Some interesting news hit college basketball last week concerning transfers. First, Will Bynum decided to leave Arizona at midseason to enroll at Georgia Tech. Then, the leading scorer in the nation last year, Jason Conley, decided to leave VMI to attend Missouri.

Bynum wanted more minutes, more shots and to play a bigger role. Conley simply wanted to play on a bigger stage, in a major conference, against better players on a daily basis, with a better chance to play in the NCAA Tournament.

	Jason Conley figured he's too talented to stay at VMI.

Bynum was a consensus top-40 prospect coming out of high school and was considered to be a blue-chip recruit. Conley received little attention in high school, and went to VMI because nobody else recruited him. Bynum was a regular at Arizona but was not a starter; he was playing a limited role because he had great talent around him that was more productive. Conley developed rapidly, exploding onto the national scene by scoring 24 points against Kentucky, 25 against Tennessee, 38 against Villanova and ultimately becoming the first freshman to lead the nation in scoring at more than 29 points per game.

In contrast, a New Jersey high school prospect named John Bedford recently sued Davidson College for breach of contract, citing "unlawful, deceitful and dishonest recruiting practices." Bedford claimed that Davidson offered him a scholarship verbally and in writing, without contingencies, he accepted, and the scholarship offer was later revoked because Davidson found a better player. Bedford is now playing at Amherst. Bedford is saying that if Davidson offered him a scholarship and he accepted, Davidson is bound to honor that deal even if Bedford turns out to be a mediocre player, or there is a better player available. A deal is a deal.

Well, what is the obligation of a player to the college or university that recruits him? What obligation does Conley have to VMI, the best school to offer him a scholarship? What duty does Bynum owe to Arizona, who made a commitment to him? Currently, transfers are a one-way street, and the coaches are getting run over.

Bynum's transfer affects Arizona, but the Wildcats, with all of their talent, will absorb his loss. If others were to leave via transfer, or for the NBA, it would have a greater negative impact. What could head coach Lute Olson do to placate Bynum? He runs a system where the best players play and playing time is earned, not given. Bynum knew that, and he did not compete at a high enough level to earn that time. Olson is not stupid. If Bynum was better, giving Olson and Arizona a better chance to win, he would have been out on the floor more.

Conley's transfer, meanwhile, cripples VMI. Conley was relied upon heavily by the Keydets, and Bart Bellairs does not have a 6-foot-5 McDonald's All-America on his bench to start in place of Conley. Exactly what did Bellairs do wrong? He happily let Conley take 22 shots per game, be the focal point in the offense, and only took him out if Conley received his fifth foul. Bellairs' only sin, it would appear, was that he helped develop a player to a level beyond that of his commitment.

The situations are similar in that neither Olson nor Bellairs can replace the departed players because of something called the 5/8 Rule. It may be the silliest rule in college basketball recruiting today.

Right now, college coaches are hamstrung in recruiting by the 5/8 Rule, which limits schools to signing no more than five prospects in a given year, and no more than eight prospects over a two-year period. With a scholarship limit of just 13 in men's college basketball, as compared to a 15 scholarship limit on the women's side, men's coaches are in a serious personnel bind if players leave the program for the NBA or to transfer to another school.

The 5/8 Rule was implemented to keep coaches from "running off" players, essentially forcing them to leave the program voluntarily by making their lives miserable. While that may have been a factor in the old days, especially in football, it is no longer common practice. In fact, it is rare.

A scholarship is simply a one-year, renewable grant to a student-athlete, and can be revoked by the school after each season. In the vast majority of cases, a scholarship offer is honored for four years or longer, and there are no problems whatsoever. If there were, coaches and institutions would have sullied reputations for mistreating players. In addition, the 5/8 Rule was intended as a disincentive for coaches in recruiting players who looked like they would leave early and an incentive for coaches to recruit more four-year players.

With the 5/8 Rule, coaches have no way to replace a player who transfers or leaves early. It also limits coaches' abilities to welcome a transfer to their teams because they have no room.

