MichiganMan2424

July 31st, 2012 at 5:58 PM ^

This also stood out to me;

"USC is not allowed to go over 75 scholarship players, thanks to sanctions the school received in 2010 due to improper benefits. The school needs a spot for Redd, but USC believes at least one player currently on scholarship is academically ineligible. If not, a walk-on player likely would give up a scholarship."

For all the Lane Kiffin haters, if that were to happen, I think it would just add more fuel to the fire.

In reply to by MichiganMan2424

evenyoubrutus

July 31st, 2012 at 6:09 PM ^

Would you complain if Michigan took away a scholarship from one of their walkons and gave it to a potential All Conference player who transferred from a different school?

WolvinLA2

July 31st, 2012 at 6:16 PM ^

Just so you know, whenever a walk-on gets a scholarship, he's almost always told he has it until they find a recruit to give it to (with guys like Kovacs who become starters the exception). 

Usually the walk-ons are told at the beginning of the season, so they wouldn't know yet.  And in a time like this with scholarship reductions at USC, very few walk-ons would be getting them anyway.

Point is, lots of teams do this, and it doesn't make Kiffin shady.  He's shady for all the other reasons.

WolvinLA2

July 31st, 2012 at 9:12 PM ^

Yeah, most people don't have that kind of money.  But most people don't choose expensive private schools. 

The kids who choose SC, by and large, can afford that.  And it's not like he's telling kids who were recruiting on scholarship to become walk-ons.  He's telling walk-ons to go back to being walk-ons.  Kids who expected to pay that all four years anyway.

bronxblue

July 31st, 2012 at 11:14 PM ^

I think the bigger complaint stems from the fact that a school already hit with a scholarship restriction because they are on probation for cheating is allowed to sign a kid transferring from another school just placed on probation for covering up pedophelia. 

But whatever.  Redd will probably do fine at USC, but man does this who situation just feel icky.

BTW, good to see the NCAA really looking out for the interests of the sanctity of the sport with this whole mess.

thisisme08

August 1st, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^

Its normal NCAA hypocrisy  I am all for the PSU kids being able to transfer right away but for the NCAA to allow this is just wrong.   

It further lends credence to the mantra of cheat your ass off, fight it, get a slap on the wrist, and by virtue of extremely unfortunate circumstances come out better at RB then you would have. 

In reply to by MichiganMan2424

Leaders And Best

July 31st, 2012 at 8:17 PM ^

Not only does the transfer count against the total number of scholarships, but it also counts against the number of scholarships a team can sign PER year.

USC is limited to 15 scholarships per year from their sanctions (normally 25 per year). They officially took 12 players last year (backdated 4 commits to 2011 class) so they have room to put him in the 2012 class.  BUT they already have 18 verbal commits for 2013 with what looks like a plan to backdate 3 early enroll commits to 2012.  There isn't enough room to do that now with Redd.

Either an entering 2012 commit is not going to qualify and use his scholarship on Redd or one of the 2013 USC commits is not going to end up signing a LOI with USC in Feb 2013.

In reply to by MichiganMan2424

TBMWolverine

August 1st, 2012 at 9:21 AM ^

This is ridiculous. He's a walk on. I don't think many walk ons expect to be given a scholarship. I prioritize on all conference RB over a scrub walk on. Sorry about it.

ryebreadboy

July 31st, 2012 at 5:59 PM ^

Ouch. PSU's hopes of a great "we'll show 'em" season just took a big hit. Not very good for team morale when you lose high-profile upperclassmen, either.

myblueheaven

July 31st, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^

The fact that he even made the trip told me it would be hard for Penn St. to hold on to Redd. I do not believe his team mates would have embraced his return anyway.

BlueHills

July 31st, 2012 at 6:13 PM ^

It is a tough break, especially since PSU is short on high level skill players.

Frankly, I'm surprised that more players haven't announced they're leaving, which says something positive about the appeal and tenacity of Bill O'Brien, and the commitment of the players to their school.

"Those who stay" there will never become champions, but I have to admire loyalty and team spirit.

