Correct-contracts with the school(s) is so far off the real world reality why even bring it up? The conversation was on what's wrongheaded about the attempt to limit their movement (and indirectly their income).
The players being on 1 year agreements with schools/NIL was referred to as "ridiculous". My question is why it's ridiculous for anyone, in any profession to have the freedom to change jobs as often as they like unless they have agreed to participate in a CBA and movement is restricted?
I'm not going to speak for Captain Buckeye. Was he the one who originally brought it up? I don't recall. But I'd say that I mentioned it because there seems (to me, at least) that there should be a correlation between pro sports, and college sports where players are getting paid. The pros aren't free to move from job to job. So why should the college players be free to move from school to school?
But I think I agree with Jaxbuck - we can't limit the movement because of the fact that they are still labeled as "students". And even though fans don't care about the student part of the "student athlete", it's still there. It will always be there. And I think it should be there. The only way to get rid of it is to take the "student athlete" away from the school. Start a minor league system. I mean, don't do that because I love college football. But I think that's the only way you can restrict the kids from moving from one school to another. Sure - we all know that they're switching for playing time, to play under a new coach, to win championships, or a dozen other reasons that are sports-related and not college-related. But under the guise of academics, we cannot restrict it.
To answer your last question, though, I mean, if contracts are on the table (again, I don't see how they can be on the table), we should be able to hold the athletes to their end of the bargain. Shedeur isn't really free to go play for the Lions, until the Browns show him the door. Or am I not understanding the question?
