This week I’ve heard from fans with two familiar themes: Scholarship reductions and depth are costing USC games and the Pac-12 is not what it once was, which means it is tougher to win games.
I agree it is tougher because the quality of coaching is excellent (which is why hiring a coach is more important too). But Oregon seemed to be doing fine under Chip Kelly in the new spread era. And the Ducks have never had recruiting classes close to USC.
This is my basic issue: Why were USC’s recruiting classes ranked so much higher on average than other Pac-12 schools? Do other teams have the nation’s No. 1 draft pick (Leonard Williams). How many schools have a Javorius Allen or Su’a Cravens?
I just don’t see depth costing USC games. Last year, the Trojans closed with an 7-2 record and depth wasn’t considered a fatal issue. They lost to Notre Dame and UCLA. Teams you could say were better though maybe not.
This year’s losses are to Boston College. Arizona. Utah. I wouldn’t take the talent of any of those teams. And if you asked any of those coaches if they would take USC’s top 50 players or their own top 75, what would the answer be?
Lets see this week will be starting 3 freshman, 1 sophmore and junior on offensive line. Never has happen in the history of USC football. In starting D we have 2 other freshman starters and 2 players who will play at next level. A team like U-dub has 4 players on defense alone that will play at next level. Scotty do your homework and stop spreading the myth, this team is mid level pac-12 talent with no quality back ups. Half of the starters are playing on kicking teams because of lack of depth. On your last question other than receivers my bet is half of the Pac12 coaches would choose their own teams.
Exactly…. and both Oregon and UCLA showed what can happen if you attempt to field a patchwork OL………
Thanks Tim, but you probably know Scottie is deaf.
What a crybaby! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! What ever happened to the 30 recruits that Kiffin signed the year Kessler was recruited? Those should be your quality backups! But, where are they? Kiffin chased him away!
So many questions, so few answers from the “Inside USC” expert…
Don’t Outsiders ask questions and Insiders answer questions?
And still no resolution to the Josh Shaw soap opera…
That is the difference from being an actual sports reporter, and the Perez Hilton of sports writing..
Wolf is a Diva, and all Divas cause drama!
So what will your season ending, vitriol filled rant be, should USC manage to beat heavily favored UCLA and/or ND this year?
SUCLA and NEUTER DAME will not be “heavily favored,” although they will be 5 poinst and 4 points, respectively, favorites. But they are very much beatable.
More so than BC, ASU, and Utah? Will USC need as much luck as they got with Stanford or AZ?
UCLA is beatable. ND is not, not with this team. ND is much, much better.
Jersey, didn’t I hear the BC game was a done deal, SUCC winner from 99% of SUCCster’s? SUCC chokes on.
You did not hear that from me Owns. I do not take any football game for granted, nor would I ever bet on a game.
ND being only a 4 point favorite?….If that game were played today, I would guess it would be at least a 9 point spread…..our OL is still in flux and the ND DL is better than decent, although we’ll know more about them after they play ASU and Louisville….
Why would f ucla be favored when they barely survived CO?
Respectfully, until the USC defense can prove that they can consistently stop a running QB, then I’m not sold….and with Hundley having our number for the last 2 years, being a double digit dog to the Bruins would not surprise me……Yes, they barely survived CO, but their defense almost gave the game away by allowing 17 unanswered 4th quarter points on the road…..
why would SC be favored when they lost to ASU?
Maybe there is more parity in this conference than we give it credit for. Maybe the scouts ranking the players are given more credit that they deserve, or maybe these stars mean less than we think.
Stars mean nothing. You need to be able to project stars into your schemes.
Wolf, what “current” are you talking about? And what is it excusing?
This year’s loses were because of coaching. But recruiting services vastly overrate and underrate the talent.
Cody Kessler was a 4 star QB, 12th ranked in the nation. ASU’s Bercovici was a three star, 55th in the country. Taylor Kelly a three star, the 83rd ranked ranked QB in his class. I would take Bercovici and Kelly over Kessler. This is not a Sark issue. Cody Kessler cannot go over the top of the defense with any kind of consistency to keep defenses honest. That is a talent issue. I will also take Jalen Strong over any of USC receivers, including JuJu.
