Cam Johnson transfer blocked to UNC
- Thread starter Vtines21
- Start date
I realize NCAA/regulatory/schools-acting-in-schools-interest criticism is almost mandatory on every subject these days, but a person really can believe that a school should be okay to block a transfer to a conference opponent, especially when it just means the player would sit out one year. It's not like this was a major secret when he or anyone else committed. You may dislike the rule, but it's not exactly a heinous crime against justice. I do think a person can be opposed to this kind of ban.
Last edited:
The same.I don't think it's terrible for a school to want a player to not go to the same conference and kill them.He's has great schools to choose from in UK,Zona,Ucla and it's not like he's suffering.
It's funny Bilas has a hissy fit about this but decades of cheating,another school hiring hookers for players and obvious biased refs he could care less about.
An in-conference transfer is not going to bring any knowledge that a coach doesn't already know. Go speak with any coach about another coach from the same conference and they'll be able to tell you exactly what that coach's strategy is and his tendencies. The only additional knowledge that would be helpful is the gameplan before a specific game, which the transfer student won't have anyway.
From an ethics standpoint, there is no way to defend the year in-residence requirement. Schools have the freedom to revoke a scholarship after each season without restriction, yet if the student wants to end the arrangement then the school is able to put all kinds of restrictions in place. And they only do this for football, basketball, baseball and hockey players. All other student athletes can get waivers.
If schools are that worried about transfers, then perhaps they should do a better job of recruiting and retaining players instead of trying to hide behind an asinine rule. A rule that is, and always has been, completely absurd.
ask marvin stone what he knew when everyone threw a fit when he was allowed to transfer to Louisville and we played them that year. he knew all the hand signals for plays, what the key words were for all the plays. he himself stated that with that info it helped beat Kentucky. as he passed it along to the whole team. so that shoots your so called absurb rule in the ole buttocks. I say keep em out of same conferences and anyone on your own schedule.....a good and fair rule period.
If Stone did in fact say that, then I question his ability to analyze a game. We came out hot that game and then got crushed in the second half. If it was inside knowledge that won the game, then Louisville should have controlled it from the start.
I'd also be curious to know how the knowledge of hand signals led us to go cold on shooting, particularly from three. That and poor second half rebounding are why we lost that game, not because of some nonsense about knowing hand signals.
But for arguments sakes, let's say your poor example of knowing hand signals were true. How does forcing a kid to sit out of games for a year prevent him from telling his new team about these hand signals? The player still attends the rival school and can share that information. Forcing them to sit out doesn't prevent that.
You act like this happens in a vacuum. It doesn't. Other players were not recruited because the transferring player was in place. Endless amounts of coaching and academic support have been provided to the player. The school shouldn't be harmed because a player wants to transfer. Don't forget, the player isn't being harmed, they have myriad choices outside their conference. This isn't a bad rule. If you're going to take your stance, then why force a kid to ever sit out a year? Just give them an open check book, let them do whatever they want, as you said, it doesn't harm anyone. As for scholarships being single season, that is true. It's also true that schools very rarely revoke scholarships. Your argument is moot.
Adam Smith transferred from VT to GT without sitting out and averaged more points than Johnson.
Just because the powers to be stack the deck doesn't make it right. The schools sign contracts with professionals (Coaches, Athletic Directeors, etc.) all the time that are not honored and do not make them sit out a year but a "Student Athlete" is held to higher standard. Whether it is a secret or not, when a cartel holds all the cards it is never good.
This is more about my disdain for Bilas than anything. I used to say he was best color guy, smartest. Now I turn down the TV, no one has ever done that. He is the smartest guy in the room, don't agree then he gets mad. He is the most annoying guy out there. I truly almost hate him. He was one of my favorites. The past 2 years have been awful to listen to. You don't agree then you are stupid and he gets mad See Seth or even Jay Wil. The Giles discussion was total nonsense from him. Only one to say play. Totally against his effort to be for Student etc.. Everyone knew it was mistake for Giles to play. If he had sit out he would be top 2-5 pick for sure. He may be second rounder now.
If anything, this is a protection for the little guys in a conference to keep from getting poached by the big boys.
In the real world, people are held to non-compete agreements all the time. They may have to change careers, or re-locate to remain in the same field.
I have no problem with a conference saying that a player can't switch schools within conference and play immediately. If nothing else, it prevents a lot of bad blood.
