Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Without Henderson, what is the future of USC?

Posted on: July 6, 2010 7:52 pm
Edited on: July 11, 2010 12:25 pm
 

The question now has to be asked: Is there officially an exodus out of USC?

When blue-chip recruit Seantrel Henderson was released from his letter of intent on Tuesday, he was on his way to becoming the third USC player to transfer from USC since the NCAA penalties were handed down June 11. A fourth player said he was contacted by several schools about transferring.

Henderson is easily the biggest loss, though. The nation's No. 1 recruit had a chance to start as a freshman and was projected as a future anchor on the offensive line. Various reports had USC coaches traveling twice to Henderson's home in the Twin Cities in recent days in an attempt to keep him in the fold.

Releasing Henderson from his letter of intent conceivably allows him to transfer immediately and be eligible this fall. Most of the speculation has Henderson headed to Miami which was one of his finalists along with Ohio State. Henderson committed to USC live on CBS College Sports in February but didn't sign his LOI until late March, supposedly out of concern for the severity of the NCAA penalties.

The NCAA infractions committee came close to dealing USC the death penalty last month when it applied a two-year bowl ban and removed 30 scholarships over three years. The school is appealing some of the penalties saying they are too harsh.

With those kinds of penalties, USC has to be worried about staying competitive in the near term. If USC is nicked enough by the penalties, the suffering will be significant for a program still considered by some to be in the dynasty stage. The current losses already are eating into the depth. Without those 30 scholarships, Kiffin will have to play more and more walk-ons. Also, he absolutely cannot miss with the scholarships he has to hand out.

Even when all the penalties end in 2014, the lingering effects remain to be seen. And will the USC administration be patient enough with Kiffin for him to slog through what is looking like a considerable downturn?

" ... this thing regarding USC and the NCAA is to me the closest thing to death without dying," Reggie Bush told the New Orleans media last month.

For now, USC has lost Henderson, defensive end Malik Jackson (transfer to Tennessee) and linebacker Jordan Campbell (Louisville).  Both Jackson and Campbell took advantage of NCAA bylaws that allow rising juniors and seniors from programs hit by major NCAA sanctions to transfer immediately without sitting out.

We’ll see if the flow of players out of Troy continues. USC freshman sensation Dillon Baxter reportedly told the school's director of compliance last month that he had been contacted about transferring by five schools -- Florida, Washington, Alabama, Oregon and Fresno State. Florida, Washington, Alabama and Oregon denied they had contacted Baxter.

USC AD Mike Garrett contacted Florida AD Jeremy Foley recently telling Foley, Baxter "has now confirmed that he did not receiver a call from your instition." The letter, dated July 1, was obtained this week by CBSSports.com. Alabama received a similar letter according to the Mobile (Ala.) Press-Register. Oregon and Washington officials expect to get a similar letter according to a source at each school.

It is considered an NCAA violation to contact a player about transferring before he has been released from his scholarship.

 

 

Category: NCAAF
Comments

Since: Jan 3, 2007
Posted on: July 8, 2010 10:28 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

People should go see how the hurricanes were in the '90s under the probation when fsu was beating them like it owed them money, or take a peek at how good OU was in the '90s when the huskers were moping them up with 3rd string players in the 3rd quarter.

You make some good points in your posting but I need to say that Nebraska wasn't pounding on OU in the 90's because of probation, but because the Sooners weren't very good because they didn't have very good coaches and thus not very good recruiting.  Gary Gibbs coasted on Barry Switzer's recruiting wave for 5 years but his recruits and those of John Blake were not coached well, weren't very strong and didn't play team football very well.  Barry Switzer was forced out of his job by the bad publicity caused by a series of bad actions by players.  It appeared the program was out of control and it was decided that the incidences gave competing coaches too much ammo to win the recruiting battles.  Life turned to Hell for Barry so he quit and now enjoys the private life. 

