{"id":1976,"date":"2016-04-18T19:55:57","date_gmt":"2016-04-18T23:55:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sullyonsports.com\/?p=1976"},"modified":"2019-06-26T16:50:59","modified_gmt":"2019-06-26T20:50:59","slug":"the-big-problem-with-chris-beards-great-escape-from-unlv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sullyonsports.com\/?p=1976","title":{"rendered":"The Big Problem with Chris Beard’s Great Escape From UNLV"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Photo
Photo Credit: David Zalubowski\/Associated Press<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Scenario A: You are the coach at Arkansas Little-Rock University. You’ve just been offered the same position at UNLV, a school that would be willing to pay more than double your current salary. \u00a0You decide to stay in Vegas for at least one full year, hoping to attain success and land your dream job with a bigger, more prestigious school.<\/p>\n

Scenario B: Scenario B is the same as Scenario A, except that your dream job, the opportunity to coach at Texas Tech, opens up three weeks later and you jump at the chance.<\/p>\n

Scenario B came to fruition last week for Chris Beard. \u00a0After just one season in Little Rock, he accepted the newly-vacated job at Texas Tech after Tubby Smith left Lubbock for Memphis’ vacancy. \u00a0On the surface, the move would seem unethical: why would a coach defy his commitment to a team and its players in order to flee both for greener pastures less than a month later? \u00a0Should we redirect our outrage from Beard to the NCAA’s flawed system that allowed him to leave in the first place?<\/p>\n

Both questions have answers, but one is much clearer than the other.<\/p>\n

As for the first question: Beard left UNLV for Texas Tech because he clearly valued the latter job more than the former. \u00a0That happens all the time in the real world, regardless of tenure. \u00a0It’s called the free market, and it allows you to take the job you feel is the best for you, your family, and your reputation. \u00a0Cool, right?<\/p>\n

But the second question raises a much bigger, more complicated problem. \u00a0How can the NCAA set up a system that allows players and coaches to capitalize on the free market? \u00a0Is that possible? \u00a0Would the NCAA even enact\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0legislation\u00a0<\/em>to benefit its players?<\/p>\n

As you can tell, I have no issue with what Chris Beard did. \u00a0If you were in his position, you would probably do the exact same thing. You’re getting the chance to prove yourself as a big-time coach in college basketball after just one season in Division I. \u00a0If you wouldn’t do the same thing, you either love UNLV or are frightened at the prospect of being a young head coach at a major-conference school. \u00a0If that prospect scares you, there’s no way you would have been a Division I head coach in the first place.<\/p>\n

But here’s the problem: many players would like the opportunity to do the same thing. \u00a0Frankly, it’s hard to blame them.<\/p>\n

Last month, Michigan players Spike Albrecht (a fifth-year graduate student) and Ricky Doyle (a sophomore) expressed their desire to transfer out of the school and play elsewhere. \u00a0Albrecht will have graduated by the time next season comes; therefore, at least he can transfer and play right away for whichever school he wants, right? Not completely.<\/p>\n

As the transfer rules of the Big Ten state, a player who transfers from one Big ten school to another will be subject to sitting out a full year. Also, a head coach is allowed to restrict a player from transferring to certain schools; Michigan coach John Beilein wanted to prevent Albrecht and Doyle from leaving for schools that the Wolverines would play in their conference schedule. \u00a0Because Beilein did not want to face either of his former players twice next year, he blocked both Albrecht and Doyle from transferring to Big Ten schools.<\/p>\n

However, after a public backlash in support of the two players and against Beilein, the transfer restrictions on both student-athletes\u00a0were lifted<\/a>. \u00a0It was the definition of a backfire directly in the face of the Michigan coach. \u00a0The sad part? \u00a0This isn’t the first time that a coach has blocked a player from transferring to certain schools.<\/p>\n

In 2012, Jarrod Uthoff was looking to leave Wisconsin after not seeing playing time in his freshman season. \u00a0He asked for a release from the program in April of that year; then-head coach Bo Ryan’s response to this request was to block him from enrolling at 26 different schools<\/a>, including\u00a0every single Big Ten institution<\/em>. \u00a0Ryan would later allow Uthoff to enroll at out-of-conference schools but kept his restriction on Big Ten schools. \u00a0Uthoff would stay in the conference by enrolling at Iowa and paying his own way at the university for the 2012-13 academic year.<\/p>\n

If Ryan had not tried to brazenly protect his and his school’s own interests, Uthoff would have been subject to the NCAA’s undergraduate transfer rules. \u00a0These restrictions force a player to sit out a full season before playing for his or her new school; the catch is that the player can receive an athletic scholarship after sitting out that season.<\/p>\n

Uthoff received that scholarship after sitting out the 2012-13 season, and the decision to leave Madison worked out for him. \u00a0He became one of the best players in college basketball and even garnered Player of the Year attention for most of last\u00a0year before a late-season drop-off.<\/p>\n

This is the main argument here: if coaches can move from destination to destination within the span of three weeks, why can’t some players jump ship after attending a university, in some cases, for four years? Also, why should players have to stay at a university after the coach they signed on to play for leaves for a better job? \u00a0And why should players be subject to sitting out a full season when they are not being compensated for their services, services that have earned the NCAA nearly $1 billion<\/a>\u00a0in revenue in years past?<\/p>\n

There aren’t valid answers to these questions that still allow the NCAA to keep its amateurism model. \u00a0The only way coaches should be allowed to bar transfers from attending certain schools is if the players are compensated. \u00a0That way, they can co-sign to a legitimate agreement that allows their superiors to refuse their transfer aspirations. \u00a0Without such agreement and compensation, what legitimate right do coaches and athletic directors have to dictate where their players go after they’re done with their former university?<\/p>\n

And why can’t college athletes capitalize on the same free market that Chris Beard and other coaches\u00a0have used to their advantage?<\/p>\n

Because the NCAA won’t let them.<\/p>\n