[Paint Touches] Free Agent Tracker

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This article describes the prior relationship with a Andy and how it evolved.
http://vanderbilt.247sports.com/Article/Vanderbilt-hosts-Notre-Dame-transfer-Matt-Ryan--52231842

Please show me where it says one of the current coaches at Vandy recruited Matt Ryan previously. The only thing I found was this.

Yanni Hufnagel targeted Ryan while he worked at Harvard and began to target the shooter for the Commodores immediately after being hired as the head recruiting assistant by Kevin Stallings in the spring of 2013, and despite Ryan missing much of his junior season due to double-hip surgery.

Vanderbilt was a steady contender for his services for more than a year until Hufnagel departed from the program for Cal in May of 2014.

Unless I'm missing something, there was no previous relationship with an assistant coach that brought Ryan to Vanderbilt.

[Herman Cain]

Please show me where it says one of the current coaches at Vandy recruited Matt Ryan previously. The only thing I found was this.

Unless I'm missing something, there was no previous relationship with an assistant coach that brought Ryan to Vanderbilt.

There was a prior relationship with Vanderbilt . Also your a very young punk who thinks he knows it all.

[GGGG]

There was a prior relationship with Vanderbilt . Also your a very young punk who thinks he knows it all.

Well mostly because he is usually right. And you often are not.

[VegasWarrior77]

There was a prior relationship with Vanderbilt . Also your you're a very young punk who thinks he knows it all.

I don't know it all but I know grade school English.

[naginiF]

Well mostly because he is usually right. And you often are not.

Money.

I don't know it all but I know grade school English.

Interest on Sultan's money.

[Newsdreams]

There was a prior relationship with Vanderbilt . Also your a very young punk who thinks he knows it all.

You really like Scoop Takes, don't you?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

There was a prior relationship with Vanderbilt . Also your a very young punk who thinks he knows it all.

That would have been fine if that's what you said. But you said:

One of the new assistants recruited him at a prior school.

Don't make things up. When Jay Bee called you out you could have just said "Oops my bad" or "I meant his familiarity with the school helped the second time around." Instead you made up something to try and save face. Even as a very young punk I know that's a bad idea.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Instead you made up something.

Surely this isn't news to anyone re MUFINY's posts?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So after a long song and dance, Cam Johnson ends up at North Carolina....which is awkwardly also part of the same conference as Pitt. The ACC allows inter-conference grad transfers, but Pitt restricted Johnson from transferring to any ACC schools, meaning Cam will have to sit out a year. UNC is of course challenging this. Media has already taken Cam's side and is calling for Pitt to drop the restriction. Will be curious to see how this plays out. I am usually all for giving more powers to the students but I also don't think restricting an inter-conference transfer is unreasonable. Can see both sides on this one.

[brewcity77]

I think Cam Johnson is the biggest story of the year in college basketball. This could have wide ranging ramifications if it goes to court, including an ending on transfer restrictions as well as the year in residence rule.

[jsglow]

I think Cam Johnson is the biggest story of the year in college basketball. This could have wide ranging ramifications if it goes to court, including an ending on transfer restrictions as well as the year in residence rule.

Lots to chew on.  Personally I'm opposed to even more free agency.  Wonder how this might work?  Colleges sign players for 4 years but have the right to release a player after any year without ANY restrictions.  So if they want to keep somebody, they do.  If not, he goes anywhere he wants.

Now let's not all complain that a 4 year contract is some rights violation.  Kid can always leave school, he just can't play scholarship ball anywhere else.  ARodg can't leave the Packers either.

One thing my strategy would eliminate is the kid moving up from mid to high major.  The era of the Rowsey transfer would be over.  Similarly, you wouldn't see a 9th man transferring out for more playing time if his original coach still wanted him around and was willing to honor the original scholarship commitment.  I'm not sure that would be so bad either.  It would force kids to really think through their opportunities and choose for the long term.

Anyway, interesting mental exercise.

