Memphis placing head-scratching restrictions on QB's transfer

[NewsCopy]

One of the more asinine aspects of college football is the fact that head coaches are free to bolt whenever their hearts desire with little more than a financial penalty — a tab normally picked up by the new school — to pay and can coach ...

The rest of the story

[Just1More]

They aren't head-scratching restrictions to me. You can't compare a coach and a student-athlete. Memphis cannot keep him from transferring to any school he wants. Does he have to sit out... yes. So what?

[jllanclos]

They aren't head-scratching restrictions to me. You can't compare a coach and a student-athlete. Memphis cannot keep him from transferring to any school he wants. Does he have to sit out... yes. So what?

I was thinking the same thing.

[Boomer]

So will the Cowboys give "Running Bear" a release---A little Western Lingo!!!!!

[CajunEXPRESS]

They aren't head-scratching restrictions to me. You can't compare a coach and a student-athlete. Memphis cannot keep him from transferring to any school he wants. Does he have to sit out... yes. So what?

Why can't you compare? Because the rules favor the institutions on students, and coahes on contracts? Seems to me the proper transfer is to either allow or not allow a transfer. No restrictions. If a school is guilty of unethical behavior let the NCAA deal with it. No doubt some luring goes on.

A kid may come to your school but few are coming because of the school, it is the coach they come for, and when he leaves they are stuck with the new coach. Coaches encourage student athletes to leave all the time so they do not look like the bad guy not renewing a scholarship. IMO if a coash wants to restrict a kid from any school not accused of tampering, then that coaches team needs to give up the scholarship for the same period the kid sits out. It has to be fair both ways, and there cannot be mass movement of players.

[BeauCajun]

They aren't head-scratching restrictions to me. You can't compare a coach and a student-athlete. Memphis cannot keep him from transferring to any school he wants. Does he have to sit out... yes. So what?

Sure he can transfer to any school he wants but without a release he cannot be on scholarship for the redshirt year.

[GeauxCajuns]

They aren't head-scratching restrictions to me. You can't compare a coach and a student-athlete. Memphis cannot keep him from transferring to any school he wants. Does he have to sit out... yes. So what?

it also makes sense to me to restrict him from both conferences. if he goes to C-USA he will e red shirting and I guarentee you talking to all the defensive coaches about signals and play calls-even as a red shirt. If he goes to a big east school memphis will soon face the same situation when they play against the team he would play for. They dont want him to go to the near by schools either because those are also on the schedule. JMO

[duggie85]

Didn't Marlin do the same thing with Raymone and JJ?
All schools do this, nothing new.

[Just1More]

Why can't you compare? Because the rules favor the institutions on students, and coahes on contracts? Seems to me the proper transfer is to either allow or not allow a transfer. No restrictions. If a school is guilty of unethical behavior let the NCAA deal with it. No doubt some luring goes on.

A kid may come to your school but few are coming because of the school, it is the coach they come for, and when he leaves they are stuck with the new coach. Coaches encourage student athletes to leave all the time so they do not look like the bad guy not renewing a scholarship. IMO if a coash wants to restrict a kid from any school not accused of tampering, then that coaches team needs to give up the scholarship for the same period the kid sits out. It has to be fair both ways, and there cannot be mass movement of players.

A contract for employment is a completely different beast. Schools can put any combination of things in a coach's contract... including penalties for leaving. There is a penalty for student athletes having selected a school (and causing another student athlete to miss out on that opportunity) and then wanting to transfer. I don't buy "I selected the school because of the coach" and so I should get to leave if he leaves. That's learning early that life decisions have consequences... sometimes even bad consequences for good people. I just do not see the comparison of contracts signed by coaches for employment and the student-athlete's transfer terms.

There are NCAA transfer rules. And they "are" across the board. No school is required to release anyone. It is at the "discretion" of the school to allow an unrestricted transfer. If you remove the restriction, which is the only way this can go, you eliminate a school from allowing an unrestricted or limited restriction transfer release "need" by specific athletes to take place. Maybe an arbitrator should used to determine if a "need" is warranted, but I assure you that removal of the "discretion" of the school will result in a harsher situation for student-athletes. They are not going to be allowed to come and go from schools they made a commitment to, without a penalty. If someone thinks they have a special case for consideration, they can appeal to the NCAA.

Your idea of penalizing schools that talk a kid out of a scholarship is another issue altogether. If the NCAA believes they should have to give up the scholarship for a year... so be it. That is not the issue with this particular circumstance.