tOfficial CFB Message Board Liars Thread

[trojanfan12]

No. LOL

USC won 45-42

Help me out here, HIE.

What am I missing where USC somehow had a depleted roster for that game when it's stated the sanctions had depleted them so?

They signed 5 less players over a 4 year period. Is my math wrong?

With injuries and sanctions, USC was down to about 53 scholarship athletes by the time the bowl game was played.

But, kudos to you for being so butt hurt over what someone said on a thread that you had to make a whole new thread about it.

 

[GeekSportsFan]

The song girls can't hurt recruiting

You can look at a couple of games last year, Boston College in particular, where the scholarship limitations definitely hurt us late in the game where we could not sub players in on defense.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

With injuries and sanctions, USC was down to about 53 scholarship athletes by the time the bowl game was played.

But, kudos to you for being so butt hurt over what someone said on a thread that you had to make a whole new thread about it.

Whether or not you think he needed to start a new thread, he brings up an interesting point. He posted his numbers and where he got them from, and said to point it out if there's a mistake. Those numbers seem to fly in the face of the sanctions excuse. Injuries are a different story, obviously, but is what he posted true? If so, USC did a pretty good job recruiting through the sanctions. That's pretty amazing, actually.

 

[trojanfan12]

Whether or not you think he needed to start a new thread, he brings up an interesting point. He posted his numbers and where he got them from, and said to point it out if there's a mistake. Those numbers seem to fly in the face of the sanctions excuse. Injuries are a different story, obviously, but is what he posted true? If so, USC did a pretty good job recruiting through the sanctions. That's pretty amazing, actually.

It was repeated multiple times throughout the game that USC was down to 53 scholarship athletes. USC did a great job of recruiting quality athletes, but what was missing over the time of the sanctions was the quantity.

USC has typically always gotten recruiting classes that are full of 4 and 5 star players. To the surprise of many, that did not change. The difference was, we had recruiting classes of 15 of those types of players rather than 25. That's why, during the sanctions, you would see USC ranked highly when just the "average stars per player" was used to measure, but when the rankings using entire classes of 25 was used, they would drop in the rankings.

The end result was that USC was thin at several positions, especially on defense and depending on true and redshirt freshmen to take bigger roles than they would have if we were at full strength. Also, true freshmen were playing that would normally have been redshirted. This is why we saw games like the Holiday Bowl where USC jumped out to a lead and had to hang on at the end to win.

I honestly don't understand what the issue about that game is anyway. Both teams had adversity to overcome. Nebraska had just fired their coach and was using an interim guy, while USC was dealing with a depleted roster and a 1st year coach.

Seems to me that both teams have a lot to be proud of. Nebraska for fighting back and nearly winning the game when they easily could have just packed it in. And USC for hanging on and making a couple of big defensive plays late (thank you Su'a Cravens) that saved the game for them.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You can look at a couple of games last year, Boston College in particular, where the scholarship limitations definitely hurt us late in the game where we could not sub players in on defense.

Add ASU and Utah the 2 that stung the most

 

[TheRobotDevil]

It was repeated multiple times throughout the game that USC was down to 53 scholarship athletes. USC did a great job of recruiting quality athletes, but what was missing over the time of the sanctions was the quantity.

USC has typically always gotten recruiting classes that are full of 4 and 5 star players. To the surprise of many, that did not change. The difference was, we had recruiting classes of 15 of those types of players rather than 25. That's why, during the sanctions, you would see USC ranked highly when just the "average stars per player" was used to measure, but when the rankings using entire classes of 25 was used, they would drop in the rankings.

The end result was that USC was thin at several positions, especially on defense and depending on true and redshirt freshmen to take bigger roles than they would have if we were at full strength. Also, true freshmen were playing that would normally have been redshirted. This is why we saw games like the Holiday Bowl where USC jumped out to a lead and had to hang on at the end to win.

I honestly don't understand what the issue about that game is anyway. Both teams had adversity to overcome. Nebraska had just fired their coach and was using an interim guy, while USC was dealing with a depleted roster and a 1st year coach.

Seems to me that both teams have a lot to be proud of. Nebraska for fighting back and nearly winning the game when they easily could have just packed it in. And USC for hanging on and making a couple of big defensive plays late (thank you Su'a Cravens) that saved the game for them.

