MUScoop

This has been something I have been going back and forth on and was wondering what everyone's opinion was on this.

Personally, I think they should probably be allowed. However, I think there could be legitimate worries of tampering and teams "secrets" being traded from transfers. However, I think both of those are a little bit overstated. Unless there is a new coach in the conference, coaches have all the info they need on tape. Scouting is so advanced that there aren't too many surprises out there. I could understand the increased tampering. I just don't like seeing a kid not being able to go to a school that might be a good fit, just because it is in the conference.

If Uthoff loves playing in the Big Ten, but a different school fits him better than UW, I think he should be allowed to transfer there. I think Newbill wanted to go to another Big East school after not coming to MU (West Virginia maybe?).

Thoughts?

Quote from: cheebs09 on April 18, 2012, 02:11:54 PM
This has been something I have been going back and forth on and was wondering what everyone's opinion was on this.

Personally, I think they should probably be allowed. However, I think there could be legitimate worries of tampering and teams "secrets" being traded from transfers. However, I think both of those are a little bit overstated. Unless there is a new coach in the conference, coaches have all the info they need on tape. Scouting is so advanced that there aren't too many surprises out there. I could understand the increased tampering. I just don't like seeing a kid not being able to go to a school that might be a good fit, just because it is in the conference.

If Uthoff loves playing in the Big Ten, but a different school fits him better than UW, I think he should be allowed to transfer there. I think Newbill wanted to go to another Big East school after not coming to MU (West Virginia maybe?).

Thoughts?

It'd make for a mighty unhappy conference to have members poaching current players from other members.

No need to open the can of worms.  Less worried about stealing secrets than underhanded coaches stealing players who are playing for a conference rival.  There are at least 328 more options for each player.  Take a few natural rivals off the list and there's 325.  Unless you're leaving Bo, then he might let you choose between two or three schools.

Maybe a law talking guy can explain how a school can even do this .. prevent a kid from going to any school he wants.

Obviously, I understand there could be an inner-conference rule, no school may offer a kid who is transferring from another member school, so the schools must comply ..    But how is it "legal" to restrict a kid trying to go anywhere he damn well pleases?

Anyone explain that?

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on April 18, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Maybe a law talking guy can explain how a school can even do this .. prevent a kid from going to any school he wants.

Obviously, I understand there could be an inner-conference rule, no school may offer a kid who is transferring from another member school, so the schools must comply ..    But how is it "legal" to restrict a kid trying to go anywhere he damn well pleases?

Anyone explain that?

It's probably standard operating procedure for any broken contract (in this case, the scholarship).  Wisconsin will let Uthoff out of his end of the contract, but only if he adheres to these rules (by not playing at certain schools).  His alternative is to play out the terms of the deal he originally signed.

Now as to how that works in terms of the scholarships being one year renewable deals, I have no idea.  Maybe they're automatically renewed unless certain terms are broken?

Quote from: Bocephys on April 18, 2012, 02:52:14 PM
It's probably standard operating procedure for any broken contract (in this case, the scholarship).  Wisconsin will let Uthoff out of his end of the contract, but only if he adheres to these rules (by not playing at certain schools).  His alternative is to play out the terms of the deal he originally signed.

Now as to how that works in terms of the scholarships being one year renewable deals, I have no idea.  Maybe they're automatically renewed unless certain terms are broken?

This confuses me, too: if the scholarship is a one-year contract, and that contract is up at the end of the academic year, why isn't the student free to leave the school and accept another one-year contract from a different institution? If the school can decide unilaterally to renew the contract, even if the player wants out, and can put restrictions on the player's ability to accept another scholarship offer ... that's not really a contract anymore. At least not a bilateral one.

And I think Uthoff has more options than playing out the terms of the deal he originally signed. He can transfer to any school he wants and pay his own way, or he could go JUCO for a year and then go wherever he wants. Right?

Uthoff can go anywhere and pay his own way and walk on. He does have to sit a year though. He can get a scholie after one year except there might be a conference rule that prevents this with B10.

All you jokers who voted no, please justify such a ridiculous position.

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 18, 2012, 05:29:50 PM
All you jokers who voted no, please justify such a ridiculous position.

Something just feels wrong about it.  I don't really care to make any justification beyond that.

Quote from: Bocephys on April 18, 2012, 05:50:41 PM
Something just feels wrong about it.  I don't really care to make any justification beyond that.

Which feels more wrong, letting a kid play ball at a competing school, or a bunch of coaches, ADs and College Presidents pulling down millions of dollars, free to come and go as they please (without having to sit out a year), determining where said ball player can and cannot attend college? I don't know how it can even be a question.

My recollection is that the original NLI binds the student athlete to a particular school for the full 4 year run (or some such similar language), not the other way around.  Assuming that contractual provision exists, then a release by the university of the student athlete's obligation can have any number of stipulations.  The alternative for the student athlete is to continue to perform under the contract or presumably walk-on somewhere else.  That's not to say that a nonsensical stipulation could stand up to court challenge.  Be an interesting case to follow.

