Fighton247 Board

I doubt it would matter for a team that is on Probation with a lessened allotment of players

I don't think it means much that USC didn't recruit kids initially. We've seen several cases where an unrecruited player goes off to an obscure school and develops into a USC caliber player. See Lofa Tatupu, Vic Rakshani, and Calvin Sweeney.

I guess anything's possible.

However, even though a PSU player wouldn't count against a program's scholarship limit currently, that scholarship WOULD count in a subsequent year - no exceptions, and it's unclear what time frame or how many years/seasons that would need to take place.

I just don't see the NCAA allowing a program under sanction or on probation to participate in this transfer rule.

If players don't count toward as an initial counter and USC can go over the limit with no balancing out in the future, I have nothing against USC taking players from PSU, even if they were never initially recruited by USC.

There is talk that if USC goes to say 76 this year, they have to play at 74 next year. This wouldn't be that bad for USC as we might be at 74 anyway and it is worthwhile if the player you are getting can make a huge impact this year.

If Silas Redd is willing to transfer to USC, you take him even if you play at 74 next year.

I know they say that college football is a business and as such emotion should not enter into the decision making process...that being said I remember how we fans felt when other teams came in and tried/did take our players when we were facing the bowl ban. I know it is a different situation at PSU but I still don't feel like it is the right thing to do. Do unto others....

You mean offering them a top-tier education and a fresh start on a perennial national-championship contending program that sends the most guys to the NFL and consistently attracts the most pro scout and media attention?

Ya, we're better than that.

The point is well taken. It's highly unlikely that current Penn State athletes will jump to SC, given the recruiting dynamics and geography. Over the past 4 years Penn State has only signed 2-3 kids from the west coast, and none from california. I would guess ND, Ohio St. and Michigan would be the biggest beneficiaries of an open transfer window.

I'd be very surprised if SC got more than 1 kid to come out west, and wouldn't be surprised if none of them did - even with all that SC has to offer.

If they come to us fine, and all USC fans could quote the advantages we have, but there is a difference between being receptive/accomodating and being vultures.

The rumor is that for every scholarship you go over the limit this year, you have to be under next year.

Also have to take into consideration that transfers MIGHT count as initial counters.

Playing at 77 or 77 this year and below 75 next year is only worth it if that player will have a major impact.

+1

Please, please, please let this be a real possibility.

We desperately need depth at RB. Adding a back like Silas Redd who's proven to be one of the best in the nation, would be epic. IIRC, as a recruit he seemed to be a decent kid, I remember him seeming very intelligent and well-spoken in interviews from the US Army game.

But you arent taking a flyer on a Juco or unproven high schooler. Youre probably going to take someone with immediate 3 year impact, so in reality, thats one less player you really need for that time unless an injury arises. I'm banking that the majority of these kids go to the lower tiered conferences or Div 2 schools. I didnt see their team being filled with impact players across the board.

Its the seniors that are going to get screwed, because why would you take a player for 1 year and then have to be under the next after he is gone? No one on that team is a MNC game changer.

No one is forcing a school to take 10 players. Some schools might think that 1 year of HUGE advantage is worth 1 year of a huge disadvantage.

More than likely you will see 1 or 2 players go to the same school and this seems to be the fairest way to do it for the sake of the kid.