990’s. Plenty of USC fans are also obsessed with UCLA but I have not seen it to the level it exists from UCLA fans in general.
Q: You say timeout, I say touchdown! said:
Has any team won a College Football National Championship while under scholarship reductions?
A: Not that I am aware of but I am not the expert on the subject.