I voted no, but I have two different answers. A player who decides to transfer should not be allowed to go to another conference team. A player that is transferring because the school wants him to leave should be allowed to transfer to any team that will take him. The rule I would like to see most is prohibiting a player who is released becasue the coach left from signing with the departing coach's new team.

Quote from: bilsu on April 19, 2012, 01:12:10 AM
A player who decides to transfer should not be allowed to go to another conference team.

Why?

Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 19, 2012, 06:22:39 AM
Why?

A player is mad at a coach or whatever n goes to a conference rival.  Things like this would only cause nasty outcomes, accusations of tampering, fights , etc.  opens up all kinds of unecessary cans of worms.  It is a good rule

Quote from: jsglow on April 18, 2012, 09:00:34 PM
My recollection is that the original NLI binds the student athlete to a particular school for the full 4 year run (or some such similar language), not the other way around.  Assuming that contractual provision exists, then a release by the university of the student athlete's obligation can have any number of stipulations.  The alternative for the student athlete is to continue to perform under the contract or presumably walk-on somewhere else.  That's not to say that a nonsensical stipulation could stand up to court challenge.  Be an interesting case to follow.

Nope.  It is one year, not 4.

Quote from: MUMac on April 19, 2012, 07:59:08 AM
Nope.  It is one year, not 4.

Then why do they have to be "let out of" a scholarship?  Couldn't they just not re-up? 

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on April 18, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Maybe a law talking guy can explain how a school can even do this .. prevent a kid from going to any school he wants.

Obviously, I understand there could be an inner-conference rule, no school may offer a kid who is transferring from another member school, so the schools must comply ..    But how is it "legal" to restrict a kid trying to go anywhere he damn well pleases?

Anyone explain that?

A contract is a contract. The courts are not going to interfere with it unless they find undue influence, coercision, or some public policy that they might be concerned with. Assuming there is a contract that spells out the restrictions Bo is bringing to the surface, then Uthoff's hands are tied. The only argument could be that Uthoff signed the contract when he was a minor in which case the courts would likely strike it down, but I'm assuming he was 18 when he entered into it. If anything, this will certainly shed light on these clauses, which future recruits, parents, high school coaches should look into.

A coach shouldn't be able to coach within a conference the following year either if that is the case.   Obviously the paperwork is different, but nobody is stopping that from happening. (not sure whether this has ever actually happened or not).

This whole argument just reiterates the hypocrisy of the "student-athlete".  What I don't get with the UW situation is that Alvarez or anyone in the administration could step in at any point and put an end to this.  I can understand why the conference transfer worries people out there, but I think in principle they should be able to go to any school they want.  If there's tampering involved, that should be up to the NCAA to do their job and to actually regulate for once.

Quote from: Bocephys on April 19, 2012, 08:06:35 AM
Then why do they have to be "let out of" a scholarship?  Couldn't they just not re-up? 

The LOI must be written so that the transfer restrictions come into play when a player opts out of continuing under the contract when the school offers an additional year of the scholarship.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on April 18, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Maybe a law talking guy can explain how a school can even do this .. prevent a kid from going to any school he wants.

Obviously, I understand there could be an inner-conference rule, no school may offer a kid who is transferring from another member school, so the schools must comply ..    But how is it "legal" to restrict a kid trying to go anywhere he damn well pleases?

Anyone explain that?

The "A" in NCAA stands for association.  The association was created by a contract that requires that each member school require that "student-athletes" sign the Association's standard LOI without any changes.  As a member of the association, each member school has an obligation to enforce another member's LOI or face sanctions from the NCAA.  So, no school is going to risk contacting any student who hasn't been released from his LOI's transfer restrictions.

Contract law is based on an assumption that the contract in question has been bargained for by the respective parties at arm's length.  Clearly that isn't the case with a LOI which is presented to the prospective student-athlete on a strictly take it or leave it basis.  No matter how many other schools a prospect is recruited by, s/he cannot get any different deal than the standard LOI.  

The Justice Department by alleging that the NCAA is a monopoly that is restricting student-athletes rights to bargain has some leverage to  push the NCAA to offer a multiyear LOI which is the only reason that the NCAA even considered the matter.

Quote from: LittleMurs on April 19, 2012, 11:32:48 AM
The "A" in NCAA stands for association.  The association was created by a contract that requires that each member school require that "student-athletes" sign the Association's standard LOI without any changes.  As a member of the association, each member school has an obligation to enforce another member's LOI or face sanctions from the NCAA.  So, no school is going to risk contacting any student who hasn't been released from his LOI's transfer restrictions.

This makes sense.   Is it known that the LOI covers 4 years, or is just a 1 year thing?