(02-06-2018 03:28 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  What I find a bit unsettling is that everywhere I've seen, the discussion seems focused more on how the rule would impact fans' enjoyment of the sport. If you want to make the case that this hurts college basketball, then certainly that's fine (I disagree; I think this is a reasonable concession to allow student-athletes the same flexibility to move on as the coaches who recruited them). But "I don't like it because it hurts my team" or "I don't want to watch basketball where players can transfer like that" seems an awfully myopic and shallow argument.

While I appreciate that the athletes should be as free to move as their coaches, that in itself misses the mark. The athletes should be free to move because all other "students" are free to do so. If they are to be bound to the school then grant in aids need to be replaced with contracts and they need to be employees.

All scholarships should be for 1 year and renewable. That way the kids have their freedom, the coaches can easily deal with problems, and eligibility ought to be tied to 4 years of play. The redshirt is fine if the school wishes to count that as a hardship year.

If you want a more level playing field in terms of competition this would do it.