Like Trojanfan said fuck ucla

 

[oaknightshockey1]

It was repeated multiple times throughout the game that USC was down to 53 scholarship athletes. USC did a great job of recruiting quality athletes, but what was missing over the time of the sanctions was the quantity.

USC has typically always gotten recruiting classes that are full of 4 and 5 star players. To the surprise of many, that did not change. The difference was, we had recruiting classes of 15 of those types of players rather than 25. That's why, during the sanctions, you would see USC ranked highly when just the "average stars per player" was used to measure, but when the rankings using entire classes of 25 was used, they would drop in the rankings.

The end result was that USC was thin at several positions, especially on defense and depending on true and redshirt freshmen to take bigger roles than they would have if we were at full strength. Also, true freshmen were playing that would normally have been redshirted. This is why we saw games like the Holiday Bowl where USC jumped out to a lead and had to hang on at the end to win.

I honestly don't understand what the issue about that game is anyway. Both teams had adversity to overcome. Nebraska had just fired their coach and was using an interim guy, while USC was dealing with a depleted roster and a 1st year coach.

Seems to me that both teams have a lot to be proud of. Nebraska for fighting back and nearly winning the game when they easily could have just packed it in. And USC for hanging on and making a couple of big defensive plays late (thank you Su'a Cravens) that saved the game for them.

I was more referring tho this post here where it talks about number of players on the roster and number of players recruited over the time period:

USC still had about 115 players. Nebraska had about 130.

However, I doubt either team played more than 60 each at most. Nebraska also had an interim head coach.

Here are the rosters for the Holiday Bowl.

http://www.huskermax.com/games/2014/files/13usc_printable2014.pdf

What we do know is that USC holding out it's NFL talent was a massive lie.

USC was docked 30 scholarships (total) over 3 years.

Even so, USC had better recruiting classes than Nebraska.

Per Scout.com Team Rankings

2014

#10 USC (26 players)
#36 Nebr (25 players)

2013

#13 USC (12 players)
#22 Nebr (26 players)

2012

#9 USC (17 players)
#30 Nebr (17 players)

2011

#3 USC (29 players)
#16 Nebr (21 players)

4 Year Totals

USC - 84
Nebr - 89

I'm not sure how USC got past the sanctions, but it looks like they only took a hit in 2013.

I agree that this game was not a big deal. Personally, I was just hoping that we wouldn't get embarrassed because of the situation on our team/the vibe in the locker room at the time. I just thought this post was very interesting and was looking for a USC fan with more knowledge of their team to explain what was going on there.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Standing on a NY phone book maybe.

It's true it says so on my my mug sho......license :nod;

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Can't we ALL be winners?? This is still America, right?

 

[Across The Field]

It sickens me to defend a USC fan or their football program but I'm guessing that @socaljim242 got his bowl games mixed up while under the influence of refreshing adult beverages.

I feel dirty.

I forget the dude's name, some USC fan mod, threatened to ban me for supposedly making things up in an NBA Finals thread. Wonder why he isn't here threatening to ban his fellow Trojan?

 

[trojanfan12]

I was more referring tho this post here where it talks about number of players on the roster and number of players recruited over the time period:


I agree that this game was not a big deal. Personally, I was just hoping that we wouldn't get embarrassed because of the situation on our team/the vibe in the locker room at the time. I just thought this post was very interesting and was looking for a USC fan with more knowledge of their team to explain what was going on there.

Remember, 115 players, does not mean 115 scholarship players. The most a team that is not under sanctions can have is 85 scholarship players. USC couldn't have 85 scholarship players because of the sanctions. So, even Nebraska's 130 players, isn't accurate when you talk about scholarship athletes.

The result of that is USC had many more "walk-ons" and "preferred walk ons" than we normally do.

I agree about what you're team was going through. USC went through the same thing the previous season going into our bowl game, but got kind of lucky because we played Fresno St.