Three star Buck Allen is a much better RB than five stars Justin Davis and Ty Isaac (who couldn’t get more reps at practice than a walk-on). Our top rated OL in the 2012 class is no longer in football. Our 2011 top rated OL can’t beat out a true freshman. No. 6 QB in his class, Jesse Scroggins, transfered and could not beat out a lightly recruited QB from Hawaii.
Of the 2010 five-star players, only one was drafted by an NFL team, Robert Woods, and he is not the primary option. Prater is a second option on Northwestern. Grimble, Uko and Baxter were never drafted.
I will give you LW and S’ua, but I will take Utah’s front seven, en masse, over USC’s front seven, even with LW. Our LB’s are not good. Tavai (a three star) is the only one playing this year who even has a shot at sniffing an NFL roster, let alone be drafted. And Felix was the 3rd rated ILB in his class, Hayes was the 6th. Sarao the 8th.
USC’s talent level isn’t all that special.
Did you uncover any information on the offensive centers at ASU or Utah who could hike the ball to a USC quarterback, say Cody Kessler, with an element of accuracy? Having a center that places the ball where the qb, like Kessler, can receive the snap with out his needing to scramble about the turf in order to find the ball might, just might, have some bearing on a qb’s play.
But why did it have to come down to one play at the end? Because USC doesn’t have the talent to blow teams away like they used to.
Plus, the errant snaps were an ongoing problem, which to me, means a coaching problem. One may not be able to teach every young DB to cover well without pass interference–so many moving parts to the job. But is it impossible to teach an experienced OL to snap consistently, and to find the problem if he’s not doing so? That’s hard to believe.
George, I recommend the Matt Hinton article on the subject. The recruiting service rankings are more predictive as to individual players, and the elite recruiting teams do beat the next tier down 65% of the time.
However, IMHO, your first sentence is decisive, and Scott, Michael Lev, Dan Weber, Ryan Abraham, etc. seem to agree. The cause of two of the three losses was mostly offensive play-calling and game management. I have instinctive doubts about the way Wilcox approaches the very end of games–should he mix in more blitzes, are the coverages ideal, etc.?
But Sark sets up the potential end-games by not getting the most out of USC’s offensive talent. And I think that includes Kessler, even though I see his faults.
If the players are making lots of mental errors, some people think that’s not a coaching issue. Or the ongoing bad snaps. Or the failed plays that were thinly practiced. I find that odd. Whatever time Sark has with the players during the week, it’s just not being used productively.
Are all the opponents having the same issues with the same frequency? Is that because they have more players, even though their players are less talented (IMHO, at least)? I don’t think so. I think it’s because those coaches are better organized, have a clearer vision, and are using talent more effectively.
Sark’s not that good. Such is life.
The cause of all three loses was coaching. The reason why Arizona almost won was because of coaching.
I don’t think I have to explain to regulars on this site that I am not a Sark fan.
But the reason why these games were close was because USC does not have an overwhelming talent advantage. It is an article of faith that USC has to have the overwhelming talent advantage. I don’t see it. I see small LBs who cannot penetrate the line of scrimmage. I see DLs who cannot rush the passer. I see a very young secondary that has upside but that still struggles in man. I see a tough game manager at QB who hasn’t thrown a fade or gone over the top with any consistency in two years. I see a very young OL with huge upside but a unit, at this moment, is struggles and recognizing blitzes. I see one future stud at WR, and a lot of small slot receiver types.
I read the Hinton article. Yes, there is a correlation. But teams with 85 four and five stars have a much larger room for error than a team with 62 four and five stars.
I think this is where the “blame the sanctions crowd” (as Wolf calls it) has a point. The rankings don’t always pan out, but it seems that whenever anyone bothers to do the research, they find that, the higher the rankings of a team’s recruits, the better the team usually does with those players. So it seems that the rankings — in the aggregate — do point toward the better players. But due to the sanctions, USC has had smaller recruiting classes, and therefore we haven’t gotten as much benefit from the “in the aggregate” aspect of the high rankings of the kids recruited. It’s another way of saying that USC “can’t afford to make mistakes” when recruiting fewer kids.
