Purvis Banned From Transferring to Cincinnati and Missouri (Among Others)

ACC & Other Mark Gottfried NC State83

In something that’s become standard practice across the landscape of college basketball, when Rodney Purvis was given his release by the Wolfpack to transfer, he was also given a list of schools he couldn’t transfer to:  Missouri, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame and Louisville.

Why Cincinnati and Missouri?  State plans to schedule the schools in the near future — in fact, Cincinnati just announced that State will be visiting the Bearcats home floor next season.  Interesting to say the least, especially since just last year Demontre Harris was banned from transferring from South Carolina to NC State.

All of this is moot, given that it seems that UConn is probably Purvis’s next destination.  But is it fair?

ACC & Other Mark Gottfried NC State

83 Responses to Purvis Banned From Transferring to Cincinnati and Missouri (Among Others)

  1. Bowlpack 04/04/2013 at 10:27 AM #

    It’s absolutely fair in the sense that it is the only repercussion to keep other schools from tampering with players. If players were allowed to transfer anywhere they wanted then I think that NCAABB becomes even more of a free-for-all. While recruits out of high school are an unproven commodity, what would keep school’s like UK, UNC, etc from finding a way to pillage “lesser” programs for veteran talent? There needs to be some sort of equalizer in place to make certain that everyone is operating from the same starting point.

  2. Wulfpack 04/04/2013 at 10:28 AM #

    Personally I feel it is bad form but that is just me.

  3. ryebread 04/04/2013 at 10:34 AM #

    I think it is ridiculous. Transfers should be able to go where ever they want. Their coach can do the same.

  4. Wulfpack 04/04/2013 at 10:40 AM #

    And Athletic Directors, Compliance, etc. They are kids, and your avg college student can do the same.

  5. ringo 04/04/2013 at 10:44 AM #

    good move and only fair, you can’t give the other side your secrets

  6. Majellin 04/04/2013 at 10:47 AM #

    That rule is fair. But I don’t think the rule that makes guys sit out one year is fair. Think about if they made coaches do the same thing when they changed schools.

  7. ringo 04/04/2013 at 10:56 AM #

    If you aren’t going to make them sit out a year, then you should be able to cut guys from year to year that aren’t progressing. I think you can technically do that now, but it is frowned upon. That should be common practice, especially if you want to let guys gallivant around to different teams each season.

  8. TeufelWolf 04/04/2013 at 10:56 AM #

    Completely fair. If said named individual doesn’t like it, they can always transfer to the NBA or back home to mama’s house or the military. What isnt fair is when these guys get a completely free education that they don’t necessarily deserve and they piss it away with no appreciation. I get sick of all the entitlement.

  9. wolfmans brother 04/04/2013 at 10:58 AM #

    No different than a non-compete clause. I see no problem with it.

    He signed a “contract” with State and received financial benefits in return. We are well within bounds for providing restrictions when he breaks that “contract.” This is what happens in the world of grown-ups.

  10. ringo 04/04/2013 at 10:59 AM #

    I would just as soon do away with all athletic scholarships and this pretense of student athletes. Let the NBA develop their own. The college game would then be true students. Then you wouldn’t have to see lowered standards or UNC-Cheat types that trumpet fake academic achievement.

  11. Rochester 04/04/2013 at 11:09 AM #

    Not fair. I thought it was BS when Demontre Harris couldn’t come to NC State. I can see limiting it within the conference, but just because we’re going to play Cincinnati or Missouri? Whatever. Let him run the point for them against us. Doesn’t have me shaking too hard. Is he going to give away all the secrets of our offense that someone could just figure out from watching a few hours of video? Really? That has nothing to do with it.

    As to the non-compete clause, I’d guess the vast majority of employees in this country never have to sign one and are free to move on to wherever they can find a job without their current employer hassling them. Sure those clauses exist, but let’s not pretend they affect the average worker. I’ve been working for more than 20 years and have moved jobs several times and never had one.

  12. Wulfpack 04/04/2013 at 11:17 AM #

    You really expect a 17 year old kid to understand what a non compete is? Heck, I see plenty of grown ups that dont.

  13. TeufelWolf 04/04/2013 at 11:20 AM #

    There are far greater tragedies.

  14. ringo 04/04/2013 at 11:24 AM #

    Non compete clauses are very common in my industry with clients etc. You are set up by a company, given clients, support staff, trained, you get to make a name for yourself in the community, and then you try to take them away at the first opportunity….no way. Same thing here. We don’t want to play a guy we coached up, knows our players, coaches, strategies, weaknesses, etc. Also, he knew going in, so tough crap for him.