Although the cause of the downward slide wasn't probation, the effect was much the same as when Mr. Osborne went to Washington and left Solich in command at Nebraska.  Its fortunes slid pretty fast under Callahan as well and Bo Pellini is emulating the job that Bob Stoops did in re-establishing the Sooners into the upper echelon.  Miami is nearly back all the way and are a Top 10 factor this year.  If we look at the peaks and valleys that these programs suffered, the effect of the negatives on each school were about 10 years as you said.

What has changed is that college football is more competitive by a factor of 10.  The mid level schools. encouraged by Boise State's victory over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl a few years ago, are trying to sign higher rated players that occurred back in the 90's and early 00's.  When it comes to the 5 star players that USC. Oklahoma, Ohio State, Alabama, Florida and Texas historically recruit, other high level recruits may be scooped up by Oregon, Miami, Boise State, LSU.  Lower ranked but still major conference recruits might be gone to mid-level conferences to get more playing time. 

My point is that with increased competition USC will have a much tougher hill to climb.  They won't sign the all world players they have always assumed would sign with them.  There will be a lot of holes in USC's roster lost by those 30 scholarships.  For once Dodd is spot on that the overall roster quality will go down and it will be a long time before it is fully restored.  The positives for USC are 1) they are the only football game in the major market of Southern California that has widespread support 2) they have an alumni that throws big bucks at the sports program there 3) their reputation prior to the sanctions.  They will be counted down, but not out.  But I agree, it'll be a while before they will be the feared Trojans of the 00's. 




Since: Jan 6, 2010
Posted on: July 8, 2010 5:18 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

Nothing of importance will change at USC...it will business as usual.  That business being the production of talent for the various NFL teams in need of a infusion of athletic blood.

When they complete their NCAA sanctions they will win some games, get some decent bowl bids, and eventually another national championship...then the cycle will repeat itself for one more nauseating time.

This is the way it always has been, and always will be...



Since: Mar 7, 2009
Posted on: July 8, 2010 5:40 am
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

Because USC just apologized for making the accusations.  Apparently they were unfounded, at least with Florida.



Since: Feb 10, 2009
Posted on: July 7, 2010 10:42 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

This could not be happening to a nicer guy than kiffin. The irony in this is the whole Bush thing happened while kiffin was on the USC coaching staff...um!



Since: Jun 7, 2010
Posted on: July 7, 2010 10:30 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

Lane Kiffen...couldn't happen to anice nicer guy!



Since: Mar 7, 2007
Posted on: July 7, 2010 7:51 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

To the one who asked about initial grants in aid.  That basically means that USC can only sign 15 players each year rather than the 25 that is normally allowed in a year. So they are not only reduced to 75 players immediately but can also only sign 15 for three more years.

Also for those who think that the scholarship reduction will not have an affect, here's a little breakdown of how this will play out.

This year USC had roughly 85 scholarship players(usually teams have a few less due to attrition, injury, transfer, early draftees, etc; but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt) or would have had to prior to the start of the season.  They have lost 3 to transfer so far with Prater and others rumored to be eyeing a move.  So for now lets just go with 82 players.
That would be me and thanks, I've fav'ed you.  USC is already attempting to minimize the damage by offering some 2011 recruits to enroll in school for the coming spring semester. gets a scholarship if he does this. The maximum 15 signings(initial grants) is something that should have been more noticed, it's damaging.



Since: Feb 19, 2008
Posted on: July 7, 2010 7:08 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

FSU? Brainfart, commenting on a article in regards to Major NCAA Violations must have brought the school out west to mind....

*Letter from USC to UF



Since: Feb 19, 2008
Posted on: July 7, 2010 6:50 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

Wow great formatting again by this POS site... amazing how CBS can lead the way in online interactive media and forums, yet have the crappiest formatting.

Anyways, here is the letter from FSU to UF



I'll take a contributor byline in your piece Dodd.... Thanks in advance!!



Since: Feb 19, 2008
Posted on: July 7, 2010 6:34 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

To the one who asked about initial grants in aid.  That basically means that USC can only sign 15 players each year rather than the 25 that is normally allowed in a year. So they are not only reduced to 75 players immediately but can also only sign 15 for three more years.