Agree, and since mistakes are simply unavoidable, USC’s upside IS limited.
But not so limited that two more games would have been won by a better coach.
Wolf’s technique to troll his own readers is to imply that it must be only one or the other — either sanctions are at fault, or it’s the coaching. Seems to me like we have a not-great coach AND a depleted team. We’ll never know how this season would have gone with someone else in charge, so that gives Wolf (and everybody else) a free pass to argue something that no one can ever disprove — namely, the idea that in some alternate universe, Orgeron or whoever is leading this team to the Pac-12 title game.
I guess we’re probably in for two more years of the same, either way.
I don’t disagree about the next two years.
I agree with every point, particularly your last paragraph. 4 or 5 stars increases the likelihood of a good recruiting outcome, but regarding any one player, that likelihood is below 50% with even a 5-star. So you need lots of high-star players on a roster to yield a truly strong starting line-up.
On the other hand, if we agree that coaching was ” the cause of all three losses”, do we disagree that coaching was a substantial cause in turning those contests into close games at the end? With an overwhelming talent advantage, maybe even Sark could establish solid leads. But if he were a strong coach, he would have established solid leads in those particular three games (or at least in two of them), even with his current roster.
That is Scott’s point, and I think he’s correct. The sanctions prevent USC from being a top 5 team, but not from scoring more, and beating ASU or Utah. Notre Dame is a different matter, as is Oregon. And maybe UCLA, if they are playing at their best.
I agree with most of your points. One thing, though. Don’t forget that Jump the Sark recruited Kessler for the Fuskies.
SC does not have a “top-50”, they have only 50, many of whom are not big star athletes. So I would take 75 over 50
I heard the ncaa took all of those scholarships away to make things easier for USC.
Oh that’s a good one – this is right what the morons from bel-air tech believe if we win and if we lose they deny what they just swore to.
Yo, Ho, Ho, and bottle of Bolshe eh Otis.
The sideline was getting too crowded.
Wasn’t it just TWO Years ago SoSo Cal had the HIGHEST avg. PLAYER rating and accumulated the most POINTS EVER???? (consult our resident RANCHER Amir). Scotty’s post…as usual, is right on and as usual……you dummies can’t handle the truth!
A big part of the problem are (Drum roll, please)….those knuckle headed special admits. Look at all the head cases who have QUIT the team. Look the boneheads who have been kicked out or have been SUSPENDED. Comments coming from players like ” I shouldn’t have even been there” are unacceptable. ESPN openly refers to you knuckleheads as a CLOWN SCHOOL. The drama and the side shows involving your A.D. DO AFFECT the football teams mentality. It’s a HUGE DISTRACTION. Your school is located in a DUMP and reeks of Wino Urine! If it wasn’t for the Kid’s Choice Awards, those YUMMY Hot Box Burritos, and those NIKE Bronze shoes on the McKay statue….you fools would be completely IRRELEVANT. You want to know who loves you guys? It’s the LAW ENFORCEMENT GUYS! There’s more Police patrolling ($$$$$$$$) in and around your dump, than anywhere else in Los Angeles…but not even those guys can stop the hideous crimes from continuing to occur.
There is a bright side to all of this…When/if your football team gets to SIX wins…you’ll be about even with the basketball team!
fit Un Clown School!
Recruiting 101. Bring in 25 guys, 2-3 don’t make it through first semester, 5 will never see field or transfer, 5 will be partial starters or special teams, 5 will start couple years, 7-8 will be solid starters with 3-4 of those making next level. Now start that process with 15 for 3 years in a row. USC played some games to try and lesson the impact but in the end this team have some huge holes. Also include the little fact that NCAA allowed existing schools players to transfer out and you have just trashed a program. Your welcome for the lesson on college football.
Of course you’re right. AND, Sark still sucks.
TryMex -. If it weren’t for USC, South L.A. would be in worse shape. USC is doing to many good things, like investing over $3million annually in community programs, providing free scholarships to local south and east L.A. youth to attend USC. USC blows UCLA completely 100% out of the water when it comes to outreach, so whatever.
