College leaders can hope, fight transfers or make reasonable, right choice

Caleb Downs was a superstar recruit who had a fantastic freshman season at Alabama. Then his coaches left, and Downs decided to find a new place to spend his sophomore season. So, he decided to transfer to Ohio State.

But let’s say after another year, Downs, a Georgia native, is homesick and doesn’t like the cold, or Ohio State makes a coaching change. He could hop right back in the transfer portal and make Georgia his third school in three years.

And what’s to prevent Downs from doing it again his senior year? What’s to stop other players from hopping from one school to another every year in total unfettered year-to-year free agency?

At this point, probably nothing, thanks to the NCAA’s continued epic losing streak in court. The ability to make and enforce all rules, even the reasonable ones, is now left to the judges. That’s why the NCAA and its member schools need to cry uncle and give in to what seems inevitable.

Let’s recall how we got here. For years, transfer rules worked against football and basketball players. They could move from one school to another but had to sit out the next season. The intent was supposedly noble: to prevent players from making rash decisions they would regret. The unspoken intent was to make it easier for coaches and schools to hold on to players. But like so many things in college athletics, after decades of the pendulum tethered in the direction of the coaches and administrators, it eventually swung in the players’ direction.

First came the waiver process. Players could apply to the NCAA for immediate eligibility as long as they had justifiable reasons. Some were legitimate. Others seemed … questionable. Lawyers were involved, which is always lovely. After a few years, the NCAA, understandably tired of it, went to what seemed a fair solution: Everyone gets a mulligan.

The one-time transfer exemption allowed players to move once without sitting a season. If they moved again, they either had to be a graduate student or they had to sit out a season. It seemed like a good solution: Yes, players might make rash decisions, but they also can’t be tethered to a school if things aren’t working out, whether it’s playing time, a coaching change or just not proving the right fit. Coaches might grumble when they lose players, but they like it when they gain players. The portal swings both ways.

The main issue was attaching this to NIL. Players began leveraging the portal to get a better deal, either at their current school or the next one. Pay-for-play, essentially. That’s the main issue college administrators have wailed against, seeking remedies from the federal government. Charlie Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts, was hired as NCAA president basically to lobby for such a bill.

But that always seemed like a stretch. Democrats don’t like…