Sarknado II - USC Trojans 2015 season.

[BasinBictory]

I know it's only Sark's second year, and this is most assuredly fan hyperbole, but I do think this is a make-or-break season for Sark's Trojans and will determine the overall direction and climate of his program in the next several years.

Last year was a good, but not great season. USC went 9-4, with a nice beat down over Notre Dame and an exciting finish against Brasky in thr Holiday Bowl. However, losses against Utah, Boston freaking College, ASU (again) and fucking UCLA (A-gain) showed how far USC still needs to climb to be worthy of the prediction that they'll take the South division (and some say the whole conference).

There's much to be optimistic about, since USC had some really exciting freshmen come through and really become players last year, especially Adoree Jackson, who is the kind of speed threat that USC really has not had since, well - since Marquise Lee. Seriously, though, Jackson is on a different level than Lee as far as overall dynamism, and seems in the class of a DeSean Jackson or DAT. Meaning - he's also a smallish guy where you gasp every time he gets tackled because you think he'll be broken in two (or three). Juju Smith looks like the kind of dependable WR threat (and is a big guy) that the Trojans have needed for a while. On the O line, my predictions that Damien Mama would become the next big star didn't quite pan out, but Toa Lobendahn, who also started as a true frosh, DID become a productive starter.

On defense, the loss of Leonard Williams is, well - irreplaceable. Senior Hayes Pullard leaving was also a big blow, but Su'a Cravens is a beast. Wilcox looks like a competent, if not spectacular DC, and I was happy to see that, aside from the BC game, the Trojans defense played decently and fundamentally well.

Any optimism for USC to really have a breakout year, however, need to be tempered by QB Cody Kessler. He had a tremendous year last year, but nobody is talking excitedly about him because he, quite frankly, is not NFL material. He has weapons galore around him, but he's not the type of player that you'd have confidence in winning a game when you're down 14 with 10 minutes to go.

 

[bruin228]

Gonna lose to A-State and fellow Pulaski Academy grad Fredi Knighten Week 1.

Obligatory Seven Win Steve joke.

In all seriousness, I see 4 legitimate loss opportunities. @ASU, @ND, @Oregon, UCLA. I guess @Cal as a WILD CARD. You split those 4 games, you have a good shot at winning the South I would think (especially if one loss is ND). Who's replacing Buck Allen?

 

[Lightningwar]

USC wont lose to ND. ASU is a possibility but I think the trojans can pull it off. Oregon and UCLA on the other hand. USC is 1-2 years worth of recruiting away from being really good again. Depth issues will solve themselves real quick now they can sign 25\class.

 

[BasinBictory]

Neglected to mention the loss of Buck Allen, who was a beast. Justin Davis and Tre Madden, who both have considerable experience, will be the projected co-starters. Both are serviceable, but neither looks to be a wow! star at the tailback position.

Agree that until they show they can beat UCLA and ASU, USC should not be a favorite to win the South.

 

[Bdub]

Sark going to have to be a lot better coach to win the South. He has better talent than any other team in the South but still won't win it.

 

[BasinBictory]

Sark going to have to be a lot better coach to win the South. He has better talent than any other team in the South but still won't win it.

Prolly correct, which is why I said this season, despite being just year 2 of the Sarkisian Project, will set the tone for the rest of his tenure at USC. All the ingredients are in place for a really breakout year, but I'm not sure if Sark is the man to take USC back to the mountaintop. He's evidently a great recruiter, and that is obviously a paramount consideration, but his track record is that he's a mediocre game-day coach, at best. USC will overwhelm the majority of teams they face with just sheer talent, but this won't be enough against elite teams and corches.

If he goes for another 9 win or even 10 win season, but loses again to UCLA, or Oregon, or ASU, and goes again to a second tier bowl, we can call him Steve MarkRichtian, and settle in for a decade of being good, but never great, despite Top 5 recruiting classes and preseason rankings every year.

If, on the other hand, he catapults the team to the South title, finally whips on ASU and UCLA, and wins the Rose in convincing fashion, then we'll have something to talk about.

 

[Brick]

Any optimism for USC to really have a breakout year, however, need to be tempered by QB Cody Kessler. He had a tremendous year last year, but nobody is talking excitedly about him because he, quite frankly, is not NFL material.

I don't understand what this means. He was tremendous but expectations should be tempered because he isn't going to be drafted high? Ultra talented teams don't need QBs like that. USC hasn't had a good pro since Palmer and they've been fine. All of Alabama's QBs blend into each other. Are you the lol worst talent since van rapphorst meme guy? Can't remember.

