USC has 24 commits. How?

#1
Ulysees E. McGill

Ulysees E. McGill

This season is for you Sweets
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
55,426
Likes
147,872
#1
This is not a bash LK thread. I was watching the replay of the UnderArmor AA game, and they had a graphic after G.Townsend JR committed that said USC has 24 commits, with several more pending. I just wondered how USC can take 24 and counting commits. It was my understanding that they only get 15 schollies a year for the next 3 years under the sanctions imposed on them by the AA.:ermm:
 
#4
#4
I asked the same question in that thread I think.
The answer some folks gave was back counting.

Then another person said that the ruling of the NCAA is on appeal.
 
#5
#5
Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't there a difference between 'committing' and 'getting a scholarship'????

Perhaps some of those kids will essentially be tagged as walk-ons?
 
#6
#6
VOLnVEGAS said:
I asked the same question in that thread I think.
The answer some folks gave was back counting.

Then another person said that the ruling of the NCAA is on appeal.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I always thought that when you were given sanctions like schollie limits that all you could get in was whatever number that is imposed. I also thought the ruling was binding until it is overturned/upheld.
 
#7
#7
tango said:
Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't there a difference between 'committing' and 'getting a scholarship'????

Perhaps some of those kids will essentially be tagged as walk-ons?
Click to expand...

Yes there is a difference between committing and actually getting a scholarship. But what this means is at this point about 9 kids whose committments have been taken are going to be crapped on. I guess you could say that's what they get for being stupid enough to buy what the scumbags are selling. What they are probably going to do is wait till NSD and then sift thru the ones they want the most and tell the others tough $%&t.
 
#8
#8
I think they can backcount at least 9 if not more. I don't remember the exact number, but they can backcount a lot.
 
#10
#10
Let's say they backcount 10. They sign a full class. That's 35 freshman coming in where they wouldn't have done that if they weren't on probation. If the sanctions start in the current class they backcount 10 and sign 15 that's 25 and is still a full class. It really only helps them in either situation.
 
#11
#11
govols182 said:
Let's say they backcount 10. They sign a full class. That's 35 freshman coming in where they wouldn't have done that if they weren't on probation. If the sanctions start in the current class they backcount 10 and sign 15 that's 25 and is still a full class. It really only helps them in either situation.
Click to expand...
If that is true that is a huge loophole. It makes a joke out of the punishment that was given them.
 
#14
#14
They are still in the appeal process I think. I think they may be able to sign their full class this year if it's still under appeal. I think, bit I could be wrong. Plus they can backcount quite a few.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
I'm sure SGM knows. Isn't he USC's Scout.com mod or something? I thought I heard that.
 
#16
#16
tango said:
Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't there a difference between 'committing' and 'getting a scholarship'????

Perhaps some of those kids will essentially be tagged as walk-ons?
Click to expand...
Grey shirts maybe? Craig paid Adam James first year at Texas Tech.
 
#18
#18
This is my understanding (which could very possibly be incorrect):

During the three years they are on probation, they lose 10 scholarships each year. Thus, a "full class" goes from 25 scholarships to 15 scholarships during those years.

2011 - I'm not sure exactly how many they can backcount this year, but we'll call it 9 for now. They can sign a full class 15 plus the 9 backcounts: 15+9=24.
2012 - since they signed a full class (before backcounts) in 2011, they can't backcount any, so they can sign 15+0=15.
2013 - since they signed a full class in 2012, they can't backcount any, so they can sign 15+0=15.
2014 - the penalty is over and a full class is once again 25 scholarships. Since they signed a full class of 15 in 2013, they can't backcount any in 2014, so they can sign 25+0=25 in 2014.

So even if they "get out of" the first year of their sanction by backcounting, they get hit in the 4th year by not being able to backcount (even though they only signed 15 in the 3rd year).

Now, it's possible - as some have suggested - that they will sign a full class of 25 this year because they are currently in the appeal process. If that is the case, then 2012 will be the first sanction year. My description would still apply but everything is shifted back by 1 year. (So the 2012 class would be full class of 15 plus several backcounts, etc., etc.)
 
