Did Sark steal Burnett?
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
This will probably sound like another "we didn't want him anyway" remark, but honestly, if you don't know where you want to go to school after the entire recruiting process, that's a red flag to me.
I can understand last minute flips when the offer you've been waiting for comes in, or you waited too long and your seat was stolen, but some of these kids are simply choosing the biggest name school that comes calling without having even met the coaches and players or toured the campus.
Burnett, it seems, had us as plan b. So be it.
I can understand last minute flips when the offer you've been waiting for comes in, or you waited too long and your seat was stolen, but some of these kids are simply choosing the biggest name school that comes calling without having even met the coaches and players or toured the campus.
Burnett, it seems, had us as plan b. So be it.
Sarkisian would be the last guy I'd trust in a blue-shirt scenario. Guess what happens when he decides he'd rather get a new kid next year before you're put on scholarship, rather than "spending" one of his 25 spots on you next year? You're kicked to the curb, having shelled out a ton of money for USC tuition, and find yourself playing in the FCS when you could have been playing in the Pac-12.
Deontay Burnett was a lifelong Trojan fan and so was his family....the only way SC could take him was as a "blueshirt" which means he can come in the fall and then be given a scholarship...he decided to stay home.
Yeah, nice try.....Sark isn't Nick Saban....Deontay will receive a full ride upon enrolling in the Fall...he is very fast and will fit nicely into SC's/Sark's philosophy of offense as a slot receiver.
Here's an idea: don't come to the boards of a 5-year division rival, and 1-year intervdivision rival, of Steve Sarkisian and try to "coach us up" on the guy. We know more about him than you do. Dork.
Sark IS Saban--a win at all costs guy--just without the success or the coaching smarts. If he feels he needs to break promises, or kill this kid's dreams or career to get SC to a better bowl game, he'll do it before you can say "Lloyd Lake."
Marty, I understand your point(s). But you either don't realize that Sark's assistant was caught giving cash to recruits while at UW and it was pretty clear (though not provable) that it was with Sark's knowledge, or you do realize it and are in general denial regarding Sarky. That is your choice, but we don't forget that history. Sarky has proven that there is no ethical corner that he won't cut if he thinks it will help him win. It is what it is. Eventually he would have gotten caught at UW, and enough of their alums recognized that to make his seat warm by the time USC hired him. I wish you guys the best with your choice. Sarkisian has many talents (especially recruiting; he could sell ice to eskimos), but the two faults that had the Huskies most concerned by the time he left were his game management issues and lack of an ethical compass.
Nobody is perfect, and of course that includes Sarkisian. If USC as an institution is comfortable with taking him and benefitting from his talents, while also being vulnerable to his faults, then more power to the Trojans. But the risk is there, because leopards don't generally change their spots.
As for the original point of this thread, Sarkisian was famous for running kids out of his program after a year. He had no compunctions what so ever about getting rid of scholarship kids if he did not like how they were developing. So if Burnett works out, there will certainly be a place for him, because Sark is bound to run off a couple of guys who signed this week. But the corollary to that is also true; if Sark doesn't like how Burnett looks, he will never see a scholarship. Everything in life is a risk/reward calculation, and Burnett may as well learn that now. He may end up playing for SC. But the odds are probably greater that he plays at an FCS school. Last minute kids who didn't even rate a scholarship are clearly not kids that are super high on Sark's list. We'll just have to see how that turns out.
Nobody is perfect, and of course that includes Sarkisian. If USC as an institution is comfortable with taking him and benefitting from his talents, while also being vulnerable to his faults, then more power to the Trojans. But the risk is there, because leopards don't generally change their spots.
As for the original point of this thread, Sarkisian was famous for running kids out of his program after a year. He had no compunctions what so ever about getting rid of scholarship kids if he did not like how they were developing. So if Burnett works out, there will certainly be a place for him, because Sark is bound to run off a couple of guys who signed this week. But the corollary to that is also true; if Sark doesn't like how Burnett looks, he will never see a scholarship. Everything in life is a risk/reward calculation, and Burnett may as well learn that now. He may end up playing for SC. But the odds are probably greater that he plays at an FCS school. Last minute kids who didn't even rate a scholarship are clearly not kids that are super high on Sark's list. We'll just have to see how that turns out.
