He's transferring to Iowa, a Big Ten member. He says he'll pay his own way for the sit-out year. And he can do so easily because he's an Iowa resident.
Ryan's prohibition was levied on Iowa institutionally, prohibiting Iowa from contacting Uthoff. So can Uthoff defeat Ryan's prohibition by contacting Iowa? Enrolling at Iowa? Walking on at Iowa?
So now that Uthoff has challenged Ryan, what will be his response? Can the Big Ten do anything? If it can, will it?
"[T]he tarnished Tar Heels that bear little resemblance to the revered program built by Dean Smith."- Ashville Times
"UNC and the NCAA are trying to conceal that the fraud was specifically designed to pad the transcripts of varsity athletes" - Bloomberg
I agree, once the decision is made to transfer then the school losing the player has no say in where he goes. Can a school or conference stop a coach from moving to any school he wants? I mean if Haith had wanted to take a job at Florida, could Miami have said, no??? This is just another example of how the kids get the shaft by the NCAA. I say let them go wherever they want, sit out the year and be done with it. If they are recruits and have signed a LOI, then if a school wants to hold them to the LOI, I'd say OK, but then I'd give the kid the option of spending the year he sits out with the team he chooses to move to, it would be like a red shirt season, but with the new school. If the school with the LOI in hand releases him, then he is free to go wherever and play right away like anyother freshman could.
It is important to note that some transfer restrictions are probably necessary. If not, then a coach could leave a school and take all his players with him. For example, when Cal left Memphis for Kentucky, imagine if he could have taken all his best recruits and players with him with no penalty and no recourse for Memphis. It would have utterly decimated the Memphis program.
If that kind of thing was allowed, it would turn coaches into commodities with too much power. At any given moment, a coach could get a higher offer from another school and take his entire roster with him to the new school. It would be a problem.
--Jason "transfer rules must be changed to be more balanced, but giving all the power to the players is not the right solution either" Evans
Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk
Perhaps a better rule would be to allow players to transfer to different schools based on the circumstances surrounding a coach's departure. If a coach leaves for another school voluntarily, then recruits could transfer, but would have to sit a year if they followed the coach or went to any school scheduled to play the original school the next season. If the school makes the coaching change, then players could transfer freely without restrictions. Finally, the current rules would apply without a coaching change. Obviously, there should be some exceptions, such as a coach that gets fired "for cause" not getting to take his players with him, but in general I think this would help address the fiction that a kid commits to a school and not the coach better than the current system.