The Thing Everyone Celebrating SC's Probation Is Missing...

#52
#52
Wrong Hat. If he does lose he will be out on his head as soon as the probation is over. They will keep him and his crew at least the next 2 years because they are great recruiters and will make the most of their 15 slots. After that he's gone.
 
#56
#56
hatvol96 said:
Edited to reflect reality. Elite players want to play for elite programs.
Click to expand...

Good point, but it's not like UCLA has struggled with recruiting lately. Also, Texas has no need to dip into Cali. They might, but I'd be suprised if they take more than a couple a year.
 
#58
#58
BigPapaVol said:
Carroll did a couple years ago and missed the title game. He survived it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Your talking about proven Carrol, just let Kiffy lose to them and see what happens. if he loses 2-3 years in a row it's the death rattle
 
#59
#59
hatvol96 said:
is that Kiffin is now in a no lose situation. If he doesn't do well, he can blame the sanctions. On the other hand, if he wins in spite of the limitations he becomes the new Butch Davis. Either way, he comes out of this alright.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

If he wins in spite of the own added scrutiny and disdain he's helped bring upon himself, that will be his greatest feat.

The option you didn't mention is that, under his watch, USC sucks and/or incurs yet more infractions. He and his crew were on the fast track to get UT into trouble here, and he learned it at the place he's back at now.
 
#61
#61
It won't shift balance of powers *that* greatly, but losing some 2nd/3rd string guys could hurt USC. One of the main reasons they have been so good the last decade is when a guy gets injured, another NFL-caliber talent is right behind on the depth chart.
 
#62
#62
hatvol96 said:
is that Kiffin is now in a no lose situation. If he doesn't do well, he can blame the sanctions. On the other hand, if he wins in spite of the limitations he becomes the new Butch Davis. Either way, he comes out of this alright.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Really?

I think he looks like a fool for taking a job in the midst of an investigation.

The writing was on the wall, anyone could see it, although some actually believed that USC would get a slap on the wrist.

When a coach opts to stay with a perennial loser as apposed to a powerhouse like USC, you know something is up.

Kiffin is in a no win situation...here is why.

The chances of him winning at a rate in which people give him any type of respect is very slim...the rest of the Pac-10 had already started to make up ground, now that they will have 10 less scholarships per year, no bowl games for 2 years, limited recruiting contact, they will essentially be signing around 15 kids a year...no margin for error there, which is sure to happen.

At the same time that they are losing those scholarships, those players are going to sign with rivals...factor in impending expansion and you now have a program that is behind the 8 ball.

In the slim chance that he is able to win a few more games than anyone expects, he will have nothing to show for it, absolutely nothing, a bunch of hollow victories.

With a new University President coming in soon, I would expect that Garrett is on his way out ( probably would have been anyway in light of the infractions )...I could see the new AD keeping Kiffin and company around just to get through the sanctions period, then making a move...a lot of people believe that Lane was brought in for this very reason months ago.

His chances of being successful at USC just dropped dramatically, slim and none, slim may have just walked out of the door.
 
#63
#63
milohimself said:
It won't shift balance of powers *that* greatly, but losing some 2nd/3rd string guys could hurt USC. One of the main reasons they have been so good the last decade is when a guy gets injured, another NFL-caliber talent is right behind on the depth chart.
Click to expand...

The loss of scholarships will hurt for future depth too. Also, the bowl-ban could effect their win-loss record, which in turn, will effect recruiting.
 
#64
#64
IMO bowl ban is not a huge deal. Upperclassmen figure they're already on the way out, underclassmen will just say "two years of waiting then we can shoot for a Rose Bowl."

Schollys are the only thing with real gravity here.
 
#65
#65
hatvol96 said:
is that Kiffin is now in a no lose situation. If he doesn't do well, he can blame the sanctions. On the other hand, if he wins in spite of the limitations he becomes the new Butch Davis. Either way, he comes out of this alright.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I can agree with this point. However, the mediocrity still has to prove himself and not rest on his fathers laurels.
 
#66
#66
milohimself said:
IMO bowl ban is not a huge deal. Upperclassmen figure they're already on the way out, underclassmen will just say "two years of waiting then we can shoot for a Rose Bowl."

Schollys are the only thing with real gravity here.
Click to expand...

The scholly ban far outweighs the bowl ban in importance, no doubt and it's not close. Without a chance at postseason play though, I see a possible 8-4 type season. Along with the troubles around the program, losing won't help with an already limited recruiting.

If the UTA and OU move happens, things get even worse.
 
#67
#67
hatvol96 said:
SC doesn't have to make coaches' contracts public. However, there's certainly ample precedent for a coach going to a program under investigation having such a clause or renegotiating after harsher than expected sanctions. Sylvester Croom and Tom Crean are examples.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Isn't Kiffin culpable for the present AA problems due to the fact he was on staff when the allegations occurred?
 
#70
#70
I understand the reality, but my question went unanswered. Recruits, fans and administration remember the fact that Kiffin was a part of the machinery that incurred the wrath of the "establishment"..
 
#73
#73
If the Jr's and Sr's can leave can they be contacted by other schools? If so we need our coaches to call them and advise them no to go to class if they are enrolled in summer classes.
 
#74
#74
milohimself said:
IMO bowl ban is not a huge deal. Upperclassmen figure they're already on the way out, underclassmen will just say "two years of waiting then we can shoot for a Rose Bowl."

Schollys are the only thing with real gravity here.
Click to expand...

disagree. kiffin being selling them on competing for a NC as a freshman (like white and bush). and he's been telling them there wont be a post season ban. it's going to hurt recruiting significantly.
 
#75
#75
droski said:
disagree. kiffin being selling them on competing for a NC as a freshman (like white and bush). and he's been telling them there wont be a post season ban. it's going to hurt recruiting significantly.
Click to expand...
That would certainly stand to reason I would think.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top