Uthoff

[Hawkeye32]

So does he still have 5 years to play 4? In some articles it was sounding like he would lose another year of eligibility per the new big ten rules. I doubt he would be coming here if that were the case but does anyone know for sure?

Jarrod Uthoff is transferring from the Wisconsin Badgers to the Iowa Hawkeyes - ESPN

The Big Ten altered its transfer rule within the conference, starting with the 2011-12 season. The new rule allows transfers to receive a grant-in-aid from their new school, but reduces their remaining athletic eligibility by a year. That penalty could have been waived if Wisconsin did not block him from Big Ten schools.

 

[ssckelley]

He will have 3 years of eligibility remaining after he sits out a year. Since he used his redshirt he has 4 more years to play 3.

 

[Hawkeye32]

He will have 3 years of eligibility remaining after he sits out a year. Since he used his redshirt he has 4 more years to play 3.

What is the point of this rule then? Every NCAA transfer has to sit a year and "lose" a year of eligibility then?

 

[ssckelley]

He is losing a year of eligibility, he cannot play next year. So instead of being able to play 4 years he only gets to play 3.

 

[vosov]

What is the point of this rule then? Every NCAA transfer has to sit a year and "lose" a year of eligibility then?

By going to Iowa, he has to pay for school next year. If he would have transferred to a school outside the B1G, that would not be the case.

 

[Hawkeye32]

He is losing a year of eligibility, he cannot play next year. So instead of being able to play 4 years he only gets to play 3.

I know that but that is no different than if someone ISU transferred to LSU. My only point is some articles made it sound like the player would lose an additional year to deter in conference transfers. Which apparently is not the case. The rule you mention is not a Big Ten rule but a ncaa rule.

 

[Hawkeye32]

By going to Iowa, he has to pay for school next year. If he would have transferred to a school outside the B1G, that would not be the case.

Yea, I know that I just don't get why the Big 10 is making the rest of it sound like there rule.

But oh well we just got a really good player from BO!

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Kids have 5 yrs to play 4 unless a medical redshirt comes into play. (Settles) He's already sat out a yr. Hence the 4 to play 3.

 

[theboat]

Kids have 5 yrs to play 4 unless a medical redshirt comes into play. (Settles) He's already sat out a yr. Hence the 4 to play 3.

Settles was mrore like 10 years to play 6 I think.

 

[ssckelley]

I know that but that is no different than if someone ISU transferred to LSU. My only point is some articles made it sound like the player would lose an additional year to deter in conference transfers. Which apparently is not the case. The rule you mention is not a Big Ten rule but a ncaa rule.

The article you linked mentions that it is "per NCAA transfer rules". I do not recall anyone claiming that he loses an additional year of eligibility because he transfered within the conference. The only way Uthoff could have transfered to another school and played right away was if it was at a lower level (ie Juco or DII/DIII). The only penalty Uthoff pays is losing a year of scholarship, meaning he has to pay his own way this upcoming school year.

 

[GoHawks24]

I'm pretty sure that prior to the Brust transfer that it would have been nearly impossible for Uthoff to come play at Iowa, but that whole fiasco set a new precedent in the B10. Thanks, Bo!

 

[9YRPLAN]

the conference states that he loses a year, which is accurate, it just runs concurrently with the NCAA rule.