[Stardust]

Let me take a different stab at this.

Let's take a college Basketball player who signs in the NBA. If a player is drafted and signed, he is guarenteed for 3 years. That means should he get hurt and never play again, he is guarenteed a salary for 3 years. Conversely, he is bound to that team for three years and has no options to leave that team during the terms of that initial contract. He may be a low 2nd round draft choice and turn into a mega star and be way under paid in comparison to 1st round lottery pick who turns into a bust. Look at Gilbert Arenas and Manu Ginobli as examples of players who had no rights after they signed their rookie contract, but they were Guranteed three years of salary.

Let's take a college basketball player on scholarship. A scholarship is for one year. Many people don't quite get this one. When an athlete accepts a scholarship, he accepts and is bound by a one year contract. It is renewable each year, and though it is rarely revoked, it does happen where a school will not renew the scholarship the following year. That player is bound by that scholarship for one year only. At the end of that year, he technically is a free agent and can leave to go to another school (rules prevent him from immediately playing), or he can enter the NBA draft.

So, for me, I have no problems at all if a player decides to leave after one year. The school is only committed to him for one year, so why should the player be committed for anything longer? If you want players to be bound to a school and the $40-50,000 per year that a scholarship gives to a D1 athlete, then make the schools commit longer to the player. If schools were forced to guarentee an education to the athlete, then I have no problems with athletes being forced to stay at the school. If the schools are not willing to guarentee the education, then let the player leave.

That's my take.