BlueinOK

July 31st, 2012 at 6:26 PM ^

It's kinda ironic that Redd transfered to a school that just had players free to transfer because of their own sancations. Two totatally different situations though, obviously.

Carcajous

August 1st, 2012 at 7:27 AM ^

Well, because prohibiting transfers to USC was not part of the sanctions the NCAA leveled on them.  Why would the NCAA suddenly disallow a transfer as long as the transfer doesn't put USC over scholarship limits??

UofM626

July 31st, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^

Will reconsider since now they have

McNeal (starter) Sr
Redd (possible starter) Jr
Agholor ( stud ) Fr
3 other RB as well

Next yr
Justin Davis #2 RB on Scout
Ty Isaac #1 RB on Scout

After that he w get a 5* every yr

If I am Isaac I would DeCommit but who knows.

WolvinLA2

July 31st, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

But Isaac knew all of that when he committed with the exception of the Redd thing, but they'll only overlap for one year (or not at all, if Redd goes early to the NFL like most expect he will).  I wouldn't get my hopes up.

WolvinLA2

July 31st, 2012 at 7:02 PM ^

Yes, I understand that, as I too live in LA (hence the handle).  But like I said, Isaac knew all of this before he committed, so although I agree with all of those points, it's nothing new so I'm not sure why now all of a sudden Isaac would be afraid of competition. 

Except I don't believe you that a Cali kid would get PT over a RB from elsewhere.  A lot of SC's backs have been from CA, but they had that guy from Louisiana a few years ago (whose name is escaping me) and they had no problem giving him loads of PT.  I'm sure Kiffin will play whoever is the best, and Isaac probably believes it will be him. 

NateVolk

July 31st, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^

If Hoke never existed and we were saddled with Greg what's his name from Rutgers or someone similar, every one on this board would take Lane Kiffin as coach and defend him to the death. Say he left Tennessee to take his dream job at Michigan and started recruited like he has been. 

I like the guy. Lots of people can't stand him and it's cool. The reality is he's fast becoming a top 10 or better coach nationally.  Great move recognizing a need and closing the deal. He is also giving a kid with pro potential the chance to run against 7 man fronts behind the best passing offense in the country.  

There's more: his players love him and they have a very close team. That's why he can ask a walk-on to take a hit here and possibly ask McNeil to take less carries.   

 

 

Lionsfan

July 31st, 2012 at 7:18 PM ^

As much as I hate to admit it, he's a pretty good coach. He may run his mouth, and left Tenn in a bad way, but he's (unfortunately for us) a good coach. In 2008 Tennessee lost to Florida 30-6 and Alabama 29-9 and went 5-7, finishing near the bottom of their division. He shows up, and takes Florida to the 4th quarter before losing 23-13, and almost had Alabama upset until Terrence Cody made the best play of his collegiate career, and has Tennessee going 7-5, finishing 3rd in the division, and going against 9-3 top 15 ranked VT in the Peach Bowl

jmblue

July 31st, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^

I thought he did a really good job with USC last year as well.  They started slowly in September, with an ugly win over Minnesota and lopsided loss to ASU, but they improved dramatically after that.  Going 10-2 (with one loss in 3OT) with a team on probation and no postseason to play for is not easy to pull off.  

 

 

WolvinLA2

July 31st, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^

Although I mostly agree with you, they had more talent than any team they played, and they really played 2 tough games all season and they went 1-1 in those games, plus a pretty ugly loss to ASU who was not a good team. 

I'm not saying Kiffin is a poor coach, but their league was very weak last year except for Stanford and Oregon, and even those teams didn't have the talent that SC had, sanctions or not.  You could even make the arguement that they took those games more seriously because it was the closest things they had to a bowl game. 

They had a season a lot like ours - lost to one of the best teams in the conference (MSU), and a lesser team (Iowa), although Iowa was a much better team than ASU.  Both teams beat ND (although SC did so more decisively) and both teams took care of the rest of their conference, although if you count VT our wins are more impressive than their's, and we didn't have near the talent advantage that they had.  Again I'm not saying he's a bad coach, but a lot of coaches could coach that kind of talent to victories.