Sounds like I had similar thoughts as you going into the Holiday Bowl. I was just hoping it would be a really good game, which it was.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I forget the dude's name, some USC fan mod, threatened to ban me for allegedly making things up in an NBA Finals thread. Wonder why he isn't here threatening to ban his fellow Trojan?

that looks more official. And to be fair at the time he didn't know you were correct about the size of lebrons.......I'm sure he'll never question your knowledge on the topic of......again

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Whether or not you think he needed to start a new thread, he brings up an interesting point. He posted his numbers and where he got them from, and said to point it out if there's a mistake. Those numbers seem to fly in the face of the sanctions excuse. Injuries are a different story, obviously, but is what he posted true? If so, USC did a pretty good job recruiting through the sanctions. That's pretty amazing, actually.

USC has had to rely on numerous true freshmen because of depth issues (11 have played significantly, including 8 who have combined for 52 starts) and several are Freshman All-American candidates: Pac-12 Defensive Freshman of the Year CB-WR-RET Adoree’ Jackson (he has played 3 ways in 7 games this year and is among the nation’s leading kickoff returners), WR JuJu Smith (he has 51 receptions in 2014), OG-now-OT Toa Lobendahn and OG Viane Talamaivao. No more than 57 recruited scholarship Trojans have suited up for any game in 2014 because of NCAA-mandated scholarship limitations.


This is part of the article I posted, you can google any of the game from the past couple of years and will show how many players USC suited up

 

[Red_Alert]

I posted the rosters for the Holiday Bowl and USC was at least 2 deep at every position. I haven't taken the time to check what each players recruiting ranking was, but I'd imagine they were vastly 4 stars. Even some of the walk-ons.

I still contend a lot of USC's issues were more to do with coaching. I'd love to see what guys like Patterson or Snyder could do with USC's "depleted" rosters over the last 4/5 years.

 

[Red_Alert]

It's really about getting players lined up properly and that they're in the right places after the play starts. Some coaches have a better ability to do that than others (Saban/Meyer). They have great managerial skills and surround themselves with guys that can teach. They don't just hire their lifetime BFF's to ride the gravy train and raise their families.

Nebraska had a lot more talent than Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, etc..However, Bo Pleeny and staff couldn't get them lined up properly hence the games coming down to the wire or Nebraska even getting curb stomped. Pleeny's excuse in his pressers would be "They (players) just didn't execute".
Well that's your job isn't it, Bo? Are you teaching them something they can understand and execute?

Same can be said for Texas, Florida, Michigan, et al that fall on hard times.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Maybe we should call this the "I invested way too much time into a pointless debate" thread .

For Nebraska fans it's what defines them. When you can't win on the field make sure you win the message bds.

 

[trojanfan12]

I posted the rosters for the Holiday Bowl and USC was at least 2 deep at every position. I haven't taken the time to check what each players recruiting ranking was, but I'd imagine they were vastly 4 stars. Even some of the walk-ons.

I still contend a lot of USC's issues were more to do with coaching. I'd love to see what guys like Patterson or Snyder could do with USC's "depleted" rosters over the last 4/5 years.

Oh, so now it's "USC has 4 star walk-ons." Before, it was USC didn't really have any depth issues because they really didn't lose that many scholarship athlete's. That gets proven wrong. So now it's "4 star walk-ons."

This is called desperately clinging to a failed theory.

I'm sure USC had some preferred walk-ons who are players who, under normal circumstances, would likely have been offered a schollie and chose to attend anyway because their family had the means to pay their way. However, considering what it costs to attend USC, I'm sure there weren't very many.

 

[Across The Field]

I posted the rosters for the Holiday Bowl and USC was at least 2 deep at every position. I haven't taken the time to check what each players recruiting ranking was, but I'd imagine they were vastly 4 stars. Even some of the walk-ons.

I still contend a lot of USC's issues were more to do with coaching. I'd love to see what guys like Patterson or Snyder could do with USC's "depleted" rosters over the last 4/5 years.

I can't think of a single 4* walk-on in the history of CFB.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Oh, so now it's "USC has 4 star walk-ons." Before, it was USC didn't really have any depth issues because they really didn't lose that many scholarship athlete's. That gets proven wrong. So now it's "4 star walk-ons."

This is called desperately clinging to a failed theory.

You bastards really should share some of those 4 stars I mean poor Nebraska hasn't had one in a decade.

 

[BoiseMike19]

that looks more official. And to be fair at the time he didn't know you were correct about the size of lebrons.......I'm sure he'll never question your knowledge on the topic of......again

Wonder who that USC shithead was?