Players are players. Coaches are coaches. Players are students. Coaches are employees. Administrators are administrators. In what world does it make sense to assume they all deserve equal treatment? If you want to argue some of the semantics from those labels, that's perfectly fine. But here's one thing to consider: no single player on any team, anywhere in college football, has the ability to impact revenue to the athletic department and school in anywhere near equal measure to that of a coach. Take our best player this year - I don't care who it is but for the sake of argument, let's just say it's Ricky Walker. Take him off the team. How much revenue does Tech lose? How much of a negative impact does that have on the program and its near and long term prospects? Now take coach Fuente and replace him with someone incompetent, let's say, Charlie Weiss. How much impact does that have on Tech's revenue? How much damage does that do to Tech's program and long-term prospects? The two are not even comparable. It is infinitely harder to find a coach capable of succeeding in the short-term much less long-term than it is to find a HS player willing to be your QB and therein is how market value is established.

No college us under any obligation to let players play for them. They engage in agreements with them, voluntary agreements, just as they do with employees and coaches. If the schools want to restrict their transfer-ability and the players agree to it, then it's all good and fair. It is utterly immaterial whether or not coaches get the same deal. If the players don't like it, they can go somewhere else or choose to play baseball. Whatever. Their call.

[Post edited by pienkows at 02/11/2019 1:09PM]