I believe what Brian meant was in a regulated environment (which means there is a collectively bargained contract between schools and a players union) the two sides would create a system which allows for one free transfer before there is a sanction against a player for transferring multiple times to reduce movement.

Due to the relatively short length of college careers this would seem advisable as it benefits programs and school culture and players' academic pursuits while still allowing for greater roster control and the opportunity for players to make a significant pay day upgrade during their short careers, should they choose.

I don't think there's a legal issue as long as you admit players are employees and put them under contract (yes the NCAA will fight that notion of employee status).  There are various legal tools like non-compete agreements that could be used as well.  Yes I know that non-competes are taking a general beating right now (and probably rightfully so), but hitting regular office drones and line cooks with non-competes isn't the same as an All-Conference caliber football player.

I don't know if regulating behavior of this sort ever works for the better.  We're not talking about crimes here; we're talking about simple self-interest.  Brian doesn't like the optics, but he's really just bitching about the world we all live in now.

That said, while I wouldn't try to throw regs at a portal frequent flyer, I think it's long past time we drop the "happy trails" bullshit and call a spade a spade:  if you're transferring multiple times for more PT, you're a coward.  Seriously.  You're in competitive sports and the first thing you do when the coach starts someone else is to run away from competition?

Let's not have the NCAA -- a embarrassingly incompetent institution -- try to implement a fix here.  But can we at least throw tomatoes at fragile snowflakes who transfer more times than they have years of eligibility?  I ain't rooting for a player whose first reaction to adversity is to leave town.  After all, a guy who soils his pants next to a teammate probably lacks the requisite mental toughness to face a powerhouse opponent.

Where do you go to watch amateur sports going forward? Back to HS?

I want to know more about the timing of that conversation between Junior Colson and Jesse Minter. I did not like how Michigan handled Jim Harbaugh's departure. I can accept that Harbaugh was determined to leave for the NFL. But from my perspective, Michigan did not try to make that decision as hard as possible for Harbaugh. Weeks passed with quibbling about salary, bonus pools, NIL support, and the effects of a hypothetical NCAA suspension only for an unqualified offer to materialize at five minutes to midnight. It feels like Michigan negotiated Harbaugh into leaving for the NFL and only made its last offer as a way to save face.

But if Minter was telling Colson that he was going to join Harbaugh in the NFL in January, that completely changes my perspective. I would redirect my frustration from Michigan to Harbaugh. The tables will have turned; Harbaugh, not Michigan, was stringing everyone along by pretending to entertain contract offers. Plans can change and the right NFL offer might not have materialized, but Harbaugh could have told Michigan that he intended to leave. That could have given Michigan time to start its hiring process and avoid the "will he or won't he" stall that interrupted any post-championship recruiting momentum.

I think that's a moot question, at least as far as Michigan goes.  In every case I've seen, a walk-on that gets significant playing time gets awarded a scholarship, and anyone who doesn't, doesn't go to the NFL.

I think it's way to early to say something like this. JJ might be good, he might not be. Goff is mediocre, but mediocre still outs him above 15 other NFL starters 

Title IX is a red herring, and a particularly odious one at that, because a lot of bad people are extremely eager to get rid of it.  Not saying you are, I'm just saying, be skeptical of vocal opinions about Title IX when they say, "This could be a potential problem," because that's usually a dogwhistle for, "I want this to be a problem, for want of an excuse to repeal it."

Fact is, even before we get to Title IX, we're gonna have an extremely heated debate about players on the same team.  The starting QB is naturally going to demand more money than the third-string linebacker, and the latter is going to naturally argue for equal payment for all.  As far as precedent goes, no one expects all employees at any workplace to make the same money, and this status quo coasts along fine next to equal opportunity laws.  Equal opportunity =/= equal pay.  So, once they're considered employees, I see the starting QB winning this battle.

Which means pay is going to be unequal before female athletes factor in the conversation.  And since women's athletics don't bring in nearly as much revenue, that they won't get paid as much will inevitably result in a slew of Title IX lawsuits that I predict with confidence won't get very far, excepting special cases like Caitlin Clark (who single-handedly raised basketball ratings during her time in college).

Also remember though that while Mgo UFRs generally rated Colson the lowest out of all or defensive starters, that is very much a function of its metric being tough on LBs and the other starters being really really really good.  Colson was still a very very good player.