If you want to perpetuate stereotypes, why don’t you make sure your athletic dept. doesn’t kick veteran’s out of their homes, and why don’t you stop your researchers from burning your students.
Also, your school is also being a great neighbor by suing local residents over your proposed hotel.
Juan More time….look at the situation from another perspective….If SoSo Cal weren’t there to begin with, how many students would still be alive today????????
Your idea of contributing to the community begins and ends with Hot Box Burritos.
fit Un Clown School!
Sure thing TraiRex – Your abso-tutely 100% accurate. USC doesn’t contribute anything like UGLY. You win.
#GoBCray-craybyyoself
LOL!! Your worse than a religious fanatic. I gotta start treating you like one and just leave your nutty self alone.
#yournuttierthanmostnutts
An accurate comparison
Tell this to the 8000 foreign students that attend SC every year, the largest group of any university in the country. What do they know about SC that you don’t?
8,000 foreign students?….and how many die or are viciously attacked each year (walking home or sitting in parked cars)??????? Oh…I almost forgot…..since you are a private University (the Stanford of the South hahahahahahahahahahaha!) there’s no need to divulge the TRUE UGLY FACTS.
Like Charlie Pride said….”cause when we get behind closed doors…..”
fit Un Clown School!
oh no you didn’t!
f ucla started 3 freshmen, a sophomore and junior last year on their offensive line and beat us 35-17. Arizona played 2 more players against Washington State last week than we did against Utah. So much for scholarship limits hurting depth. The excuses for our poor coach are lame.
35-14
It’s an issue at the margins, Scottie. More players, harder work in practice, more hitting. Without that depth, it’s tough for the top player to get optimal work in. But you know this.
This is how you destroy a program.
Recruiting 101. Bring in 25 guys, 2-3 don’t make it through first semester, 5 will never see field or transfer, 5 will be partial starters or special teams, 5 will start couple years, 7-8 will be solid starters with 3-4 of those making next level. Now start that process with 15 for 3 years in a row. USC played some games to try and lesson the impact but in the end this team have some huge holes. Also include the little fact that NCAA allowed existing players to transfer out and you have just trashed a program. Your welcome for the lesson on college football.
If Socal had a decent coach, the existing players would not have transferred out! And then Socal hired Kiffin 2.0 who is just the same loser with a different visor! I hope Kiffin 2.0 stays there for a long, long time!
Seven Wins On!
good theory, but it assumes that the additional 10 guys would be equally likely to fall in each of your categories. Instead, your 5 star kids are far more likely to be in the 7-8 starters and the last few guys in a class more likely to be in the transfer/never play group.
Over last three classes we have had 10, 5 stars. 3 have not seen field, 1 transferred and 6 are contributing. 5 star is no guarantee. There is not a huge difference on long term success if your rated 3 star and above.
Not so, Tim. But even 5-stars only succeed big half the time or so. With 4-stars, it’s lower, with 3-stars, lower still.
Wolf – You are a complete a s s for writing this, you obviously weren’t a math major, and can’t grasp the notion that a 40% reduction of scholarship athletes on a team is BAD, very BAD.
You should be ashamed to even step foot on that campus, or anywhere near the Grand O’l Lady.
My only hope at this point is that you are replaced.
Your point is correct, but I don’t think that mostly explains two of the losses. The sanctions are major…AND Sark is a coach of modest talents who shouldn’t be his own OC.
He was the largest single factor in two losses.
Like Kiffin, Sark did not fully consider the challenges of the sanctions and the adjustments to start young, inexperienced players. Ironically, Orgeron was shrewder than both of them in his vision–simplify assignments and everything else, and get the kids to practice hard at game speed, and play hard. By doing that, Orgeron only lost the games he should have lost. Sark is at risk in every game.
And what does Sark have to show for all his BS about injury prevention? Increased number of injuries.
He’s a mediocrity. “I have to coach better.” That’s Kiffin’s line, if you recall. THEY CAN’T.
Haden’s strategies expose him for the trainee AD he is.
