Go join the protest with Jay Bilas.If that's what you got out of that then so be it. Im just stating facts. It's not right for Pitt to do that or any school.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Go join the protest with Jay Bilas.If that's what you got out of that then so be it. Im just stating facts. It's not right for Pitt to do that or any school.
Exactly what I got out of it.It sounds like that website wants the narrative to be that Johnson chose UNC and then was blocked, when actually the ACC has been blocked and UNC happens to be one of Johnson's schools-on-the-radar.
Go join the protest with Jay Bilas.
If UK wasn't in question, what would be your position?
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.If UK wasn't in question, what would be your position?
I agree. I don't understand why it's so hard to see the problem. The player knows too much and it's current. It puts the school the player left at a disadvantage. That isn't right. I he really wants to go to UNC, no problem, simply sit out a year.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
In the real world those non-compete clause are bargained for and an exchange of consideration takes place in the form of currency.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 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 agree with the rule for undergrads.
But once a kid has graduated the school should have zero say in where he chooses to take graduate studies.
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.
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.
If
I feel like you and I agree 50% of the time, everytime. You did better.
Well, it's pretty obvious why... a grad transfer can't go to a program with no classes. Duh!
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.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 don't understand the real difference.I agree with the rule for undergrads.
But once a kid has graduated the school should have zero say in where he chooses to take graduate studies.
He's graduating so he's not a typical transfer
I don't understand the real difference.
He graduated in 2 years? Dang is he a genius or going into cosmetology?
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 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.
If it's an academics issue then he can go where ever he wants and sit for a year. Grad schoolI 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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.