You are very clearly implicating the loyalty of the athletes, and are now misrepresenting your statements in order to backtrack.
That isn't how they read at all. If you want to be perceived as non-judgmental, then you really need to avoid making obviously judgmental comments about loyalty. If you want to be perceived as non-judgmental, then don't judge someone as being motivated by self-interest.A fair reading of my posts? Mostly musings about the rights and wrongs of the situation, trying to see the issue from all sides. Consciously non-judgmental.
Oddly enough, I never said that I disapprove of personal attacks. Whether I disapprove of specific personal attacks depends upon the context. In my initial post, I implied that I object to people taking it personally when an athlete decides to transfer. That isn't the same thing as objecting to a personal attack. After that, my objection was to you trying to pass off what are clearly personal attacks as being something else. I do also think that the personal attacks that you made are also inappropriate, but your denial that that's what they are was what I focused on.Says the poster who disapproves of personal attacks. At least you stopped short of demanding I head to a nursing home.
Again, you are selectively quoting yourself, and ignoring that parts that don't fit with the story you are now trying to tell.Once again, you've distorted my comments beyond recognition. Passing judgment? I specifically said that: Those of us "outside of the room" don't need to know all of the reasons behind a transfer. But hey -- don't let accuracy stand in the way of knocking over the straw man.
My problem is not really specific transfer rules, though I definitely think that once a player has graduated with a degree, all claim upon that player's athletic services by the school from which they have graduated should be extinguished, and they should be free to transfer any place they wish to go without restrictions. If the primary point of being a student-athlete is educational, as is claimed by pretty much everyone, then it's hard to see what justification there is for not allowing that. Placing restrictions on transfers at that point is about extending the power of the school at the expense of the student.The funny thing is, there's little reason for you to play dirty. Yes, in the WCHA, we require in-conference transfer students to sit out one season. Perhaps that one exception annoys. But to the best of my knowledge, that's the only transfer limitation in Women's D-1 Hockey. For the most part, you've already "won" on the merits.
The real issue, though, is in the attitude that a significant minority of sports fans take towards athletes. This is not limited to college sports, though it is most noxious there. Your invocation of sports as an "escape from the business world" in the context of a discussion about an athlete's obligations and holding them to a higher standard is a prime example. It ignores the fact that, for the athletes, sports is the business world. All of the things that you feel that they should help you escape from are an inescapable piece of what sports is for them. Your plea that athletes hold themselves to a "higher standard than would be required by most other endeavors" is a plea that they set aside their own interests in ways that people do not do elsewhere, in order to reduce the stress in your life.
Stop thinking that making sports an escape from the business world is in any way their responsibility, because it isn't and arguments that it should be inherently mean that you think that you have a claim on their behavior. If you want sports to play that role in your life, then it is up to you to extract it.