Former Nittany Lion Jermaine Marshall now on the transfer market

[SelectionSunday]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...l-decides-not-to-go-pro-will-transfer-instead

 

[WanderingGopher]

Fast Freddie Hoiberg's probably already running to his phone. Another transfer available!

This situation is becoming ridiculous IMO. Transfer rule needs to change. College bb is starting to look like baseball free agency.

 

[DeathClutch]

Too bad he's in the same conference. He's probably going to be a hot commodity this late in the game.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

Fast Freddie Hoiberg's probably already running to his phone. Another transfer available!

This situation is becoming ridiculous IMO. Transfer rule needs to change. College bb is starting to look like baseball free agency.

I agree...it should be easier for D-1 athletes to transfer. Any non-guaranteed scholarship should also allow transfer between years without penalty.

Force colleges to either guarantee the four years or earn the renewal.

Coaches leave without regard to students, a kid can be forced out without compensation...so why are the athletes, the ones generating the millions, forced to comply with different standards.

 

[Golden_Sloth]

I agree...it should be easier for D-1 athletes to transfer. Any non-guaranteed scholarship should also allow transfer between years without penalty.

Force colleges to either guarantee the four years or earn the renewal.

Coaches leave without regard to students, a kid can be forced out without compensation...so why are the athletes, the ones generating the millions, forced to comply with different standards.

+1

 

[Gopherguy0723]

I agree...it should be easier for D-1 athletes to transfer. Any non-guaranteed scholarship should also allow transfer between years without penalty.

Force colleges to either guarantee the four years or earn the renewal.

Coaches leave without regard to students, a kid can be forced out without compensation...so why are the athletes, the ones generating the millions, forced to comply with different standards.

Don't worry. It's all going to come crashing down within a decade. The landscape is going to change drastically. The players will be in a much better position. If only the day would come sooner.

 

[WanderingGopher]

so why are the athletes, the ones generating the millions, forced to comply with different standards.

First, they are students who voluntarily entered college, not a professional league. (Whether you think the NBA and NFL draft rules are illegal is a separate question).

Second, the fans are the ones generating the millions. If it weren't for fans coming to games, fans buying gear, fans donating to schools, etc. these "games" would mean nothing. You don't see the chess team on the front page of the paper every day.

As a fan, there's no way in h*ll I'd ever want to see the free-for-all the NCAA would become if there were a liberal transfer rule. Among other things, the arms race would only get worse and the divide between have's and have-not's bigger. Can you imagine? "Hey, Andre Hollins, now that you've served two years at Minnesota improving your game, come on over to Duke where we have an opening at SG and you can compete for a title."

 

[WanderingGopher]

Too bad he's in the same conference. He's probably going to be a hot commodity this late in the game.

I'm not sure that matters any more. For example, Utoff just transferred from Wisconsin to Iowa, and Brust transferred from Iowa to Wisconsin a few years ago.

 

[SelectionSunday]

As a fan, there's no way in h*ll I'd ever want to see the free-for-all the NCAA would become if there were a liberal transfer rule. Among other things, the arms race would only get worse and the divide between have's and have-not's bigger. Can you imagine? "Hey, Andre Hollins, now that you've served two years at Minnesota improving your game, come on over to Duke where we have an opening at SG and you can compete for a title."

Exactly.

The NCAA is far from perfect, but we need to be very careful what we wish for. Your point about the separation between the haves and the have-nots is perfectly stated. If there's freedom of movement across the board whenever a kid wants to transfer, I think it's much more likely to hurt a program like Minnesota than help it. I have no interest in the U becoming an apprenticeship to the Pukes, North Carolinas, Kansas', and Kentuckys of the basketball world.

 

[bga1]

Don't worry. It's all going to come crashing down within a decade. The landscape is going to change drastically. The players will be in a much better position. If only the day would come sooner.

Players are going to be in a better position? Good grief, what do they want?

Because they can play basketball they get $150,000 scholarship and they get to use the school they are at as a huge marketing piece for the next step in their career. If they aren't good enough to go pro- they have the opportunity for a degree. After year one they can get out of the deal anytime they want and go pro.

This is not a bad deal. Still- you may be right about this- it may all come crashing down in the next 10 years anyway.

