All valid concerns. I've gone back on forth on it. But IMO, the way to deal with corrupt financial inducements is to do what the NCAA did with USC, and to do it consistently when they discover violations. But look at the subsequent tOSU scandal. Tatoo laden Tyrelle Pryor and others accepted illegal benefits, but didn't lose an entire season of eligibility. Instead they only had to serve a five game suspension, which was deferred to allow them in the friggin Sugar Bowl. But a guy in good academic standing tranfers, and he loses an entire year. Seems like a transfer is treated like a more serious offence than accepting benefits.
I think some of the transfer movement could be managed if a school had to count a transferring athlete as an initial offer and placing limits on the number of transfers that can be accepted in any season. When Penn State got sanctioned by the NCAA, they opened the doors for every single player to transfer without penalty or limitation and released all of their incoming recruits from their letters of intent. At the time it was about as bad of situation at a program players could face. The NCAA did pretty much everything they could to creating a feeding frenzy and gave opposing coaches the green light to initiate contact with Penn State's players, and Penn State came out just fine.
I think changing the rule will create more transfers, but I don't think it would be chaos. The most competitive programs have full rosters. Many are oversigned. IMO, scholarship limitations and rules that prohibit opposing coaches from initiating contact with enrolled players serve as the biggest limitation on transfers.