#20
#20
sammyjoey said:
This is my understanding (which could very possibly be incorrect):

During the three years they are on probation, they lose 10 scholarships each year. Thus, a "full class" goes from 25 scholarships to 15 scholarships during those years.

2011 - I'm not sure exactly how many they can backcount this year, but we'll call it 9 for now. They can sign a full class 15 plus the 9 backcounts: 15+9=24.
2012 - since they signed a full class (before backcounts) in 2011, they can't backcount any, so they can sign 15+0=15.
2013 - since they signed a full class in 2012, they can't backcount any, so they can sign 15+0=15.
2014 - the penalty is over and a full class is once again 25 scholarships. Since they signed a full class of 15 in 2013, they can't backcount any in 2014, so they can sign 25+0=25 in 2014.

So even if they "get out of" the first year of their sanction by backcounting, they get hit in the 4th year by not being able to backcount (even though they only signed 15 in the 3rd year).

Now, it's possible - as some have suggested - that they will sign a full class of 25 this year because they are currently in the appeal process. If that is the case, then 2012 will be the first sanction year. My description would still apply but everything is shifted back by 1 year. (So the 2012 class would be full class of 15 plus several backcounts, etc., etc.)
Click to expand...

You are probably right. I don't think however that they can backcount 9. They signed 19 last year IIRC so 6 schollies to backcount. Then that means they would still only get 21 in this year.The ESPN guys doing the game said that they already had 24 commits with several more possible. I really don't care that much either way, I was just curious
 
#21
#21
Bumi said:
Their sanctions are on appeal, thus, pushing the scholarship limit back a year.
Click to expand...

I think the appeal is Jan 22, so they should know something before signing day hopefully.

I know it won't happen, but if they can sign that many on appeal, it should be like a challenge in a game. If you appeal and lose, they add another year of scholarship reductions to the total :good!:
 
#22
#22
nikesportsfan said:
I think the appeal is Jan 22, so they should know something before signing day hopefully.

I know it won't happen, but if they can sign that many on appeal, it should be like a challenge in a game. If you appeal and lose, they add another year of scholarship reductions to the total :good!:
Click to expand...

But they would be better equiped to take the hit by stacking up on talent now. Pete did not use all of the Scholarships available to him before the sanctions. Had he done that, USC's depth problem would not be as big of an issue as it was last year. So while the appeal is going on, Kiffin is going to use up EVERYTHING.
 
#23
#23
SEC Nightmare said:
But they would be better equiped to take the hit by stacking up on talent now. Pete did not use all of the Scholarships available to him before the sanctions. Had he done that, USC's depth problem would not be as big of an issue as it was last year. So while the appeal is going on, Kiffin is going to use up EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

USC is still going to have depth issues. Instead of using their scholarships wisely, they've added two elite QB's, a couple more elite WR's, another dynamic RB, and padded a few other already stacked positions. They'll still have holes at LB, DB, and on the offensive and defensive lines.
 
#24
#24
I read WE ARE SC a lot! I Know I should just get over it, but any ways, here is what they say. They are appealing the ruling, but accepting 5 per year instead of 10, so that gives them 20 instead of 15. Plus they can back count 9. That would give them 29 as long as that keeps them under 80 total players. If they completely disregard the sanctions this year, they could sign 34, as long as they are under 85, and if they accept the full sanctions they can sign 24, as long as the total number is under 75. How will this affect sanction going forward? No clue. But as of now that is how they stand.
 
#25
#25
Bumi said:
USC is still going to have depth issues. Instead of using their scholarships wisely, they've added two elite QB's, a couple more elite WR's, another dynamic RB, and padded a few other already stacked positions. They'll still have holes at LB, DB, and on the offensive and defensive lines.
Click to expand...

Now that you mastered the obvious you should try your hand at molecular biology.

The goal is to soften the NCAA's blow, not evade it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top