valleychamp wrote:Irreleveant? Its completely relevent, as it totally changes the dynamic of the situation. Creighton would be doing it after the fact. Doug had already been on scholarship for two seasons, and they are taking it away just to pull in a high profile transfer. Its the fact that he would be doing this after the fact that I have a problem with. If he had chosen to do it from the beginning, fine. If he had done it to give another player already on the roster a scholarship, fine. But in this situation, he is literally buying another (good) player. To put it any other way is just semantic spin.
Its you that is letting your bias get in the way of the reality of what he is doing. Is it technically "illegal", no. But it is, in my opinion, most certainly "toeing the ethical line".
Honestly, I don't see what the difference is as to whether he did it Doug's freshman year or starts doing it now. I also don't see how it changes the "ethics" of the scenario. As you properly pointed out, it doesn't violate a single rule. As far as ethics, I'd say it is much more ethical to pay tuition for your son than to take a scholarship away from a player that is not your kid and tell that kid he now has to pay tuition (whether the kid is on board with it or not). (And no, I don't believe the whole idea was Pehl's...I suspect a coach or assistant probably placed the bug in his ear...)
As to the financial aspect of the deal, that is really between the McDermott's and Creighton. If CU doesn't mind supply Doug with a scholarship instead of making daddy pay tuition, I don't know why it is anybody else's concern.