  15. PoppaJohn 04/04/2013 at 11:29 AM #

    I assume you overlooked adding “or anywhere within the ACC.”
    I like it. I like that there are consequences for a player’s actions. Generally if the player misbehaves, the coach and/or school pays the price.
    The player spent months, sometimes more, in the recruiting cycle and had coaches dancing in their living rooms. If, as a consequence of making what the player believes to be the wrong choice, his choice of 300+ schools is limited by 20 – tough.

  16. Tau837 04/04/2013 at 11:31 AM #

    The non-compete clause is a terrible analogy IMO. There is no equivalent here for stealing clients or employees away (ringo’s last post). There is no equivalent to sharing proprietary information with a new program; it’s all on video.

    Also, Purvis didn’t break a contract. Scholarships are for one year, renewable after each year while eligibility remains. Purvis received the benefits of a one year scholarship in exchange for one year of participation on the team (practice, conditioning, games, study halls, etc.).

    IMO he should be able to go anywhere he wants to go, including other ACC programs.

  17. Gowolves 04/04/2013 at 11:33 AM #

    First of all non-compete clauses are difficult at best to enforce. Especially in states that have “right to work” laws. Which NC does. Second he fulfilled his contractual obligations. Scholarships are renewable every year.

  18. tjfoose1 04/04/2013 at 11:35 AM #

    “”He signed a “contract” with State and received financial benefits in return. We are well within bounds for providing restrictions when he breaks that “contract.” “”

    I agree with the sentiment, but that doesn’t have it exactly right. The contract is actually 4 (or 5, or sometimes 6) separate one year contracts, so your logic would hold only within the time frame of one of those individual year contracts.

    The bridge from one contract to the next is only binding to the player. The school/coach can decide not to renew the contract after each year.

    In other words, the school can unilaterally cut the player, but the player can not cut the school, not without the school’s approval.

  19. JohnGalt78 04/04/2013 at 11:40 AM #

    In theory, we could say it’s possible that we could eventually schedule any of, say, 300 potential opponents. “Might” schedule is really vague. I like the restriction for league members only. Would not want Purvis to transfer to UN CHeat but could care less about Ohio State, for example.

  20. budfox88 04/04/2013 at 11:40 AM #

    What’s wrong with this site?? I can’t use it anymore for this ANNOYING FLASH PLAYER thing that keeps blowing up my computer…on every page!!! Anyone know how to disable/get rid of. Sorry for the diversion from the conversation, but this is unusable for me now, and I don’t see a help/options/settings area here, and I sent an email to SFN…

  21. tjfoose1 04/04/2013 at 11:40 AM #

    “Sure those clauses exist, but let’s not pretend they affect the average worker. I’ve been working for more than 20 years and have moved jobs several times and never had one.”

    Hold on, let me get a tissue to wipe the tear from my eye.

    The kids are free to NOT accept the scholly and the $10,000’s in education, the $100,000’s in coaching, skill development, athletic and performance training, medical care, room and board, academic support, travel, administrative assistance, etc. No one is holding a gun to their head. They’re free to not go to college, or pay their own way if they wish.

    Most only consider the tuition as the value of the scholly. The “ancillaries” are usually worth much, much more.

    In this particular case, how much did NC State invest just getting the kid declared eligible because he and his camp did not do their due diligence?

    I wish Rodney well, but this BS about the restrictions on his transfer not being fair is exactly that, uninformed BS. He ain’t a helpless puppy living in the land of unicorns and rainbows. Rodney got the better end of this deal, and it’s not even close.

  22. ringo 04/04/2013 at 11:44 AM #

    tau,

    practices, specific plays for specific situations, coaching tendencies and personalities in specific situations are not on video….I’m sorry you don’t understand but Debbie and Gott know best

  23. ringo 04/04/2013 at 11:46 AM #

    tj,

    that’s right! How much would a corporation spend to have unfettered access to coach K for a year? This is what the coaching is worth. Work on down the line to Gott or whoever. The coaching is worth way more than the dadgum classes, especially for these kids. Bilas is an idiot for wanting to pay these guys. Bidding wars are bad enough already.

  24. packalum44 04/04/2013 at 12:00 PM #

    I dislike people like Rodney who outwardly and falsely exhibit good personality traits but are really selfish pricks like the rest of us.

    Harrow’s actions bothered many people. At least he never pretended to be someone he’s not.

  25. tjfoose1 04/04/2013 at 12:00 PM #

    “Purvis received the benefits of a one year scholarship in exchange for one year of participation on the team (practice, conditioning, games, study halls, etc.).”

    Yes, that is true, but NC State invested much much more.

    There is nothing wrong with NC State doing what it can to prohibit its own investment (and associated expended time, energies, and dollars) to be used in efforts to defeat itself.

    Oh, I get it. Let me drive down to the local sporting goods store, on my time, in my car, with gas I purchased, so I can buy a baseball bat. Then drive back, clean the bat, tar it up, tape it up, get it just right… so I can present it to you in a velvet case for you to take it out and beat me with it. Got it.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply