or lack of success that has been experienced by the players that have transferred. One interesting aspect of these I believe has been overlooked. Let's take Silas Redd for example. So far his success on the field has been meh and his playing time is (and will continue to be) shared with Curtis McNeal. Let's face it, he didn't transfer there for academics (despite what Emmert might fantasize about). He transferred for two reasons a) a chance to play for a national championship (pretty big uphill climb now) and to improve his draft stock for the NFL. His reduced role at USC (as opposed to being the feature back at PSU as well as having coaches with some serious ties to the NFL) makes that goal a big uphill climb as well.

http://blogs.thetimes-tribune.com/pennstate/index.php/2012/09/17/silas-redd-his-plight-and-its-effect-on-the-future-of-penn-states-program/

http://victorybellrings.com/2012/09/18/defected-penn-staters-may-deter-future-players-from-doing-the-same/

Here is where it gets interesting. Having left Penn State under the circumstances as they were, he has placed himself in the national spotlight for all to see and analyze. If he does well, that is probably pretty good for him. On the other hand, if he does poorly, well, let's just say, his stock will fall like the market in 1929 and remember, his playing time will be significantly less than had he stayed at PSU, so just matching last years numbers might be challenging.

Had he stayed at Penn State and done well, his draft stock would probably be about the same or perhaps even better than at USC since Penn State as a whole is in the national spotlight, more now than ever. Anyone who does well is getting lot's of press (note Robinson, Barnes, Mauti, McGloin, etc.). BUT, had he done poorly, his play would be less conspicuous to the national spotlight. His stock would fall, but likely not as far.

I'd like other's thoughts on this.