 

[golfing18now]

I'm not sure that matters any more. For example, Utoff just transferred from Wisconsin to Iowa, and Brust transferred from Iowa to Wisconsin a few years ago.

Doesn't the university have some say in where a student athlete can transfer once they are released from their scholarship? I feel like this came up when we lost our WR last year. (i.e. No Big Ten schools, whatever?)

Regarding the liberalization of transfer rules, I couldn't agree more with WanderingGopher. I could probably listen to paying athletes a modest sum for their services or guaranteeing scholarships for four years, but why would we want free agency in college sports? I want to feel like we can compete on an annual basis w/o fear of losing players to the "bigger fish" in college basketball.

 

[DeathClutch]

I'm not sure that matters any more. For example, Utoff just transferred from Wisconsin to Iowa, and Brust transferred from Iowa to Wisconsin a few years ago.

Different circumstances. Brust just signed a letter of intent, and had to appeal to get released, then he was free to transfer to any school with no restrictions. Uthoff had to sit out a year and pay his own way for a year. Jermaine is graduating and is eligible to play right away at any school not in the big ten.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I agree...it should be easier for D-1 athletes to transfer. Any non-guaranteed scholarship should also allow transfer between years without penalty.

Force colleges to either guarantee the four years or earn the renewal.

Coaches leave without regard to students, a kid can be forced out without compensation...so why are the athletes, the ones generating the millions, forced to comply with different standards.

Allowing student athletes to move around as they please without penalty will just cause another problem. You don't counter a problem with another problem in my opinion. Fix the coaches leaving problem first. Maybe something like if a coach leaves on their own, they must wait at least two years after they sign a contract. Or how about allowing 1st and 2nd year players to leave without penalty if their head coach leaves for another program, and they transfer to the school the coach moved to. Not sure if they are good suggestions, just throwing them out there. Players transferring is getting bad as is. Imagine if they could transfer without penalty. It will be chaos.

P.S. Also, the argument of "the players are the one's making all the money so they deserve so much more" just doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't that the case in almost every business? The laborers in a factory are the ones actually making the product or whatever, yet they make the least amount of money in most cases. Where is the outrage over that? Why are the "top-dogs" in a mining company making so much more money than they guys actually mining?

 

[HOOP DREAMS]

Allowing student athletes to move around as they please without penalty will just cause another problem. You don't counter a problem with another problem in my opinion. Fix the coaches leaving problem first. Maybe something like if a coach leaves on their own, they must wait at least two years after they sign a contract. Or how about allowing 1st and 2nd year players to leave without penalty if their head coach leaves for another program, and they transfer to the school the coach moved to. Not sure if they are good suggestions, just throwing them out there. Players transferring is getting bad as is. Imagine if they could transfer without penalty. It will be chaos.

P.S. Also, the argument of "the players are the one's making all the money so they deserve so much more" just doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't that the case in almost every business? The laborers in a factory are the ones actually making the product or whatever, yet they make the least amount of money in most cases. Where is the outrage over that? Why are the "top-dogs" in a mining company making so much more money than they guys actually mining?

Good points.

 

[cncmin]

Allowing student athletes to move around as they please without penalty will just cause another problem. You don't counter a problem with another problem in my opinion. Fix the coaches leaving problem first. Maybe something like if a coach leaves on their own, they must wait at least two years after they sign a contract. Or how about allowing 1st and 2nd year players to leave without penalty if their head coach leaves for another program, and they transfer to the school the coach moved to. Not sure if they are good suggestions, just throwing them out there. Players transferring is getting bad as is. Imagine if they could transfer without penalty. It will be chaos.

P.S. Also, the argument of "the players are the one's making all the money so they deserve so much more" just doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't that the case in almost every business? The laborers in a factory are the ones actually making the product or whatever, yet they make the least amount of money in most cases. Where is the outrage over that? Why are the "top-dogs" in a mining company making so much more money than they guys actually mining?

Actually, you make a great point (actually, several great points, but I'm just going to address the first one) - if rules are instated whereby coaches who sign a contract actually have to play out that contract (unless extenuating circumstances), transfers should decrease and, one would hope, coaches' salaries decrease as well.

