DiggsTX Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago Did USC play the recruiting game all wrong? In my view, they gambled (taking advantage of a lack of solid regulation post-House settlement) and paid high schoolers to stay committed, racking up a huge 35-man high school class and the #1 class in the country. They went for a first-mover advantage to load up on talented youngsters. But given how things have unfolded this portal cycle, it seems like they tried to get an advantage in the wrong direction, spending significant outlays on young unproven talent. The cost of developing those kids even for a year is not going to be great for them. If things stay the same, it's likely that big class they signed are either going to (1) cost a ton of money to retain and still won't be proven talent; or (2) are going to hit the portal. And absent clauses that require buyouts for players to leave, they're not going to get ROI. (And the enforceability of such clauses is also up in the air and will take significant legal fees to enforce). Was this a gross miscalculation? Or maybe they figured they couldn't contend in the portal and made the conscious decision to load up on young talent at a lower price? Either way, it seems like they went left while most of the college world went right. And I'm not sure it bodes well for Lincoln Riley and Chad Bowden. Interested in everyone's thoughts @Bobby Burton @Gerry Hamilton @CJ Vogel @Jeff Howe I'll hang up and listen. 4 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.