The rules are not always made by the individual schools. They are made by the NCAA, which is the body that governs the good of the game. It's not just about the good of a single player or the good of a single school, it's about the good of the organization as a whole to function according to rules which make the functionality of the whole possible. The reason student athletes are restricted from transferring is not because University X owns them, but because the system would not be orderly if it were a free for all. There is no necessity that players sign up for D1 football, but if they do then they also sign up for the rules that make D1 football able to exist. It's as simple as that. Now, that doesn't mean we can't make better rules that help more people more of the time, but your rhetoric about individuality and indentured servitude is so far from reality that it's impossible to have a constructive conversation. Unless and until the NCAA implements forced conscription, there is no point talking about servitude.
I respect your opinion. And I agree - the rules are set up for the good of the people who make the rules. And I agree that the rules do make it easier for schools to dispose of coaches and other staff with much more ease.
And yes, I do employ hyperbole. Guilty as charged. :cool2:
But here's the thing- I can't help but wonder why it is that an athlete in ANY other sport for which a professional league exists, is not forced to attend college, or at least not forced to attend college for three years? I don't think it's destroyed college golf or tennis or hockey or soccer or baseball or basketball. Tiger Woods still went to college and played for his college team - because he WANTED to go to college. Koby Bryant and LeBron James DIDN'T want to go to college. Last time I checked, we still have college golf and basketball teams.
My point being - if a college golfer thinks he has the skill to play professionally, and his college coach leaves for a better job - he/she has an option: They can stay put and hope things work out with the new coach, they can transfer and sit out of their chosen sport for a year - or they can go pro the next day. To one degree or another, the same is true for athletes in every other college sport for which a professional league exists.
But not for football players. What option does the football player have?
Sure, he can go play lower division ball. And yes, sometimes lower division players get drafted or otherwise get on NFL rosters. But realistically it can have a Significant impact on his Draft prospects. He can't go into the NFL Developmental league - because no such league exists. And he can't simply put his name of the "Draft Eligible" List - unless he's served his full Three Year "sentence".
We don't do that to an Accounting major who wants to change schools (a lot of them are on scholarships) - But they don't have to go to a Div-II school to pursue their Accounting degree. If a kid is majoring in Engineering (and a lot of them are on scholarships, too) and wants to transfer, we don't prevent him from taking Engineering classes for a full year.
So what's the huge difference with football players?
Is it just because P-5 schools make Tens of Millions of Dollars off these guys?
Colin Peek is the perfect example. Why should he be penalized because of a coaching change?
I'm not promoting full-on, wide-open "free agency". All I'm saying is - if the guy has no reasonable alternative, why does he have to be tied to a school, or get penalized a year?
Coaches, AD's and even College Presidents are hired and fired, retire, or take better jobs all the time. Trainers, dieticians, analysts, managers - none (or nearly none) of them are held to a single school IF they really want to move.
I understand the rules, and I understand why they exist, and I RESPECT that many people LIKE the current rules. I'm just respectfully disagreeing. That's all.