 

[bruin228]

Average QB surrounded by NFL talent had a good year because of surrounding talent. I think. That's what I would say about Kessler.

 

[Brick]

Numbers are ridiculous http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/player/657/1041427/passing/gamelog.html

Doesn't get too much better than a 59/12 career ratio. Needs more arm talent doe

Poor guy is only 6'1"

 

[bruin228]

Wow, his numbers are way better than I remember.

 

[BasinBictory]

I don't understand what this means. He was tremendous but expectations should be tempered because he isn't going to be drafted high? Ultra talented teams don't need QBs like that. USC hasn't had a good pro since Palmer and they've been fine. All of Alabama's QBs blend into each other. Are you the lol worst talent since van rapphorst meme guy? Can't remember.

If you did a time warp and switched Kessler onto those late 1990's USC teams and put Van Raaphorst and John Fox on this year's team, the numbers would be similar, IMO.

Leinart was a bust but was money in college. I don't get that same feeling from Kessler, despite the LOL OMG numberz.

 

[TrojanMan]

Kessler doesn't "wow" you when you watch, and I'm not sure why. More often than not, the game ends, you see his stats, and you're like, "Jeebus, I had no idea he threw for 375 and 5 TDs today."

Obviously the surrounding talent helps those numbers, but so what? The same can be said about a quarterback on any good team. Kessler may not make a good pro (no idea yet), but I think he's a very good college QB.

As for Sark, I'm with Basin. Show me something this year. I get that it'll take another year or two to fully restock the talent pantry, and that's fine. But the team can't jump out to leads and then fade throughout the 2nd half in every game again. Part of that was depth, sure. But part was coaching.

 

[Brick]

If you did a time warp and switched Kessler onto those late 1990's USC teams and put Van Raaphorst and John Fox on this year's team, the numbers would be similar, IMO.

No.

If Kessler was two inches taller and was 32/40 for 372 yards and a 6/0 ratio against Notre Dame, his ass would be crowned. Against Boston College he was 31/41 for 317 and a 4/0 ratio.

Even take his best performance in a loss out, and his numbers are not bad in those games: 74/111 (66%) for 751 yards and a 3/2 ratio.

The running game, on the other hand:
Boston College: 29 attempts for 20 yards (0.69 YPA)
Arizona State: 50 attempts for 220 yards (4.4 YPA)
Utah: 37 attempts for 100 yards (2.7 YPA)
UCLA: 33 attempts for 62 yards (1.8 YPA)

Doesn't seem like he should be the reason for tempered expectations.

The running game was no good last year despite Allen. 3.99 YPA was 88th in the country. In conference games they were 8th in YPA, 8th in YPG.

I don't see this huge surrounding talent argument. Barkley had Lee, Woods, and Agholor and didn't put up near those numbers.

 

[Brick]

I mean, I still think they will not do anything because of SARK, but Kessler won't be to blame if he performs as well as he did last year.

 

[fsuprime]

ucla still doesn't have a QB so i assume USC will beat them

 

[PSUEagle]

I don't see Kessler as an NFL QB at all FWIW.

Doesn't mean he isn't a really good to great college player, though.

 

[BasinBictory]

I don't see Kessler as an NFL QB at all FWIW.

Doesn't mean he isn't a really good to great college player, though.

Yup. He's a Matt Grootegoed-esque try hard.

Really, though - this is what I mean. He's one of those guys who is reely good.....at his current level. That doesn't always translate into being good at the next level.

Even if USC has an awesome year and Kessler is a Heisman finalist, I doubt he'll get drafted, largely because of his (lack of) size and lack of compensating ATHOLETEISM.

 

[kella]

This entire time I have thought this thread was titled "Snarknado", which was appropriate given Whitey.

 

[BasinBictory]

Well, you're here. Thread re-title engage.

 

[kella]

Jesus, I was in the wrong fucking thread.

Guess I need more coffee.

 

[DeadMan]

I see 5 toss up games on USC's schedule. UCLA, Oregon, ND, Stanford, Arizona State. Do we really have faith in Sark to do anything but go 2-3 against that slate? 3 of those are also road games. I think you could also make a case for every game but Idaho and Arkansas State being losable for USC. Does anyone really think that Sark will do any better than 9-3 against that schedule?

And there's also this:

 

[bruin]

lol at Ark State and Idaho.

 

[TrojanMan]

lol at Ark State and Idaho.

smdh. I would rather lose to a top notch team than beat up on Ark State and Idaho. Those aren't compelling games at all.

