[ColoradoTree]

There's certainly potential for abuse, as Redrum notes.  But regulations can be put into place to curb that abuse.  And the abuse Redrum rightly notes could happen--underperforming players are offered regular student scholarships--already happens in the form of dubious medical retirements.

In my mind, if a player wants to transfer to another school and continue to play football, fine.  Don't make him sit a year.  (Again, there should be limits on this; the player has to satisfactorily complete the current term before he can transfer.  But he shouldn't lose a year of eligibility.)  The new school picks up the football scholarship, and should be on the hook to let him complete that degree program once eligibility expires.  Schools already push "medical retirements" on players they feel are underperforming to make room for replacements, so at least in a more liberal transfer system, the kid would have an opportunity to continue to play football and complete his education elsewhere (or stay at the first school and no longer be a student-athlete).  I see this as opening up another avenue for players.  In theory, it should result in a more efficient allocation of talent across college football, as the 3rd-string RB at Alabama could well be a starting RB elsewhere, and improve his game sufficiently to attract NFL attention. 

One thing that would create absolute chaos is the departure of a coach.  Buyout clauses in coaches' contracts would become astronomical, because a top coach leaving one school for another could result in dozens of players opting to transfer elsewhere, since the coach they signed to play for is no longer there.  You'd completely understand schools for wanting to protect themselves with massive buyouts, too, since they'd have to create some disincentive for coaches bailing on School A to go coach at School B immediately.  It would be fascinating to see how schools will navigate that thicket if it comes to pass.  You could see an up-and-coming head coach at a MAC school looking around at open Power 5 jobs, but he could be effectively off limits if he has a lot of years (with a correspondingly large buyout clause) left on his deal.  You'd see more coaches decline to sign extensions to give themselves a better shot at getting a better job, knowing that signing an extension would limit mobility more than it would now, which should have a dampener on recruiting, too, as players are less likely to commit to a program when the head coach won't even commit to being around past the coming year.  (Which could create a cycle of a hot coach in the middle of his contract being unable to recruit as well toward the end of it, making the on-field product worse, and thus making him much less of a hot commodity when he actually becomes available.)  Anyway, it'd be fascinating to watch. 

Of course, players wanting to transfer out will be limited to schools that have both the availability to accept a player in that particular class and at that position as well as the desire to accept transfers, knowing that's a scholarship they can't spend on an incoming player out of high school, so it's not like half a team will suddenly abandon School A and disperse to the rest of college football.  But a big enough chunk could decide to leave that a coach leaving one school for another would be an even weightier decision than it is now.  I'm not pointing this out as a justification for restricting transfers, but schools will have this discussion before agreeing to any rule change. 

[ColoradoTree]

There's certainly potential for abuse, as Redrum notes.  But regulations can be put into place to curb that abuse.  And the abuse Redrum rightly notes could happen--underperforming players are offered regular student scholarships--already happens in the form of dubious medical retirements.

In my mind, if a player wants to transfer to another school and continue to play football, fine.  Don't make him sit a year.  (Again, there should be limits on this; the player has to satisfactorily complete the current term before he can transfer.  But he shouldn't lose a year of eligibility.)  The new school picks up the football scholarship, and should be on the hook to let him complete that degree program once eligibility expires.  Schools already push "medical retirements" on players they feel are underperforming to make room for replacements, so at least in a more liberal transfer system, the kid would have an opportunity to continue to play football and complete his education elsewhere (or stay at the first school and no longer be a student-athlete).  I see this as opening up another avenue for players.  In theory, it should result in a more efficient allocation of talent across college football, as the 3rd-string RB at Alabama could well be a starting RB elsewhere, and improve his game sufficiently to attract NFL attention. 

One thing that would create absolute chaos is the departure of a coach.  Buyout clauses in coaches' contracts would become astronomical, because a top coach leaving one school for another could result in dozens of players opting to transfer elsewhere, since the coach they signed to play for is no longer there.  You'd completely understand schools for wanting to protect themselves with massive buyouts, too, since they'd have to create some disincentive for coaches bailing on School A to go coach at School B immediately.  It would be fascinating to see how schools will navigate that thicket if it comes to pass.  You could see an up-and-coming head coach at a MAC school looking around at open Power 5 jobs, but he could be effectively off limits if he has a lot of years (with a correspondingly large buyout clause) left on his deal.  You'd see more coaches decline to sign extensions to give themselves a better shot at getting a better job, knowing that signing an extension would limit mobility more than it would now, which should have a dampener on recruiting, too, as players are less likely to commit to a program when the head coach won't even commit to being around past the coming year.  (Which could create a cycle of a hot coach in the middle of his contract being unable to recruit as well toward the end of it, making the on-field product worse, and thus making him much less of a hot commodity when he actually becomes available.)  Anyway, it'd be fascinating to watch. 

Of course, players wanting to transfer out will be limited to schools that have both the availability to accept a player in that particular class and at that position as well as the desire to accept transfers, knowing that's a scholarship they can't spend on an incoming player out of high school, so it's not like half a team will suddenly abandon School A and disperse to the rest of college football.  But a big enough chunk could decide to leave that a coach leaving one school for another would be an even weightier decision than it is now.  I'm not pointing this out as a justification for restricting transfers, but schools will have this discussion before agreeing to any rule change.