Institutional control

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

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]

An Iowa Hawkeye fan's take on the Uthoff situation.

http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2...fs-exodus-pt-1

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

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]

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.