National Signing Day 2010: USC Grabs Top WR Markeith Ambles, DB Nickell Robey
In the first (and second) of what will be many more such announcements, two recruits landed with the USC Trojans at the 11th hour.
WR Markeith Ambles and DB Nickell Robey chose to attend the University of Southern California, faxing in their letters of intent early this morning as the National Signing Day festivities kicked off on the East Coast.
Ambles is no big surprise—he was a Tennessee verbal who decommitted upon Lane Kiffin's departure and didn't seriously consider the Vols again.
Trojans fans were confident in landing Ambles once he visited Kiffin's new digs in Southern California, and the fringe five-star WR didn't disappoint.
Ambles brings superior speed and talent to a USC wide receiving corps that has started to rely too heavily on big, tall, slow receivers. His athleticism on the outside will be exciting to watch.
Robey's commitment is a bit more shocking. The fringe four-star corner surprised the recruiting world yesterday when word leaked that he may not sign with Georgia. By the end of the day, that rumor was confirmed.
USC is somewhat a surprising late selection, but the reality is the Trojans really need defensive backs and must add depth to a roster that got picked on over the top all year.
Rivals listed Robey's main recruiter as Monte Kiffin. An article that ran earlier in the week tellingly said ol' Monte had been in Robey's school probably more than was legal. But come on, it's never the nice old man!
In any event, I see many more such commitments to Southern Cal in the near future. You knew Kiffin, Orgeron, and Sir Monte wouldn't be satisfied with the 11 verbal commitments they had sealed up heading into today.
Expect more of the same for Kiffin and Co. as the uncommitted start to drop. Parents: My advice would be to drive your kids to work today.
Check in on Maxpreps' Signing Day Blog updates for more information as the festivities play on.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?