USC has NEVER done that, in fact
the policy to honor 4 year scholarships even after career injury has been in effect for as long as I can remember. They don't drop players that don't live up to the hype, never have. Additionally any student athlete that leaves school early can come back at any time to finish his degree FOR FREE as long as it takes ( tuition is over 60K per year this year)
the policy to honor 4 year scholarships even after career injury has been in effect for as long as I can remember. They don't drop players that don't live up to the hype, never have. Additionally any student athlete that leaves school early can come back at any time to finish his degree FOR FREE as long as it takes ( tuition is over 60K per year this year)
Re: USC has NEVER done that, in fact
Please brotha, please. Don't come here thinking any of us just fell off the truck.
Re: USC has NEVER done that, in fact
Ok, given the reductions of the last three years, you're just putting shine on now.
Would you say that players who "don't live up to the hype" get "career ending" injuries allowing USC to give them the education without it counting against their 85 MORE frequently than those who do? I'd think the the wear and tear of a player the team depends on would make them more susceptible to injuries, but bench ass is pretty arduous, too.
Ok, given the reductions of the last three years, you're just putting shine on now.
Would you say that players who "don't live up to the hype" get "career ending" injuries allowing USC to give them the education without it counting against their 85 MORE frequently than those who do? I'd think the the wear and tear of a player the team depends on would make them more susceptible to injuries, but bench ass is pretty arduous, too.
Re: USC has NEVER done that, in fact
"They don't drop players that don't live up to the hype, never have." Wait for it. We up north are a bit more familiar with Sark than you are.
Pleased to hear that players leaving are eligible for free tuition. Very nice and appreciated and well done, SC. They just won't be on the team any more playing on Saturdays. That is the point.
On a scale of one to ten, Sark rates a nine or even ten as a recruiter. I give him somewhere around six or seven as a coach. Ethical standards: Somewhere above Petrino but not much. You can wait for that to become apparent too.
"They don't drop players that don't live up to the hype, never have." Wait for it. We up north are a bit more familiar with Sark than you are.
Pleased to hear that players leaving are eligible for free tuition. Very nice and appreciated and well done, SC. They just won't be on the team any more playing on Saturdays. That is the point.
On a scale of one to ten, Sark rates a nine or even ten as a recruiter. I give him somewhere around six or seven as a coach. Ethical standards: Somewhere above Petrino but not much. You can wait for that to become apparent too.
Re: USC has NEVER done that, in fact
"They don't drop players that don't live up to the hype, never have."
Wait for it. We up north are a bit more familiar with Sark than you
are.
Now THAT is f'n funny.
"They don't drop players that don't live up to the hype, never have."
Wait for it. We up north are a bit more familiar with Sark than you
are.
Now THAT is f'n funny.
Isn't faithful to his own wife.... I know one of his players he recruited.... He's definately not someone that is trustworthy. You'll understand in a year or two. Burnett will be evaluated in fall camp. If he's not good enough, he'll be shown the door before the scholarship is ever given out. If I was Burnett, I'd refuse to practice until he gets the written full ride scholarship. If the school refuses this, then their intentions are apparent. Do the right thing For you and your family Burnett. Make sure you have your i's dotted and your T's crossed.
425, it's my understanding that Haden already set policy with commitment letters being for 4 years, BEFORE the ncaa, etc. started thinking about it. So I do not believe he can be "kicked to the curb." This was a policy decision and it came straight from Haden....and whatever his shortcomings, he has "erred on the side of caution" so often and so dependably, I would be shocked if there was anything underhanded, etc. He has his issues but that is not one of them.
