My reading comprehension is fine. That's why I never read the daily Nebraskan in my days at unl. Chose to actually read a newspaper.
Going back to your original point, you said players should have the same flexibility as the coach.
A player has actually more flexibility because, most transfer after year 1 or 2 (I'm guessing) unless a grad transfer, after they figure out it's not the right fit or realizing they're getting passed by. They can transfer.
Coaches in year 1-2 probably have a pretty hefty buyout that makes leaving unattractive to their potential new gig.
That's the point I was making.
As far as$$, college athletes on scholarship have a pretty sweet deal compared to the rank and file Joe blow student. They're not getting zilch and when they leave sometime it hurts the university, sometimes it is better to sever the ties.
College athletes are never going to get paid what coaches do. Thanks Mr obvious.
Coaches can coach for as long as they want or as long as a program will have them. Football players have 4 years of collegiate eligibility.
Can you please enlighten us all on coaches who weren't pursued because the buyout was too hefty? Because, in football, I don't recall ever once hearing this as an excuse not to coax a guy out of a contract into a situation that's at bare minimum better for his bank account, if not a better place to coach on the whole.
Athletes are punished by being forced to forfeit 25% of their eligibility, which they can never recover, if they do the unthinkable and choose to transfer.
As for cash, you brought up buyouts, not me. I also have never heard of a school going bankrupt for firing coaches/having them leave before their term is up. Nor have I heard of material damages suffered due to a player leaving (LMAO).
If your point is really that players have more flexibility than coaches/admins, it's a terrible one. It's cute you tried, though. Thanks for playing.
