|
USC
Jan 20, 2005 13:43:54 GMT -5
Post by BBallking on Jan 20, 2005 13:43:54 GMT -5
Why does USC not dominate the men's game like the Women of Troy run through th erest of the NCAA? The men can't even win a league match!
|
|
|
USC
Jan 20, 2005 14:58:47 GMT -5
Post by My2Sense on Jan 20, 2005 14:58:47 GMT -5
My take:
- Women get 12 schollies to compete on an even field with any other program. - Men get 4.5 and have to use a mixture of means to get players to come to their program. It's much different for a men's program to acquire players at an expensive school, since the players have to pay a substantial amount of their tuition and costs of living. For example, say, a half scholarship at USC still costs a player around $20K/yr. A half scholarship at say LBS or CSN if you live away from home cost about $10K/yr. If you live at home, it's about $2,000/yr. The unfortunate reality is a lot of players get much smaller fractions. A player who gets 10% still has to be able to afford over $30k/yr, for example. So the less expensive state schools have an advantage over the privates. So which players can afford to go to USC on a fractional scholarship? Not many I'd assume. Those same players are being wood by the other private schools like Pepperdine, Stanford and UoP since they too have to attract players who can afford their tuitions. So the talent pool is smaller for a USC. The women's program at USC gets 12, 100% scholarships to hand out, so they have a major advantage over the men. They can go after any player they want regardless of ability to pay tuition, and that player will get a free education.
- USC has had to rebuild their program after the cupboard was left bare when the previous coach was let go about 3 years ago. The current coach, Douglas, was handcuffed his first year by his administration when they didn't give him a head coach title. As a result, recruits didn't know who they were committing to. There were also some rumors running around that SC was thinking of shuttering its program. Who is going to commit to a program where you don't know who your coach is going to be, or even if there's going to be a program? That set back their recruiting another year. Since being made head coach Douglas has been able to attract some high quality recruits, but they're now only freshmen or hs seniors. It'll take another year or two before these new guys can catch up to the mature programs they'd need to beat to be in the top tier. Anyone who's seen SC this year can see that they are an improved team over last year. Though they haven't won a lot, they've scared some good teams and are not to be taken for granted. I hope SC fans will be patient. I see good things coming, honestly.
I'm only an outsider looking in, so these are my impressions.
|
|
|
USC
Jan 20, 2005 15:30:10 GMT -5
Post by bigfan on Jan 20, 2005 15:30:10 GMT -5
My2Sense you hit it on the head. I also observe some of their games and they are improving. The chemistry is much better, the players seem to be more comfortable and the head coach is getting them to play all-out. The previous regime almost ran the program into the ground.
|
|
|
USC
Jan 20, 2005 15:34:35 GMT -5
Post by roy on Jan 20, 2005 15:34:35 GMT -5
That is a pretty good summary of what has been going on. Also, it's really hard to be as dominant in a sport with such a small pool. The top recruits almost always end up at UCLA. You can't overcome that kind of history.
There are a lot of talented high school players and very few programs to go to. The talent level is pretty even that coaching becomes much more important in the men's game than the women's. For the women, there are a lot of "gimme" matches. Top teams can simply use raw talent to win some matches. For the men, coaching becomes a big part of the success of a program. And like M2S said, its hard to get good talent if the recruits are unsure of the program. And its hard for the coach to do his job when the administration doesn't help out.
|
|