Harris and Uthoff Transfer thoughts

[Jim3k]

And his banned list includes the ACC, the Big Ten, Marquette and Iowa State

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...-list-is-large

Coming after the absurdity of what Phil Martelli did, and what Randy Edsall attempted to do, I'm at a loss for words.

To put it mildly, I find this unacceptable.

Looks like Uthoff doesn't care what restrictions Ryan has placed. 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?

[Newton_14]

Looks like Uthoff doesn't care what restrictions Ryan has placed. 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?

I love it. Thanks for sharing Jim. These restrictions are stupid to begin with. Why should Ryan have any say so whatsoever regarding what this young man does with his career and life? I hope that both Wisconsin, the Big Ten, and the NCAA end up discovering they are powerless to stop this. Will be interesting to watch this play out.

[COYS]

Looks like Uthoff doesn't care what restrictions Ryan has placed. 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?

Yes, very interesting. Surely there's no legal basis for preventing the transfer. Uthoff never signed a non-compete contract, I'm sure. I love the way Ryan's teams play and admired him as a coach because of that. But this is impossible for me to rationalize. I didn't post at first because I kept expecting more details to come out that would explain the situation more clearly, but it doesn't seem like anything will come out that makes Ryan look any better.

[oldnavy]

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.

[JasonEvans]

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

[pfrduke]

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

You mean like John Wall and Demarcus Cousins?

[dcdevil2009]

You mean like John Wall and Demarcus Cousins?

It's somewhat interesting to note that neither Wall or Cousins had signed a letter of intent for Memphis. I've got a number of issues with Calipari's approach, but I'm actually a fan of him not requiring his recruits to sign letters of intent and believe it strikes a better balance of power between the schools, kids, and coaches. Even though some would consider it unfair for a coach to go elsewhere and take his recruits with him, a school shouldn't be able to fire a coach and then prevent the incoming freshmen that coach recruited from playing elsewhere. By having his recruits fill out the financial aid paperwork, but not sign a letter of intent, he gives his players the freedom to play elsewhere should circumstances change between their "commitment" and actually enrolling in school. As Duke fans, we of all people should appreciate how important the coach is in a recruit's decision. To allow a school to change coaches and a coach to move to a different job without at least giving some consideration to the recruit is just unfair given the reality of the recruiting process.

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.