 

[howieramone]

Fast Freddie Hoiberg's probably already running to his phone. Another transfer available!

This situation is becoming ridiculous IMO. Transfer rule needs to change. College bb is starting to look like baseball free agency.

+1

 

[howieramone]

Exactly.

The NCAA is far from perfect, but we need to be very careful what we wish for. Your point about the separation between the haves and the have-nots is perfectly stated. If there's freedom of movement across the board whenever a kid wants to transfer, I think it's much more likely to hurt a program like Minnesota than help it. I have no interest in the U becoming an apprenticeship to the Pukes, North Carolinas, Kansas', and Kentuckys of the basketball world.

+1

 

[Gopher Warrior]

I'm fine with one year in residence being required for students. Coaches and students are completely different and trying to compare them in the spirit of "fairness" doesn't make sense to me.

I dislike both the graduate transfer exception and the graduate transfer waiver. I'd be open to adding a year onto the 5-year clock, if needed, for graduate transfers, but do away with the exception and waiver. Would graduate transfers go down? Yes. Which is what I'd like to see. Right now these transfers in basketball are mostly (if not all) driven by athletics. If someone really wants to go to grad school somewhere else, then go ahead, take two years to get your grad degree.

Uthoff had to sit out a year and pay his own way for a year.

This is actually not true. It's an interesting case because Uthoff benefited nicely. The Big Ten changed their intraconference transfer rules because of the discussion that heated up with Uthoff.

Old rules: sit out a year in residence + pay own way for that year.
New rules: sit out a year in residence, but can be on scholarship. BUT, lose a year of eligibility.

If Uthoff had played his first year at Wisconsin, under the new rules he truly would have "lost" a year of eligibility because of the one year penalty under the revised rules. However, because he redshirted as a freshman at uw-madison, no matter where he went he would have effectively lost a year due to the NCAA's Five-Year Rule.

So.. the impact of the rule change for him only put him in scholarship. For most people it will mean they'll lost one year of actual competition if they transfer within the Big Ten (i.e., only get to play 3 years instead of 4), whereas if they transferred elsewhere they could still play 4 years. Uthoff was down to 3 years no matter where he transferred.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Players are going to be in a better position? Good grief, what do they want?

Because they can play basketball they get $150,000 scholarship and they get to use the school they are at as a huge marketing piece for the next step in their career. If they aren't good enough to go pro- they have the opportunity for a degree. After year one they can get out of the deal anytime they want and go pro.

This is not a bad deal. Still- you may be right about this- it may all come crashing down in the next 10 years anyway.

Grantland and I believe the Atlantic have done an excellent job explaining how college athletes get completely screwed by the system. The most egregious in my estimation is using a players' likeness in perpetuity without compensation. If you or I had our faces put on billboards, videos, posters, etc. we would need to be compensated for our likeness being used commercially. We could sue the pants off anyone who didn't pay us. The schools make players sign over that right in their letter of intent. This is very unethical and possibly illegal. However, what makes it certainly illegal is that the NCAA claims the players give up that right not only for their amateur years but for the rest of their lives after they are done playing. The NCAA claims they keep the rights to anything those players signed away during their college days forever. They never have to pay them for this. That is absolutely illegal and it flies in the face of all current law regarding use of likeness. This is what Ed O'Bannon is suing over, and he will win.

I encourage you to read the articles about the history of the NCAA and how big of a sham the body is as it never began as a governing body and how it used idle threats that were mostly toothless to claim it's current authority. The best or worst thing you will learn if you read about it is the sham "student athlete" defense and argument. It will make you want to vomit at the blatant labor abuse the NCAA and schools get away with that no other industry could. I get so sick to my stomach that I keep going back and forth on whether I should actually pay to see or watch an NCAA event ever again.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

The schools make players sign over that right in their letter of intent. This is very unethical and possibly illegal.

You have any links to stories handy? Haven't read much from Grantland or the Atlantic. But, I can tell you for certain that the letter of intent does no such thing.

 

[Biglew33]

If your scholarship is not renewed, it is completely unfair to make a kid sit for a year. Especially if he loses a year of eligibility

 

[Gopherguy0723]

You have any links to stories handy? Haven't read much from Grantland or the Atlantic. But, I can tell you for certain that the letter of intent does no such thing.

