Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Institutional control

  1. #16
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,540

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by Blimpie View Post
    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...

    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?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    We are back! Assembly Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warsaw, IN
    Posts
    742

    Re: Institutional control

    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.
    ...and this one belongs to the Reds.

  4. #18
    Member ervinsm84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West Chester
    Posts
    448

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by Assembly Hall View Post
    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.
    Newsflash!

    Joey Votto does not care about RBI.

    NEITHER SHOULD ANY OF US

  5. #19
    We are back! Assembly Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warsaw, IN
    Posts
    742

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by ervinsm84 View Post
    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?
    ...and this one belongs to the Reds.

  6. #20
    Member ervinsm84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West Chester
    Posts
    448

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by Assembly Hall View Post
    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-bask...ctions-big-ten
    Last edited by ervinsm84; 04-21-2012 at 10:39 PM.
    Newsflash!

    Joey Votto does not care about RBI.

    NEITHER SHOULD ANY OF US

  7. #21
    We are back! Assembly Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warsaw, IN
    Posts
    742

    Re: Institutional control

    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.
    ...and this one belongs to the Reds.

  8. #22
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,540

    Re: Institutional control

    Obviously ESPN has some pull with the Big Ten

  9. #23
    Yay!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Middletown, Ohio
    Posts
    7,420

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray View Post
    Obviously ESPN has some pull with the Big Ten
    ESPN has even more pull with Wisconsin's future recruits.
    When all is said and done more is said than done.

  10. #24
    We are back! Assembly Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warsaw, IN
    Posts
    742

    Re: Institutional control

    ESPN has a lot of control over everything.
    ...and this one belongs to the Reds.

  11. #25
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,132

    Re: Institutional control

    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.

  12. #26
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,838

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by bucksfan2 View Post
    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.
    Not all who wander are lost

  13. #27
    We are back! Assembly Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warsaw, IN
    Posts
    742

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    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!
    ...and this one belongs to the Reds.

  14. #28
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,132

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    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.

  15. #29
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,838

    Re: Institutional control

    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.
    Not all who wander are lost

  16. #30
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,132

    Re: Institutional control

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    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.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25