HERE is the relevant site
This post was edited on 2/7 8:09 PM by SCglory
This post was edited on 2/7 8:11 PM by SCglory
HERE is the relevant site
This post was edited on 2/7 8:09 PM by SCglory
This post was edited on 2/7 8:11 PM by SCglory
SC: You might be right and everything will work out just fine with Sark and Haden but I'm not so sure. What happens when Sark and his training crew decide that a backup's muscle pull is a career ending injury? Is Haden going to step in and tell him, "No, it's not that bad. You have to leave him on the squad."? Or he changes his mind about a blue shirt's quality and has a good start on recruiting some one higher rated? Is Haden going to tell him, "You gave the kid your word and you have to give him the promised scholarship"? "Promise, what promise? It was a misunderstanding." Remember that the uw is familiar with Sark's "misspeaking" and "wishing he had said it differently". One doesn't develop a new moral compass at his age. It is just a matter of time before an ethical problem pops up. We will see then how Haden handles it. You say that he will in a proper manner but please excuse me if I am a bit dubious. My money says he adopts the head-in-the-sand posture.
Well, these are now, in effect, signed, 4 year contracts, and Haden is a pretty fair country lawyer, so I'm thinking that's a pretty big stick to hit sark with! I think it's fair for me to say that about 97% of all the animus against Haden in the SC fan base is because he is perceived as kow-towing to the ncaa TOO much, and not pushing back. They want him to be more mike garrett now. go figure!
Win/win/win for USC
SC, thank you for the link.
After reading what is posted at the link several times, I don't see a conflict between what has already been said by all sides. If SC abides by what is posted in the link (and I see no reason why they should not follow up as stated), then what I understand from the link is that if a kid gets a scholarship (not a blue shirt, but an actual scholarship), it is for 4 years. Not 1, not 5, but 4 years. That is a good way to go and I fully support the concept. But that has nothing to do with whether a kid is on the team, it just means that if the kid gets removed from the team he will not be left to fend for himself for an education, assuming that he does his academic work and is making suitable progress.
I see this as a very intelligent approach by USC. First, it is clearly in the kid's best interest to know that if he gets a scholarship, he will get 4 years to complete a degree program at USC. That has some value and I would not oppose this being an across the board NCAA requirement. Second, it does not tie Sark's hands. If he runs the kid out of the football program, the kid still has a scholarship from USC for the full 4 year period. If the kid is not on the team anymore, it won't count against the 85 limit. USC certainly has the financial resources to pay for any remaining years of school for the kids who are no longer on the team. And if the kids want to continue to play football, they can still transfer. If they do so, then USC doesn't have to pay for the remainder of their education, because the kid has transferred.
Assuming you have the financial resources to pay for the kids who are removed from the team and do not choose to transfer, this seems to be a rather neat solution all the way around. A recruiting benefit for the school, a 4 year academic support promise to the kid, and no limitation to Sark's ability to continue to prune and weed his roster. Win/win/win.
This post was edited on 2/8 9:30 AM by cr8zyncalif
SC, thank you for the link.
After reading what is posted at the link several times, I don't see a conflict between what has already been said by all sides. If SC abides by what is posted in the link (and I see no reason why they should not follow up as stated), then what I understand from the link is that if a kid gets a scholarship (not a blue shirt, but an actual scholarship), it is for 4 years. Not 1, not 5, but 4 years. That is a good way to go and I fully support the concept. But that has nothing to do with whether a kid is on the team, it just means that if the kid gets removed from the team he will not be left to fend for himself for an education, assuming that he does his academic work and is making suitable progress.
I see this as a very intelligent approach by USC. First, it is clearly in the kid's best interest to know that if he gets a scholarship, he will get 4 years to complete a degree program at USC. That has some value and I would not oppose this being an across the board NCAA requirement. Second, it does not tie Sark's hands. If he runs the kid out of the football program, the kid still has a scholarship from USC for the full 4 year period. If the kid is not on the team anymore, it won't count against the 85 limit. USC certainly has the financial resources to pay for any remaining years of school for the kids who are no longer on the team. And if the kids want to continue to play football, they can still transfer. If they do so, then USC doesn't have to pay for the remainder of their education, because the kid has transferred.
