ADVERTISEMENT

2020 number 1 recruit Evan Mobley to USC

The original USC. The one that sucks at hoops. Makes sense?

Ha, this made me smile, I think sucking is kind of relative - in the past 4 seasons they've made the NCAA tournament twice and the NIT once. Having said that, I get your point, they aren't Duke or Kentucky. When it comes to recruiting, I guess blood can be thicker than water, even for the No. 1 recruit.
 
Ha, this made me smile, I think sucking is kind of relative - in the past 4 seasons they've made the NCAA tournament twice and the NIT once. Having said that, I get your point, they aren't Duke or Kentucky. When it comes to recruiting, I guess blood can be thicker than water, even for the No. 1 recruit.
Also a consensus top 25 school academically
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skull83
The original USC. The one that sucks at hoops. Makes sense?
The original USC? Nope.
Sucks at hoops? Nope.

Two NCAA Tournaments in the past 4 seasons. The other USC has been to one NCAA Tournament in the past 4 seasons. So they're not much different.

21, 24, 26, 16 wins in each of the past four seasons. I'm thinking most Rutgers fans would sign up to suck that bad.

Oh and actually the University of South Carolina was founded in 1801 while the University of Southern California was founded in 1880. So the "original" USC is really the University of South Carolina.
 
Oh. I thought USC stood for University of Spoiled Californians.
 
Hire a ckose family member as a coach to land a top recruit? Wow, that's a new concept.
 
USC’s Coach Enfield is a former Wall Street guy. Plays to win. Brought some good talent to low-flying FGCU in Estero FL. FGCU under Enfield probably made more noise in 4 or 5 years than Rutgers hoops has had in their long existence.
BTW the other USC, South Carolina football, hired Chas Dodd’s father, and Chas himself, to land Chas’s younger brother QB. Hiring guardians and parents and “handlers” to land talented athletes did not start with Villanova basketball.
 
Nope but very close. It's University of Spoiled Children.
D1ooSxiUgAAx7s7.png
 
The original USC? Nope.
Sucks at hoops? Nope.

Two NCAA Tournaments in the past 4 seasons. The other USC has been to one NCAA Tournament in the past 4 seasons. So they're not much different.

21, 24, 26, 16 wins in each of the past four seasons. I'm thinking most Rutgers fans would sign up to suck that bad.

They still kinda suck at hoops. 2 sweet 16 appearances and 7 total tournament victories since 1961. Being better than Rutgers recently isn't saying much. I mean they probably didn't even deserve either of their 2 recent tourney appearances based on things like KenPom. Their coach is entering his 7th season and has more NCAA tourney success at FGCU than at USC.
 
They still kinda suck at hoops. 2 sweet 16 appearances and 7 total tournament victories since 1961. Being better than Rutgers recently isn't saying much. I mean they probably didn't even deserve either of their 2 recent tourney appearances based on things like KenPom. Their coach is entering his 7th season and has more NCAA tourney success at FGCU than at USC.
Are they an NCAA powerhouse? Nope They are pretty mediocre. But they I don't think they suck.

There are programs that winning 10 games is a milestone. They suck.
 
Are they an NCAA powerhouse? Nope They are pretty mediocre. But they I don't think they suck.

There are programs that winning 10 games is a milestone. They suck.

it is all relative. For an athletic department used to national titles, their men’s hoops is relatively disappointing over the years.
 
it is all relative. For an athletic department used to national titles, their men’s hoops is relatively disappointing over the years.
True, but I wonder if they even care about winning national titles in anything other than football, tennis and T&F
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT