PDA

View Full Version : Institutional control



Orenda
04-19-2012, 03:56 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/wisconsin-badgers-bo-ryan-defends-decision-blocking-jarrod-uthoff-transfer-041912

Expected to contribute...is that the problem? Color me skeptical that Bo Ryan would stand by these same principals for the guy who gets no playing time.

Sea Ray
04-19-2012, 04:21 PM
Bo Ryan's taking a lot of heat here but I don't see why. He's been granted the power to limit a kid from transfering and he's using it. Change the rule if you want

Orenda
04-19-2012, 04:49 PM
what rule? is that a higher learnededed thing?

dabvu2498
04-19-2012, 05:00 PM
Funny that Ryan used the term "particular institution." I had a professor in college that used that term to describe slavery.

I understand Ryan blocking him from going to another Big 10 school but the rest just seems vindictive. And it will hurt him in recruiting down the road.

IslandRed
04-19-2012, 05:06 PM
I file this one under "just because you can doesn't mean you should." It's bad enough that athletes have to sit out a year if they transfer, although I understand why that rule exists. But truthfully, if a player wants to transfer and is willing to observe the NCAA requirements with respect to sitting out, I don't think it's any of his current coach's business to say where he can or can't go.

Orenda
04-19-2012, 05:19 PM
I file this one under "just because you can doesn't mean you should." It's bad enough that athletes have to sit out a year if they transfer, although I understand why that rule exists. But truthfully, if a player wants to transfer and is willing to observe the NCAA requirements with respect to sitting out, I don't think it's any of his current coach's business to say where he can or can't go.

agreed. Although, it's kind of fitting for a program know for it's desire to "control possessions"

WVRed
04-19-2012, 08:04 PM
Funny that Ryan used the term "particular institution." I had a professor in college that used that term to describe slavery.

I understand Ryan blocking him from going to another Big 10 school but the rest just seems vindictive. And it will hurt him in recruiting down the road.

This is nothing new.

Miami did the same thing with Robert Marve a few years back. They banned him from transferring to any school in Florida (where he was from), and any school in the ACC and SEC.

Marquette is obvious because the two schools play each other during the season. Not so sure about Iowa State though. I'd guess and say he will likely end up at Creighton, since I've read he wants to move back to Iowa and that's the only school that he can get into (unless the NCAA appeal works).

improbus
04-19-2012, 08:39 PM
Yuck all around. Perhaps he's trying to deflect the attention away from his seeming misuse of Greg Stiemsma. He never averaged more than 15 minutes a game at Wisconsin (a team always "teeming" with NBA prospects) and is now one of the top energy guys in the NBA...

Sea Ray
04-19-2012, 09:27 PM
But truthfully, if a player wants to transfer and is willing to observe the NCAA requirements with respect to sitting out, I don't think it's any of his current coach's business to say where he can or can't go.

I can't say as I disagree with you but that's not how the rule is written. If I read next month that the NCAA changed the rule and after one yr the kid is allowed to go anywhere I'd say fine. I don't love the rule but I don't blame the coach either

IslandRed
04-19-2012, 10:10 PM
I don't love the rule but I don't blame the coach either

Just because the system allows a guy to do wrong doesn't mean we can't hammer him for not doing right. :cool:

I will say that if a coach has good reason to believe another school has been tampering with his player and encouraging them to transfer -- even if there's no smoking gun that can be turned over to the NCAA -- I can grant ethical grounds for blocking a transfer to that school. But a shotgun prohibition like this just looks petty. And no, it's nothing new. But information flows more freely these days, and a lot of things that happen in college athletics don't look so good when the lights are turned up.

ervinsm84
04-19-2012, 10:40 PM
Just because the system allows a guy to do wrong doesn't mean we can't hammer him for not doing right. :cool:

I will say that if a coach has good reason to believe another school has been tampering with his player and encouraging them to transfer -- even if there's no smoking gun that can be turned over to the NCAA -- I can grant ethical grounds for blocking a transfer to that school. But a shotgun prohibition like this just looks petty. And no, it's nothing new. But information flows more freely these days, and a lot of things that happen in college athletics don't look so good when the lights are turned up.

Winner

Couldn't agree more.

Assembly Hall
04-20-2012, 07:56 AM
Didnt this just happen with Martelli at St. Joe's involving a kid wanting to tranfer to the SEC? I imagine there is more here than meets the eye. But if there aint then shame on Wisconsin and Bo.

Sea Ray
04-20-2012, 08:57 AM
Just because the system allows a guy to do wrong doesn't mean we can't hammer him for not doing right. :cool:

I will say that if a coach has good reason to believe another school has been tampering with his player and encouraging them to transfer -- even if there's no smoking gun that can be turned over to the NCAA -- I can grant ethical grounds for blocking a transfer to that school. But a shotgun prohibition like this just looks petty. And no, it's nothing new. But information flows more freely these days, and a lot of things that happen in college athletics don't look so good when the lights are turned up.

The Wisc coach is paid to look after his own program. He doesn't want to improve an opponent's chances of beating his Badgers. If this player were to go to another team and assist that team in hanging a loss on Wisconsin, then I'd say the Wicsonsin coach screwed up

Sea Ray
04-20-2012, 08:58 AM
Winner

Couldn't agree more.

You can hammer him all you want. It's a free country. That's not the issue

Blimpie
04-20-2012, 09:14 AM
Bo Ryan's taking a lot of heat here but I don't see why. He's been granted the power to limit a kid from transfering and he's using it. Change the rule if you wantDitto.

Every single school has done this at one time or another in either football or basketball. Check the record for your favorite school before you go casting stones. The NCAA is the one who is allowing schools and Conferences to do this for the revenue-generating sports (yet there are no such restrictions for sports like baseball, track, etc...)

Folks, right now, it is pretty much the sports media doldrums until the NBA Playoffs get cooking. The media is looking for a story to fill time. The only reason that this has filled the void is because of how poorly Ryan, and the Wisconsin S.I.D. have handled the media over the last 7 days.

Sea Ray
04-20-2012, 09:40 AM
Ditto.

Every single school has done this at one time or another in either football or basketball. Check the record for your favorite school before you go casting stones. The NCAA is the one who is allowing schools and Conferences to do this for the revenue-generating sports (yet there are no such restrictions for sports like baseball, track, etc...)

Folks, right now, it is pretty much the sports media doldrums until the NBA Playoffs get cooking. The media is looking for a story to fill time. The only reason that this has filled the void is because of how poorly Ryan, and the Wisconsin S.I.D. have handled the media over the last 7 days.

I didn't realize this rule didn't apply to all sports. Nice contribution...:thumbup:

ESPN loves to cheer for the underdog thus their slanted coverage of this issue. I can recall the ESPN legal experts saying yrs ago that it was illegal for the NFL to restrict who's eligible to play in their league. All we needed was a player to challenge it. Well that happened and we now know what that legal advice was worth. At this time last yr we were debating the lockout and whether it was legal. After Judge Roberts declared it illegal for 24 hrs, legal experts like Lester Munson opined that it would not be overturned on appeal and the three judge panel did exactly that.

Has anyone heard a talking head on ESPN support coach Ryan and Wisconsin on this?

Assembly Hall
04-20-2012, 01:23 PM
I have not heard one talking head at the world wide sports leader support Wisconsin or Ryan.

As I said earlier, there is more to this than what the media is saying, Wisconsin is saying, and even the player is saying.

As an IU fan that grew up following the Hoosiers and Knight, players seemed to always transfer out of the program and Knight didnt seem to care one bit and let them go. However, there was one instance involving Lawerence Funderburke that made me scratch my head when it happened. It was the 89-90 season. Funderburke was a freshmen and was starting and being quite productive, right before semester break he quit the team and wanted to transfer. Indiana would not let him go to Missouri. I didnt understand it at all, why block him from going to the Tigers? Rumor had it that Funderburke was good buddies with Travis Ford, who was a freshmen at Mizzou. Speculation was that Norm Stewart, coach at the time, had Ford whispering in Funderburke's ear and that Bobby caught wind of it......thus IU wouldnt let him go to Mizzou. Funderburke ended up at Ohio State and Ford transferred to UK and that even brought on more rumors!!!!!!!! Another story.

My point is that some of these issues we will never know. In this case as one poster said understanding about Marquette but not Iowa St. On the surface it makes no sense, but IU to Missouri made no sense to me at the time either.

