Regarding Hoke's latest statement ("No PSU players for us")

Of course, one's first reaction is that it's pretty honorable of our head coach, not to "raid" an already-riddled
(beyond repair for at least 5 years) program...our depth issues up front notwithstanding.

But in terms of the overall effects on PSU's program of the sanctions passed down this week, which all of us have pondered ad infinitum, and the media commented upon ad nauseum: I thought one of the better commentaries on the subject came, a couple of nights ago on ESPN, from Andre Ware. He dealt more with
the issue of high school recruits than current players. Having played college ball himself, he said he would have very serious misgivings about steering his 17-year-old football-playing son, if he had one, to Penn State. "College football is a wonderful experience...but a young player deserves to experience it all...and yes, that includes going to bowls, and even more, playing for championships. What else do competitive athletes play for? And by being denied both of those things, the young player would be denied two of the best things about CFB."

I for one casual observer have trouble disagreeing...

michmike, AW makes a very valid point. Like you, it is hard for me to disagree. I too want my children to experience all there is to offer in whatever path they chose to take. Being a fan of college football, bowl games certainly apply.

However, as big of a fan of football as I am, I'm an even bigger fan of the education aspect. If my child had to choose from Penn St with four year sanctions or a middle of the road college (say a MAC school) I'd be pushing my child to Penn St. Of course the choice would be his alone but I wouldn't be doing my job as a parent if I wasn't in his ear trying to make him see the big picture.

Just my opinion though

Sandy--- maybe my bias influenced my thinking...I was thinking that MICHIGAN was the only alternative, with its excellent academics and top-notch, unsanctioned football program.

Of course that's not true; there are many others. So I'd say that, valuing as you do the academic side of life as highly as any, I'd probably steer him away from PSU and to a Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Iowa, Stanford, et al.

I think it was said but....

THis will hurt them starting 2 years from now. Sorta like if they got the #1 recruiting class for 2012 it wouldn't help them for a couple of years.

I'd be concerned playing PSU this year. They've got nothing to play for but themselves and at this point Redd is the only defector I've heard about. They're gonna be mad and hurt and out to prove a point.

But then they will be in trouble. And no just for the 4 years of sanctions. It will take 3-5 years to recover.

And with that said, how do they get back up to the 85 limit if they can only get 25 a year? I mean, hypothetically they will be down to 60 schollie players after 4 years. They'll lose 15 and get to sign 25. That means they'll still only be at 70. The next year they would be at 80. Then at 85. Am I looking at this right? THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL and assuming they sign exactly 15 a year every year for 4 years, but is that hat happens to them?

Joe, your math is unclear, but truth be told I couldn't do any better (U-M math degree that I hold or NO degree!), because I don't fully understand it, and don't care to Google around learning the whole story.

But there is, as we all do know, a 15-per-year reduction in scholarships allowed, which right there takes a toll. And I'd like to make this added point: there will be an added toll taken in terms of players' reluctance to accept any of those 15, given the knowledge that PSU's star-caliber depth will be thin. I'm particularly thinking of the skill players: will a 5* QB or RB want to go there, knowing of the diluted talent helping him up front?

All to say nothing, of course, of the uncertainties prospective players will at-least-subconsciously harbor, given the school's greatly-damaged prestige and reputation. To what if any degree that will be a factor, who can say...but I feel secure in saying it's definitely there.

The only real problem I have with the sanctions is that during the next 4 years players can transfer at any point and not have to sit a year. I think they should be given this one time shot to go, and if they decide to stay and play this year, then regular transfer rules should apply.

Most will stay this year because they were only a couple weeks away from starting camp, and it would be hard to jump into another program at that point. But after the season, I think you will see more people go because they will have the entire off season to get aquainted with their new location.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

I think they should be given this one time shot to go, and if they decide to stay and play this year, then regular transfer rules should apply.

I thought that was the rule...but I'll take your word that they can transfer without penalty for the entire remainder of the 4-year sanction period, since I haven't read up on it much. Actually, I think your proposal would be a better solution, from PSU's vantage point, and I do feel they deserve some benefit of
the doubt, given that the vast, vast majority of those who will suffer from these ruinous sanctions had
nothing whatsoever to do with the scandal.

But given the actual ruling regarding transfers, I'm really amazed a ton of sophomores-to-be haven't tansferred yet...and to a lesser extent, juniors-to-be...knowing they'll be playing regular-season games only for their final three (or two) years, and with surrounding casts of ever-diminishing talent levels.

I'm going off of what Lugenbill said on ESPNU. I don't have a link or anything.

Apparently "someone's Father" contacted Michigan about the possibility of transferring. Coach Hoke said Thanks but no Thanks...

Also, if you read the article it seems that the have's (Michigan, ohio, wisconsin) will not be taking any Pedd State players. However, those who are clearly lacking (Purdue and Illinois) are into it. No mention of sparty or IU...

http://www.michigandaily.com/node/67193