In the real world, people are held to non-compete agreements all the time. They may have to change careers, or re-locate to remain in the same field.
I have no problem with a conference saying that a player can't switch schools within conference and play immediately. If nothing else, it prevents a lot of bad blood.
Bilas is over compensating and it makes me want to punch him in the face.
In the real world those non-compete clause are bargained for and an exchange of consideration takes place in the form of currency.
"Student-athletes" are treated differently than other students in this regard. I'm not necessarily against a ban among Conference members. That is likely an ACC rule anyways, not the NCAA. But the sit out a year rule really should be done away with. Especially since there is a short window of eligibility.
I think the sit out a year rule can be relaxed when coaches leave or there is a hardship of some kind. Maybe this should be a cleaner, more transparent process.
And although currency doesn't change hands, there are certainly contracts involved and an exchange of value in regards to a scholarship athlete.
Eligibility may have a short window, but athletes still have 5 years to play 4. They can still be on a paid scholarship while they sit out.
And although we focus on high profile athletes around here with million dollar futures, the vast majority will go pro in something else, as the commercial reminds us.
We could literally write volumes on this subject and I don't really feel like doing that. I'm not particularly a fan of the NCAA, but I'm not sure allowing anyone to transfer willy nilly doesn't create more problems than it solves.
My example of the non-competes was just an illustration that actions have consequences. I don't believe it to be inherently discriminatory to require a scholarship athlete to sit out a year of competition upon transfer. Especially considering they can still get a paid education, food, housing, coaching, etc. while sitting out.
There should be exceptions for when circumstances change. But I don't think simply changing your mind should be enough. That may be a hard lesson to learn, but it's a pretty good time to learn it.
I understand that POV. Imo it still wouldn't be a good idea. Let's say Patterson stayed at Kentucky through his junior year, graduated, and wanted to transfer to Florida for grad school and play. I know that's not gonna happen, but yikes.
(I didn't read a good portion of this thread.) The question should be does Cam want to attend unc? If so, good ridence...
You need to think on that a bit more. You'd end up with "free agents" and as Aike said, a lot of poaching. We'd have the blue bloods acting like the New York Yankees. That would be terrible for everyone.
![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
Those are the rules. They were the rules when he signed up to play at Pitt. That is just the way it is.....so come on to UK Cam 
I dont see it as a transfer.
He has graduated, he's done. What if he just left school like every other grad and enrolled somewhere..?
Why does Pitt still own his basketball rights? Because he graduated in 3 years?
I would think he should be able to attend whatever grad school he wants to after receiving his diploma.
Medical redshirt his Freshman year.
But we aren't talking about academics, we're still talking about sports. He still has eligibility and intends to play, that is a separate issue from academics.
I understand, I'm just not seeing the reasoning for athletics to continue a hold on his eligibility once his academic requirements have been met and is released from undergraduate studies.
Definitely appears to be a noncompete situation, and if so, another blatant mockery of the NCAA and it's fraudulent commitment to academics.
If it's an academics issue then he can go where ever he wants and sit for a year. Grad school
The thought would be that too much has changed and the info isn't as relevant. Interesting that you're dismissing what an actual player in the game said since you just watched on tv.
Pretty sure that since it's an athletic scholarship, they have to abide by the NCAA decision. He could pay his way and play right away I believe.
It would not be terrible for everyone. The players would actually benefit a great deal. Besides the blue bloods are acting like the Yankees every year anyways. Look at the commitments lists for 5* players over the past 7 years. Kentucky, Duke, UCLA, Arizona, and Kansas are taking the bulk of those players each year.
I have no problem if the NCAA wants to have non-competes, but if they want to control players like employees, then they need to treat the them like employees.
Players with qualifying grades should be allowed to transfer at will.
Fans want protection for their school should a key player decide to transfer, but where is the protection for a guy like Sascha? He's been recruited over before his sophomore year. If you're not going to guarantee the player playing time, shots, etc (which I don't think should be done) then at least allow them the same movement that coaches enjoy.
The whole system is designed to make people money off the backs of virtually unpaid labor.
Fans want protection for their school should a key player decide to transfer, but where is the protection for a guy like Sascha? He's been recruited over before his sophomore year. If you're not going to guarantee the player playing time, shots, etc (which I don't think should be done) then at least allow them the same movement that coaches enjoy.
The whole system is designed to make people money off the backs of virtually unpaid labor.