I think it is a dumb rule.....but I would imagine the people at Wisconsin have their reasons for doing such. And that is their rite.

ervinsm84
04-20-2012, 04:37 PM
I have not heard one talking head at the world wide sports leader support Wisconsin or Ryan.

As I said earlier, there is more to this than what the media is saying, Wisconsin is saying, and even the player is saying.

As an IU fan that grew up following the Hoosiers and Knight, players seemed to always transfer out of the program and Knight didnt seem to care one bit and let them go. However, there was one instance involving Lawerence Funderburke that made me scratch my head when it happened. It was the 89-90 season. Funderburke was a freshmen and was starting and being quite productive, right before semester break he quit the team and wanted to transfer. Indiana would not let him go to Missouri. I didnt understand it at all, why block him from going to the Tigers? Rumor had it that Funderburke was good buddies with Travis Ford, who was a freshmen at Mizzou. Speculation was that Norm Stewart, coach at the time, had Ford whispering in Funderburke's ear and that Bobby caught wind of it......thus IU wouldnt let him go to Mizzou. Funderburke ended up at Ohio State and Ford transferred to UK and that even brought on more rumors!!!!!!!! Another story.

My point is that some of these issues we will never know. In this case as one poster said understanding about Marquette but not Iowa St. On the surface it makes no sense, but IU to Missouri made no sense to me at the time either.

I think it is a dumb rule.....but I would imagine the people at Wisconsin have their reasons for doing such. And that is their rite.

You make some good points, but its not like he blocked 1 or 2 non conf school and the Big10, which would be pretty reasonable. He blocked an entire other conference on the off chance that they "may" play each other in the ACC/Big 10 challenge. With that logic of "may play", he may as well block every single BCS school bc they "may play" in the ncaa tournament.

Assembly Hall
04-21-2012, 06:53 AM
You make some good points, but its not like he blocked 1 or 2 non conf school and the Big10, which would be pretty reasonable. He blocked an entire other conference on the off chance that they "may" play each other in the ACC/Big 10 challenge. With that logic of "may play", he may as well block every single BCS school bc they "may play" in the ncaa tournament.

Are you still referring to the kid from Wiscy? If so, I must be misinformed.....I thought the kid turned in a list of 16 schools and Wisconsin vetoed 4 of them?

ervinsm84
04-21-2012, 10:34 PM
Are you still referring to the kid from Wiscy? If so, I must be misinformed.....I thought the kid turned in a list of 16 schools and Wisconsin vetoed 4 of them?
I hadnt heard the vetoed 4 story, but after reading more apparently thats Wisconsin's story. Kids camp and initial reports still contradict it, so I guess it pends on who you believe (the kids side or Wiscy's side, and after listening to Ryan's interview its pretty easy for me to buy Uthoff's story).

Besides, Ryan virtually point blank acknowledged that all the ACC schools were blocked.
excerpted from the article linked below. The "he" is Ryan.


He previously said the reason all ACC teams were banned is because the Badgers could play any of them in the ACC-Big Ten Challenge. He said Florida was added because the Badgers just signed a home-and-home series with the Gators to start in Madison in the fall. Marquette is always added because the Badgers play the Golden Eagles every season.

Fortunately, they've rescinded the restrictions to only Big10 schools which is plenty reasonable. If they want to throw in fla bc they have a home/home or marq or other local rivals I'd get that too, but blocking an entire other conference is absurd.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7833426/jarrod-uthoff-wisconsin-badgers-lift-transfer-restrictions-big-ten

Assembly Hall
04-22-2012, 08:24 AM
After reading that stuff I am really scratching my head. I dont understand it either. I was not aware of the ACC thing. Personally I dont think anyone should be allowed to tranfer to another conference school. It just eleviates any questions of "tampering".

I guess cooler heads prevailed in this as the media swarmed Wiscy.

Sea Ray
04-22-2012, 03:06 PM
Obviously ESPN has some pull with the Big Ten

dabvu2498
04-22-2012, 03:52 PM
Obviously ESPN has some pull with the Big Ten

ESPN has even more pull with Wisconsin's future recruits.