Not feasible now, but a clean sweep would be best. It will happen, over time.
USC has been through this before. I just stopped following them at that time. About to recur.
Well then I suppose we will be talking, or not talking, about the Trojans in about 3 years time. That is the minimum time needed to make an accurate assessment of a 40 yr old Coach in his first year, in the year most affected by scholarship reductions. PCarroll was not a big time hire, as long as Sark doesn’t embarrass the University like Kiffy did, and keeps games competitive, I’m happy.
I don’t think Sark with see three more years–unless he turns all of his modest ability to HC, and hires a very proficient OC.
Plus, if USC loses to UCLA and ND, recruiting will be impacted. Lose to WSU, too, and it will really be impacted.
Finally, with a few more bonehead play-calling and game-management jobs that end in losses, and Sark will lose THIS team, as Kiffin lost his teams.
Less-than-good coaching has consequences.
The losses were on the Defensive side of the ball.
A. Sark’s hand-picked DC.
B. Sark’s bonehead play-calling and time-clock-management led directly to USC’s defense even being on the field, and to the defense being tired after a succession of 3 and outs..
Do you follow in any detail the progress of these games? I have to wonder…
I’m im favor of the QB making more, if not all, of the decisions at the line. I agree with the imperfect flow of the Offense leading to D mishaps – but it’s something that can be tweeked.
We’re starting to find common ground. 🙂
With better tweaking by the coach, USC’s performance could, in fact, get better, despite the impaired roster.
But, if Sark won’t let Helton–a fairly experienced position coach who DID in fact major in math–craft a game plan and choose the plays from the omnisicient view of the press box, with zero distractions, how much discretion would you guess that Sark allows Cody Kessler at the LOS?
Sark’s chances of offering philosophical redefinitions regarding who calls what are much greater than Kiffin’s were – he has hope in my view, and a stronger roster will help A LOT, in time.
I don’t share your optimism when I combine Sark’s UW tenure, the fan reaction to his departure, and what Sark has shown so far.
You listen to Chip Kelly, and you know he’s really sharp (same with Belichick). You listen to Nick Saban, and you know he’s really organized and detailed. You listen to Pete Carroll, and you know he’s very empowering. You listen to Sark, and what do YOU hear? I hear a bunch of vague pablum, most of it not on point.
He’s young – I will not budge from my stance that a minimum of 3 years needs to pass for us to see exactly what kind of coach he is – Washington was 0 and 12, they won 9 games in his final year, that’s a dramatic improvement.
Then I guess that, had you been AD, you would have hired him?
If I was AD – my order would have been like this; re hire Pete, then try John Gruden, then Sark with Coach O with a prominent title like Team Father
Some analysis, SW: “I don’t see it….last year it wasn’t an issue.”…could your analysis get any weaker? What is your excuse for being such a lame beat writer.? You shoulda played a sport so that, never mind.
Dana Holgorsenl at West Virginia said he can explain his offense in three days. Says it’s more about practice and having his players understand what he is teaching then schemes. They are winning with 2-3 star players.
How might he do at USC?
The bigger question here is what aren’t the excuses? Wolf please write an article of this type.
Depth cost USC games if you listen to Steve Sarkisian’s “Cheerleader Boy” squad, but if you know anything about Football you can clearly see the Trojans have coaching issues. USC didn’t loose to any SEC Schools, they lost to average teams with less talent. They beat Fresno State 52-13 and Stanford 13-10 . Where were the depth issues in those two wins ? Then they loose to a very average Boston College and Utah , and all of the sudden the depth issue conveniently comes into play, from Sarkisian’s “cheerleader Boy” groups..Really ?
You are so right, Fred. Can you imagine if USC were playing in the SEC?
In fact, USC has BEATEN only weak teams. It lucked into the Stanford and AZ wins.
When I looked two weeks ago, BC hadn’t turned out to be all that bad. In any event, one can conjure up plausible explanations for what happened.
But with ASU and Utah, Sark himself snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I suspect that some fans don’t like to face that reality, because of a related reality–Sark will be around for awhile. Once you really accept his mediocrity, his ongoing tenure becomes a depressing thought.