2017 Basketball Transfer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,876      
Innocent Primate
This is an ACC rule, isn't it, having nothing to do with the NCAA ? And wouldn't UNC have either voted in favor of such rule or agreed to be bound by it ?

And if push came to shove, wouldn't the ACC have the right to say, "That's fine, he can play, but you forfeit all the ACC games he plays in" ?
 
#1,877      
Sal Iacuzzo
Kevin Stallings didn't have to sit out a year when he bailed from Vanderbilt (unless their horrible play last year was a self-imposed punishment). Why should Cameron Johnson?

I'm proud our coaches did the right thing and let players that no longer wanted to be here out of their letter of intents and scholarships with no restrictions.
 
#1,878      
oskeewowwowboomtime
Innocent Primate said:
This is an ACC rule, isn't it, having nothing to do with the NCAA ? And wouldn't UNC have either voted in favor of such rule or agreed to be bound by it ?

And if push came to shove, wouldn't the ACC have the right to say, "That's fine, he can play, but you forfeit all the ACC games he plays in" ?
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure that the bottom feeders of the ACC are going to roll over on this conference rule that all members have previously agreed to. You can bet that none of them are eager so see the day come when North Carolina and Duke can cherry pick their star upperclassman as they approach graduation after 3 years of accelerated summer and on-line classes to come play for them against their old teammates.
 
#1,879      
Obelix
Innocent Primate said:
This is an ACC rule, isn't it, having nothing to do with the NCAA ? And wouldn't UNC have either voted in favor of such rule or agreed to be bound by it ?

And if push came to shove, wouldn't the ACC have the right to say, "That's fine, he can play, but you forfeit all the ACC games he plays in" ?
Click to expand...

This is not a unilateral ACC rule voted by all member institutions. It is an "arbitrary" ACC rule that allows schools to implement restrictions at their discretion, the ACC does not impose the rule across ACC members.

As previously reported, three of the ACC schools outlaw future opponents, five handle them on a case-by-case, and one school does no place any restrictions on transfers (the rest of the schools have not commented).

Pitt elected to place restrictions on Cam Johnson, as per their administration and coaches, not the ACC. Per articles posted, and comments by Cam Johnson's father, they plan to challenge the Pitt ruling on the basis that the NCAA bylaws treat graduate transfers differently than regular transfers (with immediate eligibility, etc.) and thus challenge the right of Pitt administration to place restrictions.
 
#1,881      
BMo79
Been nice to get, but personally rather have a more inside Big 5th year, to keep scolly open for 18. Onto the next, till of course he changes his mind and opens things up again LOL
 
#1,883      
Obelix
Sal Iacuzzo said:
Kevin Stallings didn't have to sit out a year when he bailed from Vanderbilt (unless their horrible play last year was a self-imposed punishment). Why should Cameron Johnson?

I'm proud our coaches did the right thing and let players that no longer wanted to be here out of their letter of intents and scholarships with no restrictions.
Click to expand...

Correct, and it was the right decision.

Some posters try to applaud Pitt's decision (obviously because it would get Illinois back in Cam Johnson's recruitment), yet they would have totally crucified Stallings or any other coach who would have tried to restrict a highly regarded player from coming to Illinois. It is a hypocritical position IMO.
 
#1,885      
BMo79
I still do not understand how they can have any say so , unless they sign a 4 year ride. I thought most were year to year, and if so once the year is over if a player wants to leave it should be all on them. If they sign a 4year then yeah the school should alittle say
 
#1,886      
Innocent Primate
Obelix — Thank you for the clarification.

I take it from what you say that there is an ACC rule, it simply allows each institution to establish it's own policy.

I'm unclear what "arbitrary" is intended to mean in this context. There is a rule, apparently agreed to by the member institutions; it simply allows each institution to establish its own policy in this regard. If that is the intended meaning, then the member institutions have, it seems, agreed to such "arbitrariness." Is the contention the ACC rule by permitting such restrictions violates NCAA rules ?
 
