ESPN's Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame Matt Leinart for staying his last year at USC

[Phil C]

ESPN did a good job on the episode last night. Many people criticized him for not going pro the year before mainly saying it cost him money which it did. But ESPN had some good arguments that I will cover.

They had two honorable mentions below:

He might not have been the no. 1 pick. This is weak to me. Even if he had been in the top 5 he would have made millions.

Also he had insurance. A good point. He could have insured himself for a career ending injury and he could and did have a policy that if he wasn't drafted in the first 15 picks he would have been compensated for the difference he would have got at No. 15 if he had been No. 25. Of course he didn't get to collect on either one which is good.

Now the top five reasons in reverse order:

5. Scar tissue. He had to have off season surgery. This might have caused some scouts to doubt him. It could be said he was right to stay his senior year to prove he had the arm. Of course these same people said Vince should turn pro and then pointed out the problem with his throwing arm. Houston let themselves get talked out of drafting him with this logic. What a mistake.
But overall this is a strong argument in Leinart's case because injuries are of concern to scouts. This one should have been ranked higher in my opinion.

4. San Francisco not any good. If he was the first pick he would be at SF where he would have no line or great immediate future. A weak point in my opinion. What good team does have the No. 1 pick (unless they get it by a trade or something)?

3. Big Man on Campus. This is not a typical city. It has glamours movie starts that want his company. Plus considering he only took one class (dancing) he had time to spare and enjoyed the glamour. This is a strong point. You are only BMOC once and when you are gone it is over. Why not enjoy it.

2. Carson Palmer stayed his last year and did good. This is weak. They pointed out those that went pro before their senior year like Ryan Leaf and basically busted. That was true but I doubt they would have done better had they stayed a senior year. Look at VY. He did ok by going pro early. Weak argument here.

1. Chasing History. This is a good point and probably deserved to be No. 1. He could have won 3 National Championships and maybe another Heisman Trophy. If USC had beaten Texas they would have probably been thought of as the Greatest Team of All Times. Plus the winning streak would have gone to 35 games. This was a good goal and was probably worth going for. Of course UT stopped this ambition. :)

There you have it. Let the debates begin.
I had a good reason too (at least I think so). One is even though he got drafted No. 10 he got on with Arizona and is doing well and he did sign for a lot of money - more than most people will make in a lifetime of work. Since he is doing well now he will probably get even more money at contract negociation time. He is a multi millionare anyway and it has worked out well for him anyway.

[Phil C]

Of course he signed for about $10 Million under what VY got but Hey. $45 M compared to $55 isn't bad. I wouldn't have minded coming in second like that. :)

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Phil C
ESPN did a good job on the episode last night. Many people criticized him for not going pro the year before mainly saying it cost him money which it did. But ESPN had some good arguments that I will cover.

3. Big Man on Campus. This is not a typical city. It has glamours movie starts that want his company. Plus considering he only took one class (dancing) he had time to spare and enjoyed the glamour. This is a strong point. You are only BMOC once and when you are gone it is over. Why not enjoy it.


1. Chasing History. This is a good point and probably deserved to be No. 1. He could have won 3 National Championships and maybe another Heisman Trophy. If USC had beaten Texas they would have probably been thought of as the Greatest Team of All Times. Plus the winning streak would have gone to 35 games. This was a good goal and was probably worth going for. Of course UT stopped this ambition. :)

There you have it. Let the debates begin.


I feel 1 and 3 were definitely the two big ones in Whinert's mind, although to bring up OLD argument, I still don't agree with anyone saying USC was going for threepeat in 2005.
The system we have in place for determining the OFFICIAL national champion is the BCS system. Lousiana State University (LSU) was the champion after 2003 season, USC after 2004 season and Texas after 2005.

[coach]

staying all four years is so underrated.....i hate when plaeyrs leave early but i guess i understand the money thing and you might get hurt

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by BTEXDAD
I feel 1 and 3 were definitely the two big ones in Whinert's mind, although to bring up OLD argument, I still don't agree with anyone saying USC was going for threepeat in 2005.
The system we have in place for determining the OFFICIAL national champion is the BCS system. Lousiana State University (LSU) was the champion after 2003 season, USC after 2004 season and Texas after 2005.

Actually...remember that the BCS system is set up to determine the USA Today/Coaches Poll National Champion. The AP Poll (long regarded as THE indicator who was the national champion ) has always been allowed to vote for it's own national champ. We just consider the BCS to be the end all/be all because they have the money...thus they get the face time! :(

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Actually...remember that the BCS system is set up to determine the USA Today/Coaches Poll National Champion. The AP Poll (long regarded as THE indicator who was the national champion ) has always been allowed to vote for it's own national champ. We just consider the BCS to be the end all/be all because they have the money...thus they get the face time! :(


ACCORDING TO USC A&M HAS NEVER WON A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IN FOOTBALL. THE FOLLOWING IS FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

USC Now Will Recognize Its 1939 Football Team As A National Champion


July 26, 2004

USC now will recognize its 1939 football team as a national champion, Trojan athletic director Mike Garrett announced.

"It was brought to our attention by various individuals that we should be claiming the 1939 Trojans among our national champions in football," said Garrett. "We took this matter seriously, did significant research and determined this to be true. That 1939 team was one of the greatest in our history. In fact, its coach, the legendary Howard Jones, acknowledged as much when at the team banquet that year he said this squad was his finest ever at USC, at least in terms of depth."

The 1939 Trojans were presented with the Knute Rockne Intercollegiate Memorial Trophy, at the time emblematic of the nation's No. 1 team. The trophy (originally called the Rissman National Trophy) was given to the team that finished atop the Dickinson System, a mathematical point formula devised by Illinois economics professor and nationally-respected football analyst Frank G. Dickinson. His system crowned a national champion from 1926 to 1940 (with predated rankings in 1924 and 1925). It was the first to gain widespread national public and media acceptance as a "major selector," according to the NCAA Football Records Book (the Associated Press poll didn't begin until 1936).

Dickinson claimed that in 1939 "the Trojans were the best team in the best section...and the nation's other top teams did not play as strong a schedule as USC."

In 1939, there were 13 polls and systems that chose a national champion. Texas A&M (in 10) and Cornell (in 2) finished first in the others that season.

USC has long claimed its first national championship in football in 1928, when-like in 1939-it was named only by the Dickinson System (Georgia Tech and Detroit were picked No. 1 by that season's eight other selectors). Yet for some undetermined reason, USC never acknowledged 1939 among its national titlists...until now.

USC now recognizes its football teams of 1928, 1931, 1932, 1939, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 2003 as national champions.

HAVE ALSO ADDED 2004 SINCE THEN

[Phil C]

Weak argument by USC. Back then the main poll was AP and most of the country went by that. If UT get what USC did we could claim several more. But hey. I guess that is USC. Below is a link of the polls that determined the national championships. When you look at it USC had one poll while the Aggies had the most. Plus the Aggies had a perfect record that year. Heck even Cornell had more polls pick them than USC. That is just a propaganda thing for USC in my opinion. The Aggies are the 1939 National Champions in football.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Actually...remember that the BCS system is set up to determine the USA Today/Coaches Poll National Champion. The AP Poll (long regarded as THE indicator who was the national champion ) has always been allowed to vote for it's own national champ. We just consider the BCS to be the end all/be all because they have the money...thus they get the face time! :(

From internet (BCS' own website, but what the heck)

The BCS was established to determine the national champion for college football while maintaining and enhancing the bowl system that's nearly 100 years old. The BCS has become a showcase for the sport, matching the best teams at the end of the season.

Until the early 1990s the selection process for bowl games was disorganized at best; chaotic at worst. Some bowls would effectively make selections after seven or eight games. As a result, the conference commissioners worked to develop a system that not only allows the selection process to be completed at the end of the regular season, but also creates better matchups.

Because of the BCS arrangement, the bowl agreements are more open than they have ever been. Every Division I-A team is eligible to quality for the National Championship game or for one of the at-large berths-all within the framework of the bowl system that is an integral part of college football's grand tradition.

[Phil C]

I agree that the BCS has made it better than the past. But we need a real playoff system in college football with at least the top four teams (top 8 would be much better).

[htowntransplant]

my top 5 reasons for leinhart to come out:

1. money
2. cash
3. dinero
4. mula
5. more money

[g$$]

I can't blame Leinart for staying & enjoying college life in Southern California. Weather, women, celebrity lifestyle, football, glamour, etc. all had to be enjoyed one last time. He would have gone to SF with the 1st pick though over Alex Smith (so he cost himself about $10 million).

Did I mention the women? Maybe too much for him - he is now a father to the USC basketball player Brynn Cameron's kid!

That is a joke for USC to claim 1939 NC. Texas A&M dominated the polls & were declared champions by almost everyone (10/13 polls then). We only have 1 USC, back off!

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Phil C
I agree that the BCS has made it better than the past. But we need a real playoff system in college football with at least the top four teams (top 8 would be much better).

Agreed. It is better than it was, but for the FAN a playoff system would be the way to go.
However, the Rutgers coach, Schiano, said in an interview b4 they played Louisville, that he liked the current system with no playoffs.
He liked the fact so many teams in bowl games, even tho they weren't playing for national championship, got the chance to end season with a win.
He thought if a full playoff season was put in only one team ends season with a win while others, even tho they've had great years, end the season with a bad taste in their mouth.
This happens in high school playoffs, and it's hard to convince some of the kids they had a great year when season ended with loss.
Back on the bowl games, I can see the point (not even considering money) that it's great reward for a team that's done well to get to go to a bowl game and at least one team in every bowl game goes home a winner.


by the way, Phil, sorry I hijacked your thread with this bcs bs.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by BTEXDAD
From internet (BCS' own website, but what the heck)

The BCS was established to determine the national champion for college football while maintaining and enhancing the bowl system that's nearly 100 years old. The BCS has become a showcase for the sport, matching the best teams at the end of the season.

Until the early 1990s the selection process for bowl games was disorganized at best; chaotic at worst. Some bowls would effectively make selections after seven or eight games. As a result, the conference commissioners worked to develop a system that not only allows the selection process to be completed at the end of the regular season, but also creates better matchups.

Because of the BCS arrangement, the bowl agreements are more open than they have ever been. Every Division I-A team is eligible to quality for the National Championship game or for one of the at-large berths-all within the framework of the bowl system that is an integral part of college football's grand tradition.

I find it funny that they mention that they are concerned with the bowl system. They don't give a crap. They want to see #1 vs #2...and that's it. The BCS has made a great game in the Rose Bowl between Michigan and USC and absolute afterthought.

[Phil C]

The only thing is that you could still have bowl games. After the top 8 are picked for the playoffs for the national championship there would still be lots of good teams that could play bowl games. Their season wouldn't wouldn't end just because they didn't make the final 8. The bowl games would be a great bonus for them.

[g$$]

Still favor the +1 system only. The thing is most D1-A players will tell you they do not want a playoff sysytem, & elaborate further how tired & beat up they are after the season. I have asked them myself when I worked in it, & a few others no longer playing. Please don't compare to pro football. Or hs football. All 3 are different from each other in various ways.

But, all other divisions in college football have playoffs. In fact, D1-A football is the only sport in the world without a true champion determined on the field.

[charlesrixey]

he made millions and got to enjoy four years of college...............sounds like it worked out for him

[Phil C]

Originally posted by charlesrixey
he made millions and got to enjoy four years of college...............sounds like it worked out for him

Until they ran into Texas and Vince Young. :)

[Phil C]

If he had signed after his junior year he would have got about $55 Million dollars. Since he went out his junior year he got $45 M dollars. Thus that is about $10M he lost his first year plus the $10M he lost his second year. So he probably lost a total of $20M for deciding not to go pro. It may have been wise for him because hey $45M isn't bad. And he can probably get more at contract negociation time. :)

[g$$]

I think he lost about $10 million, because he did play this year in the pros. But no doubt he lost $$ by staying. He will make some of it in time.