Answer Friday, Part III

Q: Who that you know of is USC going after the hardest as far as 2009 football recruits are concerned? Who do you think they will get and who do you predict they will loose out on?

A: USC's already got 10 commitments, so some of those players are the top targets. But I'll answer the rest of the question a little later this month once we see where the coaching staff went recruiting.

Q: Is this Randall Carroll business the reason many people are in support of an early signing date? Why doesn't Randall Carroll come out now and say that he has opened back up his recruitment? I know he is only a junior in high school but isn't it disrespectful to the Trojans?
Do you think it almost seems like Neuheisel has told him to stay committed to USC until the end and then switch to UCLA?
Should they have an early signing rule that basically says if you commit to a program early on and then change your mind, you loose a year of eligibility?

A: Locking up early commitments is the main reason for an early signing season. One thing the public needs to remember is that recruits think different than they do. Randall Carroll might not want to get caught up in making statements to always reflect his feelings at the moment. USC knows he is a soft commitment and that he could go to UCLA or Texas A&M. He's not locked up for UCLA and if he was, Neuheisel would want him to commit now, not later.

As for forcing a commitment to lose a year of eligibility. What if a coach leaves or gets fired after a recruit signs? I don't see colleges rushing to pass a rule to let kids out of the letter of intent when that happens. It's a two-way street.