I sure do. I may have been wrong about the LOI, but Charlie Pierce mentions in this grantland article that players are forced to sign away these rights, so I had assumed it was the LOI. Below are the Grantland and Atlantic links. The Atlantic piece will make your skin crawl. Enjoy!

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8914700/ed-obannon-vs-ncaa

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/308643/

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Gopher Warrior,

Here's another quick follow up. The form that players are forced to sign is Form 08-3a. I believe Form 08-3a is either part of the LOI or is included with it. Players must sign or they are not allowed to play any NCAA sport. So, even if it's not part of the LOI it is probably a worse document as you can play without signing a LOI but you must sign the 08-3a form.

In fact, here's the relevant part of form 08-3a verbatim.

"Part IV: Promotion of NCAA Championships, Events, Activities, or Programs.

You authorize the NCAA [or a third party acting on behalf of the NCAA (e.g. host institution, conference, local organizing committee)] to use your name or picture to generally promote NCAA championships or other NCAA events, activities, or programs."

Again, this form must be signed or you cannot play any NCAA sport.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

Thanks for your thoughts. This is a complex matter and I'm fairly ignorant. But a few brief thoughts.

Mr. Pierce went to a wonderful school, but his thoughts are odd at times. I'll share a few of mine... need to do more thinking and researching and understanding, but I'd urge you to not be quick to accept opinion or biased pieces and make drastic decisions based off of them (like never paying to see an NCAA bball game again!!).

- Take a look at Part IV of Form 08-3a (has nothing to do with the NLI program). Pierce says, "In fact, to be eligible to play, athletes have to sign papers waiving their rights to profit from their own names and their own faces." Part IV gives authorization to the NCAA to use a student-athlete's name or picture. An argument that former student-athletes may not profit in the future is horribly flawed and factually untrue. There are no rules and no forms that support this argument. Pierce's claim is a lie.

However, the NCAA's stance is that they not only have never licensed student-athlete likeness, but they also have never interfered with an SA's ability to sell or license their collegiate likenesses.

Khadeem Lattin was here in the Twin Cities a few weeks ago. Plays for Houston Hoops. His grandpa David was a star at Texas Western. In a deposition related to the "O'Bannon case", Lattin said that ESPN had approached him with an offer for a hundred thousand a piece, plus royalties. ESPN wanted to make a movie(s) for TV on Texas Western and his playing days there.

Other former student-athletes have also, under sworn deposition related to this case, flat out said that the NCAA has never suggested that they are not allowed to sell their name or likeness and that, in fact, the student-athletes say they personal have profited off their name and likeness from their college playing days.
-----------------
Although there are still relevant legal arguments that will be pursued and this case could ultimately go a number of different ways, I'd also point you to the issues with one of O'Bannon's lead attorney on the case.

The attorney, Jon King, was fired from the firm Hausfeld LLP last fall. He has since sued David Hausfeld and the firm, stating, "This is a case about a bully." He goes on to say, "As detailed herein, Defendant Hausfeld fired Plaintiff because Plaintiff had repeatedly raised issues regarding Defendants’ unethical and unlawful behavior. That behavior included (a) violation of rules governing conflicts of interest, including with respect tomajor Asian electronics manufacturers and, separately, with respect to major antitrust litigationagainst the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”);"

Complaint from King

------------
It does appear the attorneys for the plaintiffs have changed course... when the argument that "the NCAA makes money forever and the former student-athletes can't ever make a dime" was destroyed, the plaintiffs seem to be focusing on an argument about current student-athletes.

You'll find many legal firms "like this". Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are not valid legal arguments out there somewhere.. but it does mean if people are grabbing at bits and pieces of this and don't understand / don't read where the case is in court, they are going to gobble up a lot of nonsense.

 

[Golden Yooper]

The NCAA is far from perfect, but we need to be very careful what we wish for. Your point about the separation between the haves and the have-nots is perfectly stated. If there's freedom of movement across the board whenever a kid wants to transfer, I think it's much more likely to hurt a program like Minnesota than help it. I have no interest in the U becoming an apprenticeship to the Pukes, North Carolinas, Kansas', and Kentuckys of the basketball world.