 

[bruin]

Prolly correct, which is why I said this season, despite being just year 2 of the Sarkisian Project, will set the tone for the rest of his tenure at USC. All the ingredients are in place for a really breakout year, but I'm not sure if Sark is the man to take USC back to the mountaintop. He's evidently a great recruiter, and that is obviously a paramount consideration, but his track record is that he's a mediocre game-day coach, at best. USC will overwhelm the majority of teams they face with just sheer talent, but this won't be enough against elite teams and corches.

If he goes for another 9 win or even 10 win season, but loses again to UCLA, or Oregon, or ASU, and goes again to a second tier bowl, we can call him Steve MarkRichtian, and settle in for a decade of being good, but never great, despite Top 5 recruiting classes and preseason rankings every year.

If, on the other hand, he catapults the team to the South title, finally whips on ASU and UCLA, and wins the Rose in convincing fashion, then we'll have something to talk about.

This.

Massive year for Sark. Sark has been able ride the sanctions and depth excuses to the bone. That's done with. Should never ever be an excuse giving up 400+ yards rushing to Boston College. He still sells the Bush/Carroll era to recruits, but that's not going to keep working if UCLA beats their backside for the 4th year in a row. That's a full HS class seeing nothing but L's to UCLA.

The "We don't trot out there with 13 different uniforms." comment is so lame. Bet SC boosters wish they could take that one back.

The argument that SC needs to be good for the PAC-12 to thrive is weak too. The conference might have never ever been as down as it was as a whole when SC had their run in the mid 2000's. Only Rodgers and Tedford at Cal were good, really.

 

[TrojanMan]

The argument that SC needs to be good for the PAC-12 to thrive is weak too.

Nah b. The rest of the conference shits the bed in important games. Carroll turned stomping top 5 teams in BCS bowls into an art form.

The league is far more balanced right now than when Carroll was steamrolling it, and that's a good thing. But there isn't one team in the conference that scares the rest of the country, and there hasn't been since the Trojans were it. Oregon almost reached that level, but couldn't quite get over the hump.

 

[bruin228]

jlawokay.gif

 

[TrojanMan]

jlawokay.gif

Apologies. I clearly wasn't talking about UCLA. You guys would actually have to get to a BCS game before you'd have a chance to win one.

 

[Brick]

With that tmangism, we can kick off the season in earnest.

Carroll from 2002-2008: 80-9 overall, 57-7 in conference, 23-2 out of conference
Last 7 Oregon seasons: 80-14 overall, 57-8 in conference, 23-6 out of conference

Getting ready to leave hard work work, so you can CHECK YOUR FACTS to make sure those numbers are right.

Carroll turned stomping shitty Big Ten teams in BCS bowls into an art form. Fixed.

Anyway, the only difference is Oregon didn't get to win all of those BCS games against the shitty Big Ten outfits: Joe Pa funeral, Ron Zook Illini, shitty Llllyod Michigan teams, Iowa. Of course those teams were scared of USC. Much doubt current Oregon couldn't handle teams of that caliber?

Oregon's BCS losses were to undefeated SEC champ Auburn, undefeated Ohio State...okay, shitty Ohio State Pryor team. That was Kelly's first year. They had won three straight BCS games before losing to tOSU last year.

Other non-con losses were neutral vs LSU, Boise State x2.

Have beaten Florida State, Kansas State, Michigan State, Oklahoma State, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and others over that span. Country not scared doe. GTFO.

 

[TrojanMan]

Oregon was a perennial bridesmaid. Actually, that's not fair. Maid of Honor. Never quite the bride. Win a shampship or GTFO of my face.

At least the Ducks were a hot maid of honor. All the single dudes at the party wanted to fuck you, no doubt. UCLA is the portly groom's sister, who's only in the wedding party because the bride felt obligated.

 

[bruin228]

Apologies. I clearly wasn't talking about UCLA. You guys would actually have to get to a BCS game before you'd have a chance to win one.

I guess it should be easy for SC to not lose by double digits this year since UCLA sucks so hard.

 

[TrojanMan]

I guess it should be easy for SC to not lose by double digits this year since UCLA sucks so hard.

And there it is. UCLA's entire season defined by whether or not they beat SC. Ugh.

I get it though. That's how we judge our basketball seasons.

 

[bruin228]

Reputation of the Pac-12 is far better than 10 years ago. No one cares about SC's glory days. People enjoy watching Oregon, UCLA, Arizona, and ASU wins games rather than watching Seven Win Steve get outcoached by a guy whose most famous quote is GUYS BEING DUDES.

