Recruiting Rankings Comparison

USC is ranked No. 33 by Rivals. Obviously, the Trojans will add some players tomorrow. USC was ranked No. 13 in 2013 when the Trojans signed only 12 players. That class was affected by Lane Kiffin’s shaky status. And you could make a case coaching issues affected this class too.

16 thoughts on “Recruiting Rankings Comparison

  1. The sad part about all of this is , that when Pat Haden hired Clay Helton, and he dragged his feet hiring a coaching staff , I knew this would happen. So as long as Haden, and Helton think there smarter then everybody else, and continue to do things differently, then look for repeat performances, and the same results as the prior two coaches. Helton’s actions are that of an inexperienced coach, and it will eventually take the once prominent program, back to a Paul Hackett mediocrity. I guarantee, 110%

    • Now Fred, really.

      I think Helton will surprise people (ahem) when he gets a chance to implement his complete strategy. New coaches used to get 5 years to put their stamp on the program, but in today’s age of instant gratification (ahem), coaches get more like 3 years. The goal is not to put together a staff the quickest, but put together a good staff.

      • Helen-
        You need to do something about that catch (ahem) in your throat. My recommendation would be a slug of Sapphire over the flagstones.

    • I could see Helton not working out but Fred you really like to play the know it all game. I think Helton took his time and got the coaches he wanted and it had very little to do with recruiting. The reality was that some of the coaches we let go took recruits with them but it had nothing to do with how fast we hired coaches. It hurt to lose Sirmon but would you rather have Sirmon over Clancy?

      • Helton got turned down/couldn’t get those coaches he wanted… and this staff he now has are 2nd/3rd pick leftovers after his brother, Tee & Clancy. Just like the recruits he brings in this year. Very consistent!

    • Your so called guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is written. You would be better off in Westwood.

      • “You would be better off in Westwood.” I’ve been telling everybody that for years. Glad to have you on board!

    • Take a refresher course in math my friend. Hehehe 🙂 You can’t go over 100 percent.

  2. Different strokes for different folks.
    What is most important (actually none of them)?…Point rating?…Average star rating? …Number of lads in the top 100? For lack of an agreed upon standard, let’s use Scout data (close enough for government work)
    1) USC is rated around 25th or so on total points…it do change daily.
    2) Average star rating, would U believe, has USC at # 1?’ USC 3.92, Tide at 3.89, LSU & Ohio St at 3.83, Mississippi at 3.77.
    3) Number of commits in the top 100 has LSU at 6, Ohio St., Mississippi St.& Florida at 5, Michigan, Georgia, & Penn St at 4 and a 4-way tie for 8 thru 11th with 3 between USC, Bama, Stanford, and Baylor.
    USC is probably susceptible to the most flux…as all our data is based upon a scant N of 13 commits. We are capable of rising or falling at a very rapid rate while the majority appear to be a relatively status quo due to currently being in the 22-23 commit range.
    It obviously is a cr*p shoot but what else is there to do in all this wind (LA-beach area) except contemplate one’s navel?

      • Yolo, you are one funny son of a gun.

        …Unfortunately I must have missed something.
        Perhaps Bucket or Thai can translate.

  3. The ranking just got worse each day leading to NSD. This is called a near-total bailout of the better recruits who were waiting for USC to come thru with a home-run HC who could immediately deliver. Haden couldn’t/wouldn’t… take your pick here.

Comments are closed.