The thing that has made college sports special is that you could watch an athlete come to your school, develop their potential and hopefully enhance the program over a four-year period. As a fan, you could emotionally invest into these players and enjoy watching their careers at the university. If the transfer rules continue to get more liberal, I believe the college game will start to lose its appeal to the traditional fan base. I have lost interest in the NBA because most teams have such high turnover in personnel that it makes it hard to actually care much about the players because most are gone after a short duration. The college game has always been more team focused and more fans could bond with a university program due to that continuity. I don't mind a transfer every now and again because a student athlete should have the right to change schools if it is not a good fit for them. But there should be some repercussions for making a change for both the athlete and the program. It is my hope the NCAA doesn't continue to open up this "free agency" transfer policy and makes quality decisions on granting these requests.

 

[jaymil]

What do you guys think of Marshall? I know our class is already guard heavy, but right now it seems like Buckles or bust as far as adding another big man. If that falls through for some reason, I'd be fine with adding Marshall for a season.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Thanks for your thoughts. This is a complex matter and I'm fairly ignorant. But a few brief thoughts.

Mr. Pierce went to a wonderful school, but his thoughts are odd at times. I'll share a few of mine... need to do more thinking and researching and understanding, but I'd urge you to not be quick to accept opinion or biased pieces and make drastic decisions based off of them (like never paying to see an NCAA bball game again!!).

- Take a look at Part IV of Form 08-3a (has nothing to do with the NLI program). Pierce says, "In fact, to be eligible to play, athletes have to sign papers waiving their rights to profit from their own names and their own faces." Part IV gives authorization to the NCAA to use a student-athlete's name or picture. An argument that former student-athletes may not profit in the future is horribly flawed and factually untrue. There are no rules and no forms that support this argument. Pierce's claim is a lie.

However, the NCAA's stance is that they not only have never licensed student-athlete likeness, but they also have never interfered with an SA's ability to sell or license their collegiate likenesses.

Khadeem Lattin was here in the Twin Cities a few weeks ago. Plays for Houston Hoops. His grandpa David was a star at Texas Western. In a deposition related to the "O'Bannon case", Lattin said that ESPN had approached him with an offer for a hundred thousand a piece, plus royalties. ESPN wanted to make a movie(s) for TV on Texas Western and his playing days there.

Other former student-athletes have also, under sworn deposition related to this case, flat out said that the NCAA has never suggested that they are not allowed to sell their name or likeness and that, in fact, the student-athletes say they personal have profited off their name and likeness from their college playing days.
-----------------
Although there are still relevant legal arguments that will be pursued and this case could ultimately go a number of different ways, I'd also point you to the issues with one of O'Bannon's lead attorney on the case.

The attorney, Jon King, was fired from the firm Hausfeld LLP last fall. He has since sued David Hausfeld and the firm, stating, "This is a case about a bully." He goes on to say, "As detailed herein, Defendant Hausfeld fired Plaintiff because Plaintiff had repeatedly raised issues regarding Defendants’ unethical and unlawful behavior. That behavior included (a) violation of rules governing conflicts of interest, including with respect tomajor Asian electronics manufacturers and, separately, with respect to major antitrust litigationagainst the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”);"

Complaint from King

------------
It does appear the attorneys for the plaintiffs have changed course... when the argument that "the NCAA makes money forever and the former student-athletes can't ever make a dime" was destroyed, the plaintiffs seem to be focusing on an argument about current student-athletes.

You'll find many legal firms "like this". Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are not valid legal arguments out there somewhere.. but it does mean if people are grabbing at bits and pieces of this and don't understand / don't read where the case is in court, they are going to gobble up a lot of nonsense.

It was The Atlantic article that has had me reconsidering supporting NCAA sports, not Pierce, but I understand your point.

Also, a quick note regarding Part IV of 08-3a. By signing the form, it allows the NCAA to use the players' likeness and image without compensating the player. While he may be wrong about the perpetuity aspect, he is correct that players may not receive a dime when their likeness is used while they're active NCAA athletes. That in itself is a horrible practice.

 

[Gopherguy0723]

Joe Nocera wrote another great piece regarding the fraud that is the NCAA in today's New York Times. I say we get out the pitchforks and end the current system now.