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. poorfarmer 04/04/2013 at 12:08 PM #

    I’m not smart enough to figure who’s right or wrong on this subject, but i do know that the easier you make it for the player to transfer the more posts like this one were going to be arguing about. If it wasn’t difficult to transfer these kids would want out every time the coach yells at them or they think their not getting enough playing time!

  2. maverick_ncsu 04/04/2013 at 12:17 PM #

    About the one-year contracts…That may technically be true, but no one understands them to actually be multiple one-year contracts, not the school and not the NCAA. Name some real examples of schools cutting players that are on scholarship for something other than getting in trouble or academics. It doesn’t happen. A player basically has a 4-yr scholarship with the school when they come. The NCAA views them the same or they wouldn’t require the player to sit out a year when they transfer. We can discuss whether the NCAA should have that in place or not, but they do because they view it as a contract between the player and the school as well as they don’t want to see more kids jumping from school to school just on a whim. It helps protect schools from poaching players.

    Therefore, I’m fine with NC State limiting where Purvis can play, especially after the financial investment we’ve put into him, from recruiting on. Like it or not, it’s business.

  3. vtpackfan 04/04/2013 at 12:37 PM #

    I said it once and I stand by it.

    If a HS student gets a full or partial academic ride and they accept-honky dory.

    Said student, if they decide to transfer, would not be offered a lucrative deal. It’s one shot only.

    Sooo… the NCAA should mandate with the first L.O.I., or a JuCo transfer, be eligible for financial assistance.

    If you transfer-start filling out your FAFSA, plain and simple. It’s time to wipe the slate clean that because Football and Basketball are billion dollar revenue sports that the Student Athletes participating need special treatment, or a shoulder to cry on if they feel “used”. You are in College. Grow up, that’s the point.

  4. tjfoose1 04/04/2013 at 12:42 PM #

    “Name some real examples of schools cutting players that are on scholarship for something other than getting in trouble or academics. It doesn’t happen.”

    Actually, it does.

    Look no further than u*nc under Butch Davis.

  5. Pacobee 04/04/2013 at 12:43 PM #

    So…he could transfer to Duke or UNC? They weren’t in the list. Just curious.

  6. haze 04/04/2013 at 12:45 PM #

    Reasonable to deny transfer with conference or to perrennial OOC opponent (e.g. Iowa-IowaSt) but beyond that is a bit much.

    Thought that some conferences prevent this by requiring a 2yr sit for w/i conf transfers? Is that football only?

    As to non-competes, they are common in MANY technical industries and affect MANY engineers & scientists (call that “average” if you wish). They are generally tied to the particulars of severence agreements. The departing worker receives a financial benefit IN RETURN for agreeing to not work for a competing company for a defined time period.

  7. Rochester 04/04/2013 at 12:59 PM #

    Be honest. Most people who are in favor of the restriction seem to only want to punish a kid for leaving. For changing his mind. For realizing he didn’t fit as he had hoped.

    Missouri or Cincinnati or any other school would not be wooing him so they could learn to pick apart our offense (or our defense, which they probably wouldn’t be all that concerned with). They want him for the same reason we wanted him, his natural talent.

    I’m fine with making players sit out a year. Without that, there would be an insane amount of transfers. But aside from conference schools, to me this seems excessive.

  8. ringo 04/04/2013 at 1:06 PM #

    I know it sounds “cute” to “you people”, but these guys are NOT kids. I get sick of that. Enough mollycoddling. Damn.

  9. Alpha Wolf 04/04/2013 at 1:09 PM #

    I’m pretty sure that the ACC schools are on that list of schools, but there’s also the matter of the conference rule of a two-year wait (instead of one) if that were to happen.

  10. Rochester 04/04/2013 at 1:10 PM #

    I know it sounds “cute” to “you people”, but these guys are NOT kids. I get sick of that. Enough mollycoddling. Damn.

    Maybe we should just kill them. That would teach them to change their minds.

  11. ringo 04/04/2013 at 1:15 PM #

    Rochester, that’s a nice sturdy strawman, congrats! It’s not about teaching, pampering, tough love, or whatever. Its about winning freaking basketball games, get over it.

  12. Tau837 04/04/2013 at 1:16 PM #

    Rochester said: “Missouri or Cincinnati or any other school would not be wooing him so they could learn to pick apart our offense (or our defense, which they probably wouldn’t be all that concerned with). They want him for the same reason we wanted him, his natural talent.”

    Exactly. And that’s exactly why ringo’s non-compete clause analogy doesn’t fit. ringo, sorry if you don’t understand.

  13. Tau837 04/04/2013 at 1:25 PM #

    foose said: “NC State invested much much more.”

