I've been following the discussion about one and dones for quite awhile and have come to wonder about something:
An 18 year old signs on with a university to obtain a 4 year guaranteed scholarship in return for his/her playing for that school's team (whatever the sport may be). If he turns out to be a loser, can't play as well as everyone expected, doesn't try hard, just goes through the motions, well there's nothing the U. can do about it. Player can sit on the bench for 4 years but he still gets his free 4 years of education. But reverse the situation somewhat -- player is good enough to go pro and decides to call it quits with the U. In that case again, nothing U. can do about it.
Now it seems to my untrained (in the law) mind, this is unfair to the U. I would think that if there is a "deal" or contract that is binding on one side for 4 years regardless of the level of performance, then it should be equally binding for the same term on the other side of the contract.
So why is it a players scholarship cannot be yanked (save for moral turpitude or something like that), but the player can break it any time?
Am I just wrong in thinking that the 4 year scholarship arrangement that is set up between the player and the U. is not really a contract? What's the deal, lawyers among you out there?