Assembly Hall
04-22-2012, 03:57 PM
ESPN has a lot of control over everything.

bucksfan2
04-23-2012, 09:10 AM
I am a little late to the party but I really don't understand the huge uproar created by this story. To me its kinda a "welcome to the real world" type event. There are a lot of ESPN people claiming "its not fair" which is a shocker to me. When do we realize that life isn't fair. Its not different than someone signing a no complete clause with a job. If you sign the clause you have to abide by it. It may not be fair, but you accepted those terms when you accepted the job.

If I am Bo Ryan I am not letting this kid go to a rival or a B1G school. If I play them in two years I don't want to run up against him. There may be something going on behind the scenes that irritated Ryan or it may be as basic as not wanting to play against him in the future.

IslandRed
04-23-2012, 10:14 AM
I am a little late to the party but I really don't understand the huge uproar created by this story. To me its kinda a "welcome to the real world" type event. There are a lot of ESPN people claiming "its not fair" which is a shocker to me. When do we realize that life isn't fair. Its not different than someone signing a no complete clause with a job. If you sign the clause you have to abide by it. It may not be fair, but you accepted those terms when you accepted the job.

There have been plenty of non-compete clauses thrown out by courts over the years because they were overly restrictive. A student-athlete already has to burn one of his five-to-play-four in order to transfer, which is a big enough penalty in my book without piling on by restricting where he can be after he sits out the year. In most of these instances, when weighing the impact on the student-athlete versus the minimal likelihood any real harm would be caused to the control freak making seven figures, I think it's the coach who needs to hear the "you don't run the world" speech now and then. Not picking on Ryan, I'm talking about pretty much all of them.

As for the uproar -- honestly, I think a lot of people out there weren't aware college coaches were able to do this. It's been this way for a long time, so I'm not sure why it suddenly became news, but then, a lot of college sports' dirty little secrets seem to be getting out lately.

Assembly Hall
04-24-2012, 07:11 AM
There have been plenty of non-compete clauses thrown out by courts over the years because they were overly restrictive. A student-athlete already has to burn one of his five-to-play-four in order to transfer, which is a big enough penalty in my book without piling on by restricting where he can be after he sits out the year. In most of these instances, when weighing the impact on the student-athlete versus the minimal likelihood any real harm would be caused to the control freak making seven figures, I think it's the coach who needs to hear the "you don't run the world" speech now and then. Not picking on Ryan, I'm talking about pretty much all of them.

As for the uproar -- honestly, I think a lot of people out there weren't aware college coaches were able to do this. It's been this way for a long time, so I'm not sure why it suddenly became news, but then, a lot of college sports' dirty little secrets seem to be getting out lately.

Amen bro!:thumbup:

bucksfan2
04-24-2012, 08:29 AM
There have been plenty of non-compete clauses thrown out by courts over the years because they were overly restrictive. A student-athlete already has to burn one of his five-to-play-four in order to transfer, which is a big enough penalty in my book without piling on by restricting where he can be after he sits out the year. In most of these instances, when weighing the impact on the student-athlete versus the minimal likelihood any real harm would be caused to the control freak making seven figures, I think it's the coach who needs to hear the "you don't run the world" speech now and then. Not picking on Ryan, I'm talking about pretty much all of them.

As for the uproar -- honestly, I think a lot of people out there weren't aware college coaches were able to do this. It's been this way for a long time, so I'm not sure why it suddenly became news, but then, a lot of college sports' dirty little secrets seem to be getting out lately.

There are 331 division 1 college basketball programs out there. I hardly find it awful that a coach is not allowing this kid to transfer to 7-10% of those programs. When I first heard the story I thought Ryan wasn't releasing him from his scholarship, rather just restricting the places he can play.

I just don't have an issue with Ryan basically saying I coached you for two seasons and Wisconsin gave you a free education for two years, you aren't allowed to go to these 25 schools because of a potential conflict of interest. If the kid wants to cry foul and ESPN wants to jump all over Ryan so be it, I just don't have an issue with it.

IslandRed
04-24-2012, 12:32 PM
That's fine. I don't have anything against Ryan specifically, I just think this issue is one of those customs in college sports that wilts when held up for close ethical inspection.