A few years ago, Olson recruited a player to Tucson who was expected to be a sleeper who would perhaps, over the course of a few seasons, develop into a fine player. His name was Gilbert Arenas, and he was not highly regarded or highly recruited out of high school. Yet he blossomed quickly and left Arizona early for the NBA. Olson could not replace him without violating the 5/8 Rule.

Schools such as Arizona, Duke and North Carolina are able to survive the difficulties of the 5/8 Rule because they "select" players more than they "recruit" from a large pool of players. The trick is for the big boys to select wisely and get the best of the best.

But in the case of schools such as Davidson, they cannot be as selective. They have to cast a wider net in landing prospects. Davidson must, by necessity, recruit a greater number of players than the big-name schools. As a result, the players they recruit are not always honest with them about where they stand in the process. If Bedford had indeed accepted the scholarship offer, then had an incredible senior season and drew the attention of Duke or North Carolina, are we to believe that he would not have left Davidson hanging to dry while he packed his bags for the ACC and Dickie V?

	“	Restricting player movement is a bad idea. So is punishing the school he leaves. If a kid leaves, the school he leaves should be able to replace him as long as the school does not exceed the scholarship limits. Who cares if Arizona brings in six players in one year, or 10 over a two-year period, if Lute Olson does not give out more than 13 scholarships? ”
		— Jay Bilas

By no means is this to say Conley and Bynum are bad kids, or that by transferring they are making bad decisions. I do not believe Bedford is a bad kid, either, and I know the people at Davidson are good people. Everybody is simply doing what is in their best interest under the rules in place. I believe it is acceptable for a player to transfer if he feels it is in his best interests. I am all for the ability of players, within reason, to move freely within the system. If a player is unhappy and wants to leave for another opportunity, that is fine with me.

There are already rules in place to discourage such transfers, and to ensure competitive balance. If a player transfers from one Division I school to another, he must sit out one year before he is again eligible, and sometimes two years if the player transfers within a certain conference.

Restricting player movement is a bad idea. So is punishing the school he leaves. If a kid leaves, the school he leaves should be able to replace him as long as the school does not exceed the scholarship limits. Who cares if Arizona brings in six players in one year, or 10 over a two-year period, if Olson does not give out more than 13 scholarships?

Here is what the NCAA should do: Increase the scholarship limit to 15, as it used to be, and as the women have it now. Get rid of the ridiculous 5/8 Rule, and let common sense back into the process. Allow coaches to field competitive teams when players leave for whatever reason, and if there is abuse of the system in isolated cases, deal with the isolated cases of abuse without hamstringing every school in the system.

The NCAA should also let the coaches have greater access to high school kids. College coaches are restricted from speaking to and interacting with recruits during certain periods, and this restricts their ability to get to know the kids they are recruiting, and vice versa. If lines of communication are more open, there is less likelihood of miscommunication or dishonesty. Why do we restrict access of the college coaches, but pro people and agents have unfettered access?

Perhaps most importantly, everyone must be honest in the process. While players don't want to hear it and only accept it reluctantly, they need to be told where they stand in the recruiting process. Most players see themselves as better than they are and accept the idea of a scholarship from a place like VMI only after it hits home that nobody else is recruiting them. Similarly, most players want to believe that they are a school's top priority in recruiting. Coaches need to tell each player the truth, even if it might cost them that recruit. By the same token, players and their families need to be honest with coaches, and if the coach's school is the third choice, that coach should be told that so that he can prioritize his recruiting.

Lastly, if players want a four-year commitment, they had better be prepared to give a four-year commitment. But circumstances change, and it is not practical for either party to be compelled to do so. As for the lawsuit, Davidson and Bedford should settle the case out of court and everyone should learn from it. If he was indeed offered a scholarship and accepted it, even though he did not sign a letter of intent, pay the kid the equivalent of one year of Davidson's tuition, room, board and books. And Bedford should understand that this is a competitive situation, that he was not as good as he thought or as Davidson hoped, and if he had gone to Davidson, he could have been dismissed after one season.

College basketball is a great thing, but its not little league where everyone gets to play three innings. It is competition, pure and simple.

Bilas Bits