Big Ten Future Player Releases

[Lionhawk]

With the ruling today regarding Brust being allowed the waiver, do we now see schools in the Big Ten allowing students out of their LOI but putting stipulations in place to prevent them from even considering the types of appeals this latest situation has created?

Does this also open the door in the future for top players to transfer within the conference should a coach leave, even if they are already playing? I.E. - If Tubby would have left Minnesota, could a Minnesota player transfer to Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, etc. using Brust as his example? If not, please explain the difference to me. I realize he would have to take a reshirt by NCAA rules but could be put on scholarship at another Big Ten University. With this ruling the Big Ten has made coaching changes in the future VERY DICEY.

Had Iowa put limits in place on where Brust could play this would not have occurred. He could have gone elsewhere but not to a Big Ten university. I wonder if the Iowa staff and AD's office are rethinking how they are going to handle these type of situations in the future.

 

[GravyJones]

I think it sets a potentially dangerous precedent, but it's going to be rare if they stick to allowing exceptions on coaches being fired. I don't have a problem with the ruling as long as it doesn't open the door for anyone to transfer anywhere for any reason.

 

[CAARHawk]

I think schools should be smart about it. I would put a stipulation that I would not release a player to a team that I was scheduled to play in the next four years.

 

[tweeterhawk]

Welcome to the SEC.

 

[storminspank]

Welcome to the SEC.

Agreed, and this is exactly why the Big Ten put the rule into effect in the first place.

 

[vbeachawk]

Also, what gives the faculty reps the authority to ignore the stated intent of a Big 10 rule and effectively override and rewrite the rule. And where does this stop? Apparently they can change any Big 10 rule brought before them with impunity.

 

[tweeterhawk]

Also, what gives the faculty reps the authority to ignore the stated intent of a Big 10 rule and effectively override and rewrite the rule. And where does this stop? Apparently they can change any Big 10 rule brought before them with impunity.

As with most teachers, it's all about the children.

Screw the rules.

 

[clicheusername3]

With the ruling today regarding Brust being allowed the waiver, do we now see schools in the Big Ten allowing students out of their LOI but putting stipulations in place to prevent them from even considering the types of appeals this latest situation has created?

Does this also open the door in the future for top players to transfer within the conference should a coach leave, even if they are already playing? I.E. - If Tubby would have left Minnesota, could a Minnesota player transfer to Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, etc. using Brust as his example? If not, please explain the difference to me. I realize he would have to take a reshirt by NCAA rules but could be put on scholarship at another Big Ten University. With this ruling the Big Ten has made coaching changes in the future VERY DICEY.

Had Iowa put limits in place on where Brust could play this would not have occurred. He could have gone elsewhere but not to a Big Ten university. I wonder if the Iowa staff and AD's office are rethinking how they are going to handle these type of situations in the future.

Well first of all you can add that language already so I don't know why they don't do it. Second, it's going to be a little different in a transfer situation because you are sitting out a year no matter what. I don't think this situation helps a future player to transfer and then not have to sit for at least one year regardless of where they go.