Swamp Fox;417880 wrote:I'm not a USC supporter. In fact, they are among the teams that I have disliked for a long time. Part of that dislike comes from the fact that they seem to be tough all the time and when they lose a great player, they replace him with two and both replacements are better than the guy who left. They also beat my Buckeyes with alarming regularity. I have been watching these guys off and on since I first moved to Southern California back in 1958. They have been my nemesis ever since. I hope all of you who are predicting dire consequences for USC are doing based on solid facts. I would caution comparing USC with other schools who have had sanctions levied. I'm telling you that USC is a different animal. They will always attract great players and they will not be that bad this Fall. I would love to agree with those of you who believe that they will fail, but I'm thinking that this will simply not occur. I guess we'll just have to see.

Good post, Swamp Fox. I've been following college football (particularly Ohio State) since Rex Kern led the Bucks to a National Championship in 1969 by beating OJ Simpson's USC Trojans in the Rose Bowl.

I have to agree with your assessment. I loathe USC almost as much as I hate Michigan. But the fact is USC is loaded with tradition not to mention their Southern California location will still look tempting to quite a few high school football players.

With the sanctions, loss of some narcissist players, and a new coach I do think USC will be looking at some multiple loss seasons for a few years but they will not go away...guaranteed.

Are they still ranked #10 in recruiting with the loss of Henderson?

Ytowngirlinfla;419647 wrote:Are they still ranked #10 in recruiting with the loss of Henderson?

The #10 ranking that was being discussed on here is for the signing class of 2011. Henderson isn't a part of that class.

I still remember fondly that 1969 Rose Bowl victory, believer and I'd love to see that scene repeated as soon as possible. I would hope that USC is far enough down as a result of the sanctions that the tide will turn against the Trojans for at least long enough to beat them a couple of times before they are again a threat for another National Title.

They won't go away for long. The reason? The media. USC circa 2010 is a whole different planet from the 1980's USC who fell of the map for about a decade in terms of NC contention. ESPN has had a long standing love affair with USC, and won't hesitate every chance they get to lament about the "fallen" Trojans and after their bowl ban is lifted, all the talk will be on if they can make it back to the BCS, contend for the PAC10 title etc. You can bet that even though they won't be in a bowl game and won't be allowed to be ranked in the coaches poll over the next few seasons, they're not going to disappear from the public eye. The world is too well-connected today like it still was NOT in the 1980's, and with a firey coach such as Kiffin who will do whatever he needs to to keep the spotlight on USC, if they can win 8, 9 or more games a year for the next few seasons, when they get back to full strength in terms of scholarships, they'll be right back in the top 10 teams in the country. I'm a Buckeye fan and I dislike USC about as much as anyone you'll find (the rockstar lifestyle and the arrogance of their football program really turns me off, especially knowing they were doing all that while violating several major rules...we could all act like that if we did what they did, thanks) but I'm also realistic. Will it be hard? Sure, but they have the location and the tradition to push through a rough spot and get back on track. Like most elite schools, in the decades upon decades of traditions they have, 2 years is a blip on the radar. The short term effects are pretty harsh, but IF they can find a way to win most of their games (which, merry christmas, the PAC10 basically hands them 5 games a year) the long term effects will be minimal.