Most D1 level programs have become very specialized in the style of playing their particular sport. "Pro Style Vs. Spread offenses", "Small ball Vs. Long ball" etc.
Coaches recruit players that fit those styles. A recruit may have more than one school choice, and most do, and most likely will choose one school over another because of that style. To say they are there for the academics over the athletics is simply not facing reality. The recruit can get an education at both schools but the one that best fit his athletic need is the one that won out.
Schools hide behind the stance that the recruit is there for the "academics". If that were true coaches would not be recruiting players and parents, deans and professors would be recruiting them.
The NCAA allows the schools to hold recruits who were recruited to play a sport, at an institution, in a system, for a coach, to be held to a different binding agreement than the coaches themselves. The schools do it because they can hold the player, who has no rights in this fight, to a standard that they can not hold the adult who is trying to make a living and has legal rights to market his skills in a free market to earn that living. The NCAA is made up of the very schools they are there to govern and why would they bite the hand that feeds them? Money
If someone were to ever find a way to take the athlete's plight to a court of law they would blow the lid off of the whole thing. But you see, the problem is they are not earning a living, simply an education, and one school can do that just as well as the other, so what's the big deal?(sarcasim)
If my son were recruited by a professor and that professor left my son should be able to leave and he could. He could apply at another school and be eligible for another scholarship. He would not have to sit out of his area of study for a year. Why should athletes be held to any different standard? Money
The easiest fix to this whole situation is for the NCAA to allow recruits and Red-shirt freshmen out of their commitments to the school if the coach leaves while still under contract. That will never happen...
Think about that scenario for second. Think of the ripples it would cause. What would the schools do to protect themselves? What power would that give coaches? "I can bring my two 5 star blue chippers with me." The NCAA would never let that cat out of the bag. Even if they blocked the players from following the coach it would still leave the school with a huge whole in their ability to compete at a high level.
I hate it. It stinks. It's broke, but my feeble mind can't fix it either. I give up.