Institutional control

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Blimpie

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?

[Assembly Hall]

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]

Originally Posted by Assembly Hall

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]

Originally Posted by ervinsm84

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]

Originally Posted by Assembly Hall

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

[Assembly Hall]

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]

Obviously ESPN has some pull with the Big Ten

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Obviously ESPN has some pull with the Big Ten

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

[Assembly Hall]

ESPN has a lot of control over everything.

[bucksfan2]

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]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

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!

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

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]

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]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

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.