 

[bruin228]

And there it is. UCLA's entire season defined by whether or not they beat SC. Ugh.

I get it though. That's how we judge our basketball seasons.

Who brought up UCLA first...

 

[Bdub]

Who gives a damn about LA school's. Little Utah will probably go ahead and sweep all the Cali teams again. And still they won't get any respect.

 

[TrojanMan]

Reputation of the Pac-12 is far better than 10 years ago. No one cares about SC's glory days. People enjoy watching Oregon, UCLA, Arizona, and ASU wins games rather than watching Seven Win Steve get outcoached by a guy whose most famous quote is GUYS BEING DUDES.

Except, they do. There's a reason people still talk about SC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Bama, etc., even when they suck. Same with the Lakers, Yankees, Cowboys et al. People love, or love to hate, the traditional powers in all sports. They draw eyeballs and conversation.

And if recruits didn't care, why would SC still sign top classes? The coaches go point to a giant board showing that SC has put more players in the NFL than any other school. More 1st rounders than any other school. More Rose Bowls, more blah blah blah. They can't sell the last few years' worth of results, or 600 uniforms, or a super successful coach, or ?????? But a decades-long pipeline to the NFL? Yep.

That shit still matters, despite what you think.

 

[bruin228]

Except, they do. There's a reason people still talk about SC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Bama, etc., even when they suck. Same with the Lakers, Yankees, Cowboys et al. People love, or love to hate, the traditional powers in all sports. They draw eyeballs and conversation.

And if recruits didn't care, why would SC still sign top classes? The coaches go point to a giant board showing that SC has put more players in the NFL than any other school. More 1st rounders than any other school. More Rose Bowls, more blah blah blah. They can't sell the last few years' worth of results, or 600 uniforms, or a super successful coach, or ?????? But a decades-long pipeline to the NFL? Yep.

That shit still matters, despite what you think.

Fans don't care. Who has been down the last 5-10 years? SC, Texas, Michigan, ND. Who have some of the top programs been? Oregon, Baylor, TCU, Boise, Oklahoma State. And yet college football viewership has been at its highest during this time period. No one cares if Alabama or SC is good unless they want some team to bandwagon.

 

[bruin]

Who gives a damn about LA school's. Little Utah will probably go ahead and sweep all the Cali teams again. And still they won't get any respect.

Ulbrich not adjusting to Kendal Thompson last year. LAWD.

Thank God Mora hired a real DC.

 

[TrojanMan]

Fans don't care. Who has been down the last 5-10 years? SC, Texas, Michigan, ND. Who have some of the top programs been? Oregon, Baylor, TCU, Boise, Oklahoma State. And yet college football viewership has been at its highest during this time period. No one cares if Alabama or SC is good unless they want some team to bandwagon.

Top 25 teams in terms of average viewership during their 2014 games:
1. Alabama
2. Florida State
3. Notre Dame
4. Auburn
5. Ohio State
6. Mississippi
7. Mississippi State
8. Michigan State
9. Georgia
10. LSU
11. Texas A&M
12. Michigan
13. Oregon
14. Missouri
15. Oklahoma
16. USC
17. Wisconsin
18. UCLA
19. Nebraska
20. Baylor
21. Arkansas
22. Florida
23. TCU
24. West Virginia
25. tie - Texas and Kansas State

The 4 'down' traditional powers you listed? All on this list. Your 5 'top' programs that people apparently care about? 3 on the list, and mostly below the other ones. As should surprise no one, TV interest skews towards traditional powers and teams from the south, where foobaw is religion.

 

[bruin228]

Top 25 teams in terms of average viewership during their 2014 games:
1. Alabama
2. Florida State
3. Notre Dame
4. Auburn
5. Ohio State
6. Mississippi
7. Mississippi State
8. Michigan State
9. Georgia
10. LSU
11. Texas A&M
12. Michigan
13. Oregon
14. Missouri
15. Oklahoma
16. USC
17. Wisconsin
18. UCLA
19. Nebraska
20. Baylor
21. Arkansas
22. Florida
23. TCU
24. West Virginia
25. tie - Texas and Kansas State

The 4 'down' traditional powers you listed? All on this list. Your 5 'top' programs that people apparently care about? 3 on the list, and mostly below the other ones. As should surprise no one, TV interest skews towards traditional powers and teams from the south, where foobaw is religion.

