But, I still believe that uniform rules, that are reasonable, and that are actually enforced with teeth, would be a benefit to the sport as well. A boy can dream.
I know you already know this, but "benefit to the sport" is 100% subjective.
A more succinct way for me to put it is...more beneficial to you or more beneficial to the athlete who's directly affected? And you can't suggest "better for the institution" because the institution is the athletes themselves. Any other illusion of the institution being bigger than the athletes falls apart because then you're back to the guy sitting on his couch with no stake in the matter.
Ask an athlete if allowing immediate transfers would be beneficial to the sport and I guarantee you his answer would be different than a rabid traditionalist football fan who's about to lose his team's star QB.
Philosophically, is it better to do things that improve an athlete's chance at wealth/opportunity the same as any other career where labor is traded for compensation (we don't need to be obtuse and say these athletes are doing this for amateur recreation), or better to satisfy the whims of an unaffected non-stakeholder sitting on his couch, who has zero relationship with or tie to said athlete? See how that makes no sense?
We say we'd be affected even if it's very indirectly, but be truthful...if an athlete at your favorite school is allowed an immediate transfer and leaves, and your team goes 2-9 the next year...are you actually affected other than your pride? The answer is no. You have a choice to buy tickets, TV subscriptions, and hoodies. Is the athlete directly affected by the same rule? Yep.
But the NFL has rules and regs you say, right? And it's the most popular and lucrative sport in America. You're correct. But players have representation and through collective bargaining have agreed to a system that makes it's best players worth nine figures. There is no such system in college football. I argue that such a system would be impossible to implement because it's best players are in the system 3 years tops, and usually 1 of those years is on the sidelines as a redshirt freshman. Do you imagine an 18 year old college redshirt freshman trying desperately to stay uninjured and make a starting spot on his team to be a savvy negotiator, and do you expect that demographic to get good counsel in those matters when they have no money to pay for it? And what incentive does an intelligent, driven college senior player have to advocate for his forthcoming peers when he's about to go make millions in the NFL/NBA anyway?
At the end of the day we are all just men and women who like to watch kids play a bouncy ball game wearing a certain color jersey that we grew up liking. There is no moral ground where we should have a say in what they do when no public money is involved. We try to invent that moral ground to stand on because we have this idyllic apple pie version of the way things "should be."
I respect someone who says, "I want college sports to be regulated because that's the way I like it, dammit," a million times more than someone who tries to come up with 100 different cockamamie legal reasons why it should, which is what we see on social media and TV today. At least the former is honest about it.
We all know deep down why we want college sports regulated to the hilt. And it ain't because of what's best for athletes.
hawkeyeswire.usatoday.com