[GGGG]

So after a long song and dance, Cam Johnson ends up at North Carolina....which is awkwardly also part of the same conference as Pitt. The ACC allows inter-conference grad transfers, but Pitt restricted Johnson from transferring to any ACC schools, meaning Cam will have to sit out a year. UNC is of course challenging this. Media has already taken Cam's side and is calling for Pitt to drop the restriction. Will be curious to see how this plays out. I am usually all for giving more powers to the students but I also don't think restricting an inter-conference transfer is unreasonable. Can see both sides on this one.

It's a gray area whether or not Pitt can actually put any restrictions on a grad transfer.  And since ACC rules specifically allow for intra-conference grad transfers, he just may have the right to play at UNC.

IMO, schools should not have the ability to limit where kids can transfer to.  If a conference wants to limit intra-conference transfers, that's their decision. 

[GGGG]

Lots to chew on.  Personally I'm opposed to even more free agency.  Wonder how this might work?  Colleges sign players for 4 years but have the right to release a player after any year without ANY restrictions.  So if they want to keep somebody, they do.  If not, he goes anywhere he wants.

Now let's not all complain that a 4 year contract is some rights violation.  Kid can always leave school, he just can't play scholarship ball anywhere else.  ARodg can't leave the Packers either.

One thing my strategy would eliminate is the kid moving up from mid to high major.  The era of the Rowsey transfer would be over.  Similarly, you wouldn't see a 9th man transferring out for more playing time if his original coach still wanted him around and was willing to honor the original scholarship commitment.  I'm not sure that would be so bad either.  It would force kids to really think through their opportunities and choose for the long term.

Anyway, interesting mental exercise.

I don't like this at all because you seem to start with the assumption that transfers are inherently bad.  Why shouldn't a guy like Rowsey try to play at a higher level?  Why shouldn't a guy like Cohen get a chance for more playing time at a lower level?  People use words like "epidemic" to describe the transfer situation, but IMO most transfers are fine.  Marquette has certainly benefited from them.

And finally, why should it be up to the coach, for whatever reason he decides is legitimate, decline a transfer anywhere?

And your parallels to Rodgers aren't really good.  Rodgers is a member of a union that collectively bargained a labor agreement that dictates the operating rules agreed upon by both parties.  That isn't the case here.

[Jay Bee]

It's a gray area whether or not Pitt can actually put any restrictions on a grad transfer.  And since ACC rules specifically allow for intra-conference grad transfers, he just may have the right to play at UNC.

IMO, schools should not have the ability to limit where kids can transfer to.  If a conference wants to limit intra-conference transfers, that's their decision.

Having read the Bylaws (specifically 14.6.1 and its reference back to 14.5.5.2.10 [and (d) in particular), it doesn't appear to be a gray area. Pittsburgh may object to allowing Cam to not being required to sit out a year in residence.

He's free to transfer wherever he likes. They're just not OK with him not needing to sit out a year in residence, which appears clearly to be their option per the Bylaws.

Lots of whiny voices stating, "but he had a 3.9 GPA!" Come on, folks. Have some principles. Whether his GPA is 3.0 or 3.9 has nothing to do with this.

Pitt is playing by the rules. I hope they continue to do so, but it'll be difficult from a PR perspective.

[jsglow]

I don't like this at all because you seem to start with the assumption that transfers are inherently bad.  Why shouldn't a guy like Rowsey try to play at a higher level?  Why shouldn't a guy like Cohen get a chance for more playing time at a lower level?  People use words like "epidemic" to describe the transfer situation, but IMO most transfers are fine.  Marquette has certainly benefited from them.

And finally, why should it be up to the coach, for whatever reason he decides is legitimate, decline a transfer anywhere?

And your parallels to Rodgers aren't really good.  Rodgers is a member of a union that collectively bargained a labor agreement that dictates the operating rules agreed upon by both parties.  That isn't the case here.

I guess we simply disagree which is fine. By and large, I dislike 'easy' transfers.  But I also think that committing to a player for the 4 full years is appropriate.

[GGGG]

I guess we simply disagree which is fine. By and large, I dislike 'easy' transfers.

Why?