Assuming you have the financial resources to pay for the kids who are removed from the team and do not choose to transfer, this seems to be a rather neat solution all the way around. A recruiting benefit for the school, a 4 year academic support promise to the kid, and no limitation to Sark's ability to continue to prune and weed his roster. Win/win/win.
This post was edited on 2/8 9:30 AM by cr8zyncalif
Re: Win/win/win for USC
Agreed. I had taken my concept of blueshirting from several characterizations I found of it online (some of which was reasonably authoritative, but which ultimately turned out to be inaccurate). With a legitimate 4-year commitment that works as outlined here, I can see why the kid would do it.
Re: Win/win/win for USC
How would that kids scholarship not count against the program if he was no longer on the team? It's a "football" scholarship right? Should count against the 85. IMO it's just an extension of unlimited scholarships if coaches are allowed to do that. Certainly a significant advantage over programs that can't afford to have another 15 or 20 kids on scholarship. It's probably somewhat of a moot point I guess as you'd figure most kids would rather transfer and play ball.
Either way I've got a lot more respect for Burnett betting on himself than the other guys who chose to go play in the WAC rather than playing against pac 12 competition.
How would that kids scholarship not count against the program if he was no longer on the team? It's a "football" scholarship right? Should count against the 85. IMO it's just an extension of unlimited scholarships if coaches are allowed to do that. Certainly a significant advantage over programs that can't afford to have another 15 or 20 kids on scholarship. It's probably somewhat of a moot point I guess as you'd figure most kids would rather transfer and play ball.
Either way I've got a lot more respect for Burnett betting on himself than the other guys who chose to go play in the WAC rather than playing against pac 12 competition.
Re: Win/win/win for USC
Yeah, not really much of an issue because anytime a coach would attempt to shuffle a kid off the team, just to free up a spot, the kid would most likely transfer. To their credit, SC had 2-3 players who--due to medical reasons--could not play (one never played a down). But SC honored their scholarships for the whole way. There is so much of a spotlight on the program now, any bottom dealing by Sark would get him into hot water, first with JK McKay, then Haden, then everyone else....
Yeah, not really much of an issue because anytime a coach would attempt to shuffle a kid off the team, just to free up a spot, the kid would most likely transfer. To their credit, SC had 2-3 players who--due to medical reasons--could not play (one never played a down). But SC honored their scholarships for the whole way. There is so much of a spotlight on the program now, any bottom dealing by Sark would get him into hot water, first with JK McKay, then Haden, then everyone else....
SC is correct regarding the media spotlight at USC. And although neither one is a choir boy, both McKay and Haden are angels compared to the sludge in the UW AD office. So I accept the concept that there is more supervision of Sark at USC than was true at UW, and that may in fact cause Sark to modify his well known and established practices regarding weeding his roster garden. On the other hand, a school policy that guarantees a scholarship even after the kid is off the team could be used by Sark to free his hands to clear out scholarship space on the team, while the university picks up the check for the kid's education via a route that doesn't count against the 85 spots. Call me cynical, but if there is a way for Sark to work that system, he will sniff it out and use it.
Re: Win/win/win for USC
Yet a number of them wish Haden would channel his inner Garrett? (your earlier post ... "I think it's fair for me to say that about 97% of all the animus against Haden in the SC fan base is because he is perceived as kow-towing to the ncaa TOO much, and not pushing back. They want him to be more mike garrett now. go figure!").
Fan bases, Ya have to love'em!
Yet a number of them wish Haden would channel his inner Garrett? (your earlier post ... "I think it's fair for me to say that about 97% of all the animus against Haden in the SC fan base is because he is perceived as kow-towing to the ncaa TOO much, and not pushing back. They want him to be more mike garrett now. go figure!").
Fan bases, Ya have to love'em!