Texas is 25th, which is terrible considering they have their own network and are the flagship program of a huge state. SC is 16th, below such traditional powerhouse as Oregon and Mizzou. I love me some Sparty, but you certainly can't consider them a traditional power and yet there they are above Georgia, SC, Michigan, Texas, and Florida.

I see your point, but I'm willing to bet this list is rather skewed by ESPN and CBS's willingness to shove SEC footbawl down people's throats, alongside the fact that the Pac-12 will have games kicking off when people are going to bed.

Edit: And ND has an entire channel devoted to televising every single one of their games and it's basic cable, so I would hope they would be in the top 3.

 

[NavyHog]

Except, they do. There's a reason people still talk about SC, Notre Dame, Michigan, Bama, etc., even when they suck. Same with the Lakers, Yankees, Cowboys et al. People love, or love to hate, the traditional powers in all sports. They draw eyeballs and conversation.

And if recruits didn't care, why would SC still sign top classes? The coaches go point to a giant board showing that SC has put more players in the NFL than any other school. More 1st rounders than any other school. More Rose Bowls, more blah blah blah. They can't sell the last few years' worth of results, or 600 uniforms, or a super successful coach, or ?????? But a decades-long pipeline to the NFL? Yep.

That shit still matters, despite what you think.

USC has a great tradition, but I can assure you no one talks about them east of Utah.

 

[bruin228]

Well, that's not true. SC is nationally relevant without a doubt.

 

[NavyHog]

Well, that's not true. SC is nationally relevant without a doubt.

Pete Carroll isn't walking through that door, Reggie Bush isn't walking through that door.

My filter is admittedly skewed by SEC and the Big 12.

 

[bruin]

Pete Carroll isn't walking through that door, Reggie Bush isn't walking through that door.

This is the thing for Sark. He spews so much of that era in his talk, even with it being a decade ago. What happens if they lose 3-4 games this season with no sanctions to back out on? His seat will get hot very fast.

I don't think SC wins the South because they're weak mentally. And that starts with Sark.

 

[Brick]

I heard Kiffin is going to start wearing suits to press conferences more this year. He is ready to be a head coach again.

 

[TrojanMan]

This is the thing for Sark. He spews so much of that era in his talk, even with it being a decade ago. What happens if they lose 3-4 games this season with no sanctions to back out on? His seat will get hot very fast.

I don't think SC wins the South because they're weak mentally. And that starts with Sark.

To be fair to Sark, he WAS part of those Carroll years. So it's okay for him to reference that era.

But I agree that he needs to win on his own sooner rather than later. SC people like him because he's a good dude, he's been around campus a long time, he feels like part of the family, etc. But this is our football program, not hoops. Success is expected. And his grace period isn't unlimited.

 

[bruin]

Right. And he can mention that era, for now. My point was if he keeps underachieving at SC (in which anything but a Pac-12 title this year for them) will be underachieving, then that mystique is going to be lost for him.

 

[TrojanMan]

I think winning the South would be "good enough" this year. But he better win the Pac12 within the next 2 years or else the natives will get restless.

Another 9-ish win season with a loss to UCLA though, and he'll be on very thin ice.

 

[Bdub]

I am having a tough time seeing how he wins the South. I think they can beat UCLA this year though. I think it goes
1.ASU
2.USC
3.UCLA
4. ZONA
5. UTAH

 

[BasinBictory]

Another angle of Sark referencing those Carroll glory years is that he perhaps has learned from the example of Larry Smith, who basically shat all over SC's tradition when at the press conference following what would end up being his last game as head coach at USC.

SC lost in embarrassing fashion to an upstart Fresno State team in the Freedom bowl - to complete a disappointing season that saw a second sweep from UCLA and ND. When asked how his program had fallen on such hard times, Smith said something to the effect of "you don't just win because of the logo on your helmet anymore!"

That's obviously true, but fans of storied programs don't like hearing about that kind of noise. In the mind of an SC fan, losses to Fresno State (and Memphis the year before) are embarrassments that are well nigh unforgivable. Losing to conference foes and even archivals, while painful, can be quickly rectified since you play them every year.

 

[TrojanMan]

I'm not going to criticize a guy for getting drunk and shooting his mouth off. Who hasn't done that? BUT.....in this setting? Jeebus, Sark. How can you be that dumb?

I don't know the specifics, since I wasn't there. I don't know if he was pounding beers in his office, doing shots with coeds, or having cocktails with donors ahead of the Salute to Troy event. It doesn't really matter. Of all the places and times to act like a drunken idiot, he picked the worst. I wonder how that conversation with Haden went afterwards.