Answer Friday!
Here we go!
Q: Now that the issue of the Song Girls having been ugly throughout the 2000s has been picked up by several other media sources, including national sports blogs, some of which refer to this blog, do you think that if we keep pushing the issue of bringing back pretty Song Girls between now and the October tryouts, this will get bigger and bigger until the selection committee will have to succumb to the public pressure in order to avoid embarrassment and scrutiny? Could this tidal wave be stopped? Could the possibility that the people's voice is being heard result in the return of beautiful Song Girls? Or is this just all wishful thinking?
A: There is a lot of pressure being exerted to end this debate but I am hopeful we can make the selection process transparent. That is a fair result.
Q: Is it safe to say that the reason the USC Song Girls have such a prestigious reputation throughout the country is based on an outdated perception people have from the past and not the reality of what they have been recently?
A: Tradition dictates a lot at USC, whether it's football or anything else. Recruits still love USC simply because it's USC, even during the Paul Hackett era.
Q: The Flag Girls have always been known for being rather on the "plus size." So is it a coincidence that with a former Flag Girl now serving as the advisor to the Song Girls, the Song Girls have also become somewhat more on the "plus size" these past few years?
A: I can neither confirm nor deny this assertion.
Tom Leykis uses the phrase an "LA 10" to differentiate
between the the hotness of girls from the Pacific Northwest and Southern California. For example, a "Portland or Seattle 9", might actually only be an "LA 7."
The talent pool for women has to be deeper in the LA-OC area. The slippage in the Song Girls has to be due to cronyism and favortism in the selection process.