Player satisfaction should be considered when evaluating NCAA (and professional) eligibility rules.

When the NCAA allows a player to participate in a sport, but then retroactively consider them ineligible, it returns competition results to the point before the “ineligibility”. This is called a “vacated” result. The player played in the game in front of fans, the player awards points, but the team does not get to count the wins or losses. The only possible explanation is that the NCAA is trying to create an artificial environment with as few outside influences as possible, even if that removes satisfaction from the players.<br><br>College sports is a farce designed to funnel players to professional leagues without paying them while profiting off of their work. Many subsequent problems could be solved by allowing players to be paid for their work, but that is not currently a realistic possibility. <br><br>Players are not amateurs. They put their bodies and health on the line every day for the sport they love. Players are often required to limit their studies to accommodate practice and competition schedules. Not allowing them the satisfaction of winning and accomplishing something they have worked towards their entire lives, while making money off of their work, is completely asinine. <br><br>To be clear, I am not advocating to change rules to accommodate specific players or allow cheating. I am saying that other potential approaches are valid, approaches that consider the players' satisfaction and well-being.