An Iowa Hawkeye fan's take on the Uthoff situation.
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.
When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
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.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.
Not all who wander are lost
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.
...and this one belongs to the Reds.