Having said that, context is everything. Part of the reason I feel that way on this issue is because of the one-year-renewal scholarship. I don't think it's fair for a college to restrict where a player can play beyond the amount of time the school itself has made a commitment to the player. If we're talking about this a year or two from now and it's a kid who has one of the four-year-commitment scholarships, I'm probably going to have a different opinion about who needs to justify what.

bucksfan2
04-24-2012, 01:33 PM
That's fine. I don't have anything against Ryan specifically, I just think this issue is one of those customs in college sports that wilts when held up for close ethical inspection.

Having said that, context is everything. Part of the reason I feel that way on this issue is because of the one-year-renewal scholarship. I don't think it's fair for a college to restrict where a player can play beyond the amount of time the school itself has made a commitment to the player. If we're talking about this a year or two from now and it's a kid who has one of the four-year-commitment scholarships, I'm probably going to have a different opinion about who needs to justify what.

Is the "one-year-renewal scholarship" really a good argument. To my knowledge I can't really think of anyone who had his scholarship revoked for a performance issue. Some coaches may operate that way but IMO it is few and far between. I think it would be a more legit agrument if Ryan had specifically not renewed a scholarship to a particular player during his tenure as a head coach.

Chip R
04-24-2012, 09:46 PM
Having said that, context is everything. Part of the reason I feel that way on this issue is because of the one-year-renewal scholarship. I don't think it's fair for a college to restrict where a player can play beyond the amount of time the school itself has made a commitment to the player. If we're talking about this a year or two from now and it's a kid who has one of the four-year-commitment scholarships, I'm probably going to have a different opinion about who needs to justify what.

That's a good point. On a bit of a tangent, now that more and more schools are offering 4 year scholarships, if a kid wants to transfer or go pro early, if he is on a 4 year scholarship, is he in breach of contract? Could the school demand compensation from him?

Chip R
04-26-2012, 10:04 AM
An Iowa Hawkeye fan's take on the Uthoff situation.

http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2012/4/24/2971472/jarrod-uthoffs-exodus-pt-1

Hoosier Red
04-26-2012, 10:51 AM
Is the "one-year-renewal scholarship" really a good argument. To my knowledge I can't really think of anyone who had his scholarship revoked for a performance issue. Some coaches may operate that way but IMO it is few and far between. I think it would be a more legit agrument if Ryan had specifically not renewed a scholarship to a particular player during his tenure as a head coach.

The one year scholarship was actually created as a way to protect the student athletes. Back in the bad old days, when a player had a four year scholarship "guaranteed" football factories like Nebraska and Oklahoma were apparently notorious for having the bottom 20 guys on the roster essentially kill each other in practice in an effort to make them want to transfer.

While it is a one year contract, the coaches do their best to guide a player into a transfer because out and out pulling a scholarship would lead to some serious negative recruiting. The fact that it's a one year contract comes in more when it's used to reward a former walk on in a one year lull in number of scholarship players.

In all honesty, I have no problem with this. However, if you're not going to find room for a player in your program, there should be no restriction on where he goes. There's already a huge disincentive in having to wait for a full year.

Were I the czar of sports, I'd tell coaches you have one or the other. Either you can make them wait a year but then they can go to whatever school will have them, or you can restrict the number of schools they can transfer to, but they can play right away.

IslandRed
04-26-2012, 11:26 AM
The one year scholarship was actually created as a way to protect the student athletes.

Yep. Like everything else the NCAA does, though, the law of unintended consequences comes into play.


Were I the czar of sports, I'd tell coaches you have one or the other. Either you can make them wait a year but then they can go to whatever school will have them, or you can restrict the number of schools they can transfer to, but they can play right away.

There would no doubt be unintended consequences from this too, but in terms of basic reasonableness, it's a good plan. It's the "and" -- as in, the player has to sit a year AND his former school can restrict where he goes -- that bothers me.

Assembly Hall
04-27-2012, 07:53 AM
Good stuff fellas! I dont know what the answer is, but something needs to be done. I read an article the other day that a lot of coaches restrict a player from going to certain schools because of their grades. The way I understand it, by NCAA rules, whether Uthoff graduates at his next school will reflect on Wisconsin's APR. I am just using the Uthoff case as an example. Just something else that plays into the whole sordid mess we call the NCAA.