USC Football Recruiting: Breaking Down 2014 Offers by the Numbers
As the USC recruiting department attempts to craft the 2014 class, it is illustrative to see where the coaches themselves feel the Trojans need help going forward next year and beyond.
At least early on, there are specific units that are being targeted for re-stocking and in looking at the 2013 roster; it is easy to see how graduation and reduced numbers to start with are mandating increased attention in these areas.
Obvious units of need—such as defensive line—are receiving increased attention while others, well, not so much.
In looking at a list of offers to 4- and 5-star recruits (as supplied by Scout.com) the efforts of the recruiting staff is evident in the units they are seeking to strengthen.
Here is a cursory list of those offers broken down by the units they are designed to replenish:
13 (10 defensive ends)
7 (5 cornerbacks)
7 (2 tight-ends)
As mentioned before, this is a list of 4 and 5-star Scout.com prospects offered by the Trojans and it does not reflect lower rated players of which there are also a smattering that also have been extended offers.
However, included in the list are four players (offensive linemen, Toa Lobendahn and Jordan Poland and defensive linemen, Tashon Smallwood and Austin Maloata) that have given the Trojans their verbal pledge to come play for USC.
If there are any surprises, it probably is in the area of the defensive backs where USC definitely needs help yet they have only offered five cornerbacks as of this writing.
Still, it should be noted that this is very early in the process and this list is bound to grow by the time players are ready to sign their letters of intent.
In the meantime, USC's recruiting department will keep their nose to the grindstone and fans of the program will scrutinize their efforts with a magnifying glass to see if they get it right.
No one ever said recruiting was an easy game.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?