[GGGG]

Having read the Bylaws (specifically 14.6.1 and its reference back to 14.5.5.2.10 [and (d) in particular), it doesn't appear to be a gray area. Pittsburgh may object to allowing Cam to not being required to sit out a year in residence.

He's free to transfer wherever he likes. They're just not OK with him not needing to sit out a year in residence, which appears clearly to be their option per the Bylaws.

Lots of whiny voices stating, "but he had a 3.9 GPA!" Come on, folks. Have some principles. Whether his GPA is 3.0 or 3.9 has nothing to do with this.

Pitt is playing by the rules. I hope they continue to do so, but it'll be difficult from a PR perspective.

Looks like you are correct.

Bad rule.  Students should not have to obtain permission to transfer.

[Jay Bee]

Looks like you are correct.

Bad rule.  Students should not have to obtain permission to transfer.

He's free to transfer. He just needs the OK from Pitt to get to skip out on the normal one-year in residence requirement.

[jsglow]

Why?

Because I don't.  Just an opinion brother.  Just like yours. 

[GGGG]

He's free to transfer. He just needs the OK from Pitt to get to skip out on the normal one-year in residence requirement.

Right.  Bad rule.  He shouldn't need permission from the previous school.

[Jay Bee]

Right.  Bad rule.  He shouldn't need permission from the previous school.

I disagree. I'd lean toward the bad rule being that there is an exception that allows certain SA's to not sit a year in residence.

[brewcity77]

I could see this having two implications. First, the end of transfer destination restrictions. Because these are effectively unpaid students, why should it matter what school they want to transfer to? I understand why the NCAA and leagues allow the restriction, but in court I don't think that will hold up.

Second, the end of the year in residence, not just for grad transfers, but for all student athletes. Because what logical reason does the NCAA have for that requirement when there's no year in residence required for freshmen, JUCOs, or grad transfers?

This is a really dumb hill for Pitt to die on and could massively shift the transfer landscape if it ends up in court.

[MU82]

And I like any rule that gives the indentured servant more freedom at the expense of the plantation owners.

I wouldn't mind if the sit-out-a-year rule ceased to exist. I know that would inconvenienced some people, but this is 'Merica ... land of the free!

[Nukem2]

I could see this having two implications. First, the end of transfer destination restrictions. Because these are effectively unpaid students, why should it matter what school they want to transfer to? I understand why the NCAA and leagues allow the restriction, but in court I don't think that will hold up.

Second, the end of the year in residence, not just for grad transfers, but for all student athletes. Because what logical reason does the NCAA have for that requirement when there's no year in residence required for freshmen, JUCOs, or grad transfers?

This is a really dumb hill for Pitt to die on and could massively shift the transfer landscape if it ends up in court.

Unpaid?  Sorry, but I worked 2 jobs to pay for my MU education.  I would have loved to have free scholarship and R&B while I got to play sports. 

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I could see this having two implications. First, the end of transfer destination restrictions. Because these are effectively unpaid students, why should it matter what school they want to transfer to? I understand why the NCAA and leagues allow the restriction, but in court I don't think that will hold up.

Second, the end of the year in residence, not just for grad transfers, but for all student athletes. Because what logical reason does the NCAA have for that requirement when there's no year in residence required for freshmen, JUCOs, or grad transfers?

This is a really dumb hill for Pitt to die on and could massively shift the transfer landscape if it ends up in court.

Three) The end of the grad transfer exception. Make them sit a year in residence and add a year to their clock.

Cam Johnson comes off as spoiled and entitled.  Truth is there are rules in life and, no they aren't always fair.  If Cam over plays his hand, he might hurt the rest of the players in the long run.

Personally, I favor revenue sport athletes getting a portion of those revenues, i.e., increasing stipends.

However, there are still rules.  Same as employers can put no compete clauses in contracts, schools can limit player movement.  I don't think Pitt is being unreasonable.  Cam Johnson is presented two choices: Go to UNC (or another ACC school) and sit out a year or go anywhere else and be immediately eligible.  Suing because "it's just not fair" is weak and ill-conceived in my opinion.  If there was a violation of the equal protection clause, then it would be a different story.  But that is not the case here.