- Jun 14, 2014
- 25,397
- 29,513
Founding Member
Understood, but the work included on the field extends outside of the classroom and includes facilities/support as well. This isn't as simple as saying "come play with us for a year and we'll pay for your class". The vast majority of student-athletes will not sniff the next level. If you give the student the opportunity to ditch each year without consequence, shouldn't the school be allowed to do the same (pull scholly without reprisal)? And in that case I think the chaos that would ensue would potentially dilute the product on the field and destabilize funding and administration of athletic departments. Players have a talent that provides an opportunity to earn an education to include living and training expenses provided by the institution. This should be treated as a contract and the contract broken only if the terms (which should include good-faith maintenance of the state of the system and work put in by the student in terms of grades/qualification to attend) are broken.
Sounds sound, but what's that contract with UK's "one & dones"? What great harm has that done the school, as we see the trend spread? It's a bit confusing.
In this case with Ole Miss, the school fired the HC with "cause" plus their program was found infused with contract breeches that set off NCAA severe sanctions. In such a case, Ole Miss & the NCAA should just stand back and let "trapped" players pursue their happiness.