Under contract with employment attached. Not under contract for an education only. For what you are saying to make more sense the athletes that are “under contract” should be allowed to pursue all options to make sure they are getting the best chance at post college employment for what their contract is for (Playing a sport).[/quote]
A dentist could choose not to join the military to fulfill their agreed upon obligation, but there would be consequences. Employment in the military isn’t the goal for someone in that situation, it’s a means to get your expensive education paid for by another entity.
Do you consider people with academic grants or scholarships to be “under contract”? I know it’s parsing terms but if they don’t live up to their obligations there are consequences (the revocation of the scholarship or reimbursement of the grant). The consequence for the athlete is they sit out a year. That’s not at all unreasonable considering the strings attached to other forms of financial aid in higher education.
Also they can leave to obtain post college employment without any ramifications, it’s just that for the stability of the system they have to wait a year to attend a comparable university.
Now that being said it is a travesty how coaches lie and mislead athletes and jump at the first available “better” opportunity. It is unfair that they can while the athletes can not. Doing away with the transfer rule though could lead to an even worse deception. Every player on every team could be continually recruited by third party middlemen (since it will be illegal to have official contact). I don’t think that is good for the game, university, coaches, or the athletes.