Last edited:
#1,887      
ChiefIllini
BMo79 said:
I still do not understand how they can have any say so , unless they sign a 4 year ride. I thought most were year to year, and if so once the year is over if a player wants to leave it should be all on them. If they sign a 4year then yeah the school should alittle say
Click to expand...

I like the grad transfer rule--theres a reward for finishing education. I also like the sit out rule.

Can you imagine the cluster-youknowwhat that would come if there were no transfer restrictions whatsoever? I will admit it probably isnt the best solution. There needs to be commitment on both sides. I personally think schools should have to honor a 4 year scholarship, unless the player wants to transfer.
 
#1,888      
Obelix
Innocent Primate said:
Obelix — Thank you for the clarification.

I take it from what you say that there is an ACC rule, it simply allows each institution to establish it's own policy.

I'm unclear what "arbitrary" is intended to mean in this context. There is a rule, apparently agreed to by the member institutions; it simply allows each institution to establish its own policy in this regard. If that is the intended meaning, then the member institutions have, it seems, agreed to such "arbitrariness." Is the contention the ACC rule by permitting such restrictions violates NCAA rules ?
Click to expand...

It's an "arbitrary" rule in the sense that there are no guidelines, usually rules refer to specific guidelines. The B1G used to have additional in-conference transfer rules and restrictions that they got rid off. The ACC does not, and is no different than other conferences including the B1G. Illinois could have still blocked JCL from specific schools if they wanted to, yet, the right decision was not to. What Pitt is doing is not just enforcing ACC conference restrictions to transfer, they just decided to place specific restrictions on Cam Johnson. They could have elected not to, and could do it in the future.

From reading the articles, what the family and UNC seem to contend is that the graduate transfer NCAA bylaws treat graduate transfers as a separate category without restrictions (e.g., sit-out year/residency requirement), thus the right of schools to block players applies to regular transfers and can't be extended to graduate transfers.

My guess is that Cam Johnson will play at UNC next year without this case ending up in court. Pitt has nothing to gain from being stubborn and fighting this. JMO.
 
#1,889      
Obelix
ChiefIllini said:
I like the grad transfer rule--theres a reward for finishing education. I also like the sit out rule.
Click to expand...

The graduate transfer rule is a hoax with no merit. I do not agree with Coach K on many things, but he has been one of the strongest advocates against this rule, and I agree with him.

All these graduate transfers are simply regular basketball transfers, with no emphasis on academics, majors not available at your school, duration of the masters programs, graduation requirements, completion of degrees, etc. If the NCAA would have liked to reward academics, they would keep the one-year residency requirement and just extend scholarship an extra year. Thus, these kids would not lose any of their eligibility and would actually get their advanced degrees (most programs require more than 1-year anyway).

This is similar to the "hardship" category that the NCAA got rid off. It is one of the biggest hypocrisies in the NCAA.
 
#1,890      
Innocent Primate
Obelix — It's just a semantic thing which hangs me up. I don't equate being able to make differing determinations on a case-by-case basis (the authority) as necessarily being "arbitrary". To me, "arbitrary" means lacking a rational basis for any specific decision (the result). It seems that under ACC rules each school can make such decisions (has the authority) on a case-by-case basis; that, to me, doesn't seem arbitrary. Whether any individual decision (the result) is "arbitrary", that is, lacks a rational basis, that, to me, is another question. (Indeed, one might argue that a rule mandating the same for all partakes more of being "arbitrary".)

But be that as it may, I assume you're right.
 
#1,891      
Obelix
Innocent Primate said:
To me, "arbitrary" means lacking a rational basis for any specific decision (the result).
Click to expand...

To me that exactly what this is. It lacks both rational basis and specificity. But if you want to use a different adjective that would be fine as well.
 
