It's a tough situation. On one hand, players generally have little control and this grants them a bit of that. If a coach leaves or they are stuck in a system where they are not a good fit or won't advance regardless of effort, then they should feel free to transfer without penalty if football is a priority to them. Football free-agency is in the interest of helping the athletes, not necessarily the programs. Think of Vad Lee. He wasn't working out as an option QB and years later we found out that he was depressed during his time on campus, often keeping to himself in his room and avoiding others. He should have been free to transfer to Duke and be closer to home and in a better environment with a chance to play immediately. Tech wasn't for him.
On the other hand, the schools do put a financial investment into the players in the form of scholarships, nutrition, housing, etc., so players transferring freely basically takes the investment you put into a player's development and gives it to some other school to benefit on. And football, more than any other sport, is very position-based with little flexibility. It's not like tennis or golf where you can just recruit the best players you can and then place them anywhere in your lineup. Players coming and going as they please can really destroy roster management and the idea of a "depth player" will pretty much cease to exist. The consequence of having to lose a year of eligibility was always about protecting the programs, as well as preventing players from making shortsighted decisions. I kind of like the waiver system for strong cases, but it falls apart when waivers are provided for weak reasons (like it is now). Perhaps you remove waivers entirely and say that transfers can only play 6 games + post-season. Seems like a compromise.
