LocoOso;842128921 said:
Agree. Not only can a coach bail on you at any time, coaches/programs literally have all the control while players have none.
Wes Lunt, who started at QB for Oklahoma State last season but was looking like he would not be in the Cowboys future plans as anything more than a back up, decided to transfer. Not only does he have to sit out a year, but Mike Gundy and Okie State blocked him from transferring to 37 schools.
Here's what OU coach Bob Stoops said about Lunt's transfer today...
"It isn't right that they can just do what they want to do," Stoops said. "It isn't good. I don't believe in it."
"Nobody made them sign with me. I didn't force them to, it was what they wanted to do. And because we're limited in what we're allowed per scholarship, it's the right thing to have consequences, otherwise you'd have kids changing their mind every year. It's not right," he said.
So basically a coach can bail on his team at any time for a better gig but kids should honor commitments.
This argument is very shortsighted. I think if you allow players to transfer at any time without a penalty, you'd have players transferring every year, en masse. It would create a mess of college football, which would over time cause fans to be disillusioned. That would cause attendance and ratings to drop, which would mean less money pouring into the schools, which would mean less money for sports. I do think this would eventually ruin college football.
I think the penalty is also fair - it teaches these young guys some discipline and perseverance. That may come off as paternalistic, but college football has always been a bit paternalistic. If a player is really unhappy, he CAN leave. He's not a slave. But there is no constitutional right to play college football whenever or wherever you want. I think it's a good system that keeps the number of transfers from getting out of control but allows players to go if they really consider the consequences.