    Agree. But State also got more out of Purvis than just his participation in practice, games, etc. State got a lot of national exposure in part due to Purvis being a highly ranked player who committed to State. And, while it may not be possible to put a number on it, State very likely made more money due in part to Purvis’s play and that national exposure.

    Was it enough to cover State’s investment in Purvis? I don’t know, but I’d be surprised if anyone here knows for sure.

  14. vtpackfan 04/04/2013 at 1:39 PM #

    But I thought Florida Gulf Credit Union or Georgia State were his probable destinations-so what does it matter 😉

    Besides, it wouldn’t take a genius on the Pack Pride Momkey Board to provide evidence that Mizzou Assistant Coach Fuller has gone past tampering and into trampling. By putting Cincy on the list it just disguises the fact we know it and are just spinning it to look harmless.

    Wait, Haith is the HC of Mizzou. He is so ethical that this couldn’t possibly be going on under his watch.

    DY and the AD know exactly what the score is and how to go about the business. She is no dummy and I dare the media and other wussies to escalate this.

  15. Rochester 04/04/2013 at 1:40 PM #

    Given that the football and basketball programs make enough money to pay for all of the rest of the athletic programs, it’s fair to say these kids are making money for the school, not losing it.

    Seems like some people take it personally when a kid transfers. Imagine it was your son and for whatever reason he picked a school that didn’t turn out to be a good fit. I’m sure you’d think it served him right at that point if the coach restricted him to transferring only to schools in North Dakota or Alaska, and even then he should feel lucky they didn’t cut his hand off on the way out.

  16. ringo 04/04/2013 at 1:47 PM #

    Kids Rochester? Are marines kids? You think Gottfried says, “Ok boys, huddle up.” Or, “Ok men, huddle up.”

  17. ringo 04/04/2013 at 1:49 PM #

    Tau, we have to play the teams he was banned from. That is not up for debate.

  18. newt 04/04/2013 at 1:52 PM #

    I thought scholarships were year to year. If that’s the case then what the kid does next year should be beyond the school’s ability to influence. But if we can limit transfer options, I think we should do so because the guiding principle is to do whatever we can to the benefit of NC State competitiveness.

  19. Virginia Wolf 04/04/2013 at 1:56 PM #

    I understand the reasons for and against these restrictions but personnally, I’ve alwas felt that it is a tremendous privilege to be a Wolfpacker! If coaches, players or other employees don’t want to be here, then let them go where ever they want, when ever they want. Wolfpackers should hold their heads high and anyone that doesn’t want to be a part of what being a Wolfpacker means, then good riddance! Go Pack!!!

  20. Tau837 04/04/2013 at 2:05 PM #

    “Tau, we have to play the teams he was banned from. That is not up for debate.”

    1. So? I don’t personally see the fact that we will play a given team in the future as a reason to block his transfer. And, if that is reason enough to block a potential transfer, why aren’t there more teams precluded? Surely we know about more future opponents than just ACC teams, Cincy, and Missouri.

    2. When are we playing Missouri? I’m not aware that is actually scheduled. vtpackfan seems to be saying above that Missouri tampered with Purvis, which is the reason we are blocking them. In that case, it has nothing to do with playing them in the future.

    3. I agree with blocking a transfer to any program that tampered with our players. That’s the only reason I see as valid.

  21. Rochester 04/04/2013 at 2:05 PM #

    Marines? Ringo, you’ve jumped the tracks, man. Bring back Pete Best.

  22. ringo 04/04/2013 at 2:16 PM #

    There is a razor thin margin for wins and losses. Any advantage could be just like a missed free throw. You have to minimize advantages for your opponent. If it didn’t matter, they would not block the move.

    These aren’t children dude, and specifically they aren’t yours. No need to protect these poor little lost sheep.

  23. Tau837 04/04/2013 at 2:26 PM #

    ^Then why is State not blocking every team known to be on the schedule for the next four seasons?

  24. PackerInRussia 04/04/2013 at 2:28 PM #

    ^^ Agree. It might sound petty to not let a grown man of consenting age transfer to a school just b/c you’re playing them one time in the future, but think of how important games like that (games against high-profile opponents) are in the scheme of RPI, NCAAT seeding, etc. It’s a question of giving an advantage to an opponent that you really need to beat. What kind of advantage? Maybe some “insider” knowledge, sure. But, what about the fact that you’re giving them a pretty good player, too?

    ^Tau, I’d guess you only need to watch out for the bigger OOC opponents.

  25. ringo 04/04/2013 at 2:35 PM #

    Because they see fit to only block what they did. The risk minimizes with different opponents and time or whatever reason. They don’t have to release him to ANY school. You are wrong to think there are no reasons for this. We are trying to spell it out for you. It’s not a fairy tale. Why can’t you get it?

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply