Readers' Choice

LOOKS JUST LIKE MY GRANDDAUGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, holy mackeral, incredible, hold on to your hat, you're kidding me, my heart is racing. A girl, a real girl, and on Scott Wolf's blog of all places.

Can't beat that.

Scott!

Wow!

Is that a picture? Of a girl? Who goes to USC? At least theres some link to our Trojans.

OH and a hypothesis for you guys;

Admission standards are becoming higher and higher, and thus, don't mean to stir the pot here, but there are definitely fewer attractive girls on this campus than, say 10 years ago. Thus, less attractive girls overall, means less attractive girls on the song girls. And another thing. Cheerleading no longer attracts the best looking girls. Its more about athleticism and dancing. Which doesnt equate to attractiveness.

She looks like a horse. I am not happy with the overall quality of the Song Girls, but 50% of them are better looking than that girl.

SAETrojan:

I agree with you that the student body at SC is clearly not as attractive today as in the 1990s. One has to be blind not to have noticed that. However, what I do take issue with is the assertion that cheerleading is more about "athleticism and dancing" these days, which is why the Song Girls are no longer attractive.

My point of contention here is, if athleticism and dancing are really factors in Song Girl selection in the 2000s, then how come so many of the Song Girls this decade have been overweight, with thick legs and flabby midriffs?

Look at the Oregon cheerleaders and UCLA Dance Team and they are almost all very toned yet attractive. It is stipulated in the requirements for those squads that they have to be in certain physical condition, yet there is no such written requirement for the Song Girls to be thin and toned. I've looked and I can't find it. It simply is not a requirement.

So the Song Girls have just been unattractive and overweight in the 2000s, with "athleticism and dancing" not being a factor for their decline.

Oh yeah, i guess I shouldve mentioned the increased importance on something that usc prides itself on: "connections" and "networking" as well as "legacy on the squad"

It is no longer a secret that the Song Girls are selected based on who they know. You have to know the coach, the coach's daughter, an existing squad member, be related to a previous member, or some other nepotistic connection.

That is the main problem. As one other reader has commented, UCLA Dance Team auditions are open to the public. There is some sense of transparency and effort to get the best and most beautiful girls. With the Song Girls, it's not about how attractive you are, it's who you know.

The fact that the athletic dept. has been paranoid about all this expose is because it is a reality.

How many days until USC vs. Virginia?????

THIS PICTURE IS NO BIG DEAL

Only people with one sided ideas get excited when they see these pictures of song girls from when they were young.

Post a picture of this year's squad and any of the last five years those song girls equal and beat this one image any day.

Choose a good picture

She is definitely attractive, has The Look, and would likely be the best cheerleader on the SG squad this decade. That is, if the selection process were based on merit and free of corruption.

MRSAM - This girl in the picture was not a Song Girl. She is just some random student who appeared on the cover of the "Women of USC" calendar in 1985.

If we were talking about the Song Girls in 1985 or 1995 and comparing them to the squad of 2005, then the former would be far more beautiful. And that's a fact.

This is a head only shot - I am not falling for this... I have seen the evidence of head only shots on myspace and panning the camera a little lowere - a 200 lbs caboose...

i985, must be a older lady now. Good luck and best health for her. Go USC

LJ:
I'm a fisherman:
M A C K E R E L, PLEASE?
THNX

El Capitan:

You are a little rough with the others, but you have a soft touch with me. Thanks. And I too am a fisherman, fishing every week at Vons and Ralphs for my favorite fish. And one would have thought I would have known how to spell 'mackerel.'

I am such an idiot. But unlike others on this blog, I own up to it.