Also for those who think that the scholarship reduction will not have an affect, here's a little breakdown of how this will play out.

This year USC had roughly 85 scholarship players(usually teams have a few less due to attrition, injury, transfer, early draftees, etc; but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt) or would have had to prior to the start of the season.  They have lost 3 to transfer so far with Prater and others rumored to be eyeing a move.  So for now lets just go with 82 players.

At a max they can sign only 15 player for three years.

Also at a very minimum they will lose four players a year due to injury, grades, attrition/transfer, NFL draft, etc.  It is being very generous to say that only four players will leave the program every year for one reason or another, to put it in perspective UF lost over ten players that were on schollly last year during the course of the academic year() due to all of the above.

We will remove 1 from each class starting in 2011 in order to show this attrition, i.e. one senior was injured, one junior declared for the draft, one sophmore transferred, and one freshman got a DUI or failed to qualify, again this is very generous given the "normal" amount for top schools.

2010

Sr - 18
Jr - 27
So - 21
Fr - 16

Total = 82 Scholarship players

2011

Sr - 27-1=26
Jr - 21-1=20
So - 16-1=15
Fr - 15-1=14

Total = 75

2012

Sr - 20-1=19
Jr - 15-1=14
So - 14-1=13
Fr - 15-1=14

Total = 60

2013(final year of scholarship reductions)

Sr - 14-1=13
Jr - 13-1=12
So - 14-1=13
Fr - 15-1=14

Total = 52 Scholarship players @ USC

That is only 61% of the normal amount of D-I scholarship athletes on anyone else' depth chart, who will fill the remaining 23 spots?Walk-ons, players that couldn't get a scholly at any other school will account for some 25-30% of USC's roster.  It is a tremendous blow and will have huge ramifications.

Here's how this affected Miami in the mid 90's.  Miami self imposed 7 schollys in 95 and the NCAA enforced 12 more for both the 96 and 97 season.

W/L's

1995 - 8-3
1996 - 9-3
1997 - 5-6
1998 - 9-3
1999 - 9-4

Miami is considered the model of how to rebound from such scholarship reductions. Many other teams have done far worse.


Oklahoma for example was penalize 9 schollies for three years starting in 1989

W/L's

75 199856 199748 1996, Texas Tech admitted to participation of 7 ineligible players, promised to forfeit games, but has never changed the official record. 199638 1995551 199466 199393 1992542 199193 199083


YearWonLostTiedNotes
198974 75 199856 199748 1996, Texas Tech admitted to participation of 7 ineligible players, promised to forfeit games, but has never changed the official record. 199638 1995551 199466 199393 1992542 199193 199083
YearWonLostTiedNotes
198974 1989 - 7-4
1990 - 8-3
1991 - 9-3
1992 - 5-4-2
1993 - 9-3
1994 - 6-6
1995 - 5-5-1
1996 - 3-8
1997 - 4-8
1998 - 5-6
1999 - 7-5
75 199856 199748 1996, Texas Tech admitted to participation of 7 ineligible players, promised to forfeit games, but has never changed the official record. 199638 1995551 199466 199393 1992542 199193 199083
YearWonLostTiedNotes
198974 75 199856 199748 1996, Texas Tech admitted to participation of 7 ineligible players, promised to forfeit games, but has never changed the official record. 199638 1995551 199466 199393 1992542 199193 199083
YearWonLostTiedNotes
198974
Heck even USC had scholarships reduced twice during the late 80's, the result was a mediocre USC program for much of the next 12 years.



Just saying that USC may rebound quickly from the fall such as Miami and Alabama, who both won MNC's within a decade of huge scholly reductions; but there will be a fall.  USC will be mediocre two or three years from now.  There is no doubt about it.




Since: Dec 4, 2006
Posted on: July 7, 2010 6:12 pm
 

With Henderson, what is the future of USC?

EXODUS ? Give me a break,one player that has never played a college game in his life,one player who was kicked off the team and one player who road the bench.Sounds like they should just disband the team.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com