#1,893      
alaskaillini
Obelix said:
It's an "arbitrary" rule in the sense that there are no guidelines, usually rules refer to specific guidelines. The B1G used to have additional in-conference transfer rules and restrictions that they got rid off. The ACC does not, and is no different than other conferences including the B1G. Illinois could have still blocked JCL from specific schools if they wanted to, yet, the right decision was not to. What Pitt is doing is not just enforcing ACC conference restrictions to transfer, they just decided to place specific restrictions on Cam Johnson. They could have elected not to, and could do it in the future.

From reading the articles, what the family and UNC seem to contend is that the graduate transfer NCAA bylaws treat graduate transfers as a separate category without restrictions (e.g., sit-out year/residency requirement), thus the right of schools to block players applies to regular transfers and can't be extended to graduate transfers.

My guess is that Cam Johnson will play at UNC next year without this case ending up in court. Pitt has nothing to gain from being stubborn and fighting this. JMO.
Click to expand...

If Pitt stays stubborn, I could see this ending up like the Dave Wilson dispute over eligibility in the Big 10. He was OK'd by the NCAA, but not the Big Ten. Ultimately, he won in court but had already turned pro. Maybe Johnson could prevail in some expedited proceeding but he could also be sitting around waiting for a decision come September. As it stands he can't enroll at UNC and practice with the team until this is ironed out. Pitt may just drag their feet for a while to just make it uncomfortable for UNC and Johnson.
 
#1,894      
IlliniJim20
alaskaillini said:
If Pitt stays stubborn, I could see this ending up like the Dave Wilson dispute over eligibility in the Big 10. He was OK'd by the NCAA, but not the Big Ten. Ultimately, he won in court but had already turned pro. Maybe Johnson could prevail in some expedited proceeding but he could also be sitting around waiting for a decision come September. As it stands he can't enroll at UNC and practice with the team until this is ironed out. Pitt may just drag their feet for a while to just make it uncomfortable for UNC and Johnson.
Click to expand...

I was thinking along these lines as well. For those who feel it would hurt Pitt reputation wise, I also feel a confernce transfer rule is not that absurd, even for grad transfers. A school who has developed a player for three years should have some say in not necessarily having to play against said player two-three times a year at a confernce foe.

Just wait until a UNC grad wants to transfer to Duke, then see the tar heels change their tune :D
 
#1,895      
Illini B-Ball Fan
So, this may have been discussed already, but how will Mark Alstork be finishing up his studies at Wright State - on campus in Akron or off campus/online in CU? If in Akron, I assume he'll make some of the summer practice sessions in CU when he can.
 
#1,899      
Smacko
Obelix said:
The graduate transfer rule is a hoax with no merit. I do not agree with Coach K on many things, but he has been one of the strongest advocates against this rule, and I agree with him.

All these graduate transfers are simply regular basketball transfers, with no emphasis on academics, majors not available at your school, duration of the masters programs, graduation requirements, completion of degrees, etc. If the NCAA would have liked to reward academics, they would keep the one-year residency requirement and just extend scholarship an extra year. Thus, these kids would not lose any of their eligibility and would actually get their advanced degrees (most programs require more than 1-year anyway).

This is similar to the "hardship" category that the NCAA got rid off. It is one of the biggest hypocrisies in the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Why should a kid be forced to get a Masters at the same place they got their Undergrad? Once a kid graduates, they don't owe the school anything and are not tied to that school for life. The school should not have any power over them once they graduate, just as the school should have no influence on where other undergraduate students decide to get their graduate degrees. Kids should be rewarded for graduating, not penalized.
 
#1,900      
Innocent Primate
A question I have is, how are transfers of undergrads engaged in basketball or football different from those who have been awarded a degree so as to justify a difference in treatment ? If it is legitimate / reasonable / supportable, etc., to place restrictions on a junior transferring, then what makes it illegitimate, etc., to place such restrictions upon someone who has just obtained an undergraduate degree ? And by the same token, if it is illegitimate, etc., to place such restrictions upon someone who has just obtained such a degree, why is it legitimate, etc., to place such restrictions upon an undergrad ?

I don't see any justifiable rational for the difference in treatment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back