I think it's important to bear in mind that the NCAA and the NABC are primarily concerned with the interests of the programs, and then only secondarily the players.
Imagine the two basic scenarios:
Player A and player B are both really good in 9th grade, receive scholarship offers from solid D1 schools, and verbally commit. Then, player A gets even better, rises to the top of the class, and feels like he could do better than School 1. So he decommits from school 1 (and goes on to play for big money at UK).
Player B, on the other hand, stagnates, perhaps struggles with injury, but still plays. It becomes obvious that School 2 would have never given him an offer had they known how he would develop, and no other D1 schools are interested. Still, without other justifications (e.g., JamesOn Curry), the school can't legitimately drop their offer, at least not without severely hurting their credibility on the recruiting front. And meanwhile, the offer to player B hampered their ability to recruit at his position, so they're doubly screwed. But player B has a scholarship at a D1 school that he wouldn't ordinarily have.
The point is that players can reverse their verbal commitments but schools cannot (easily), so it benefits a player to get that scholarship in hand--he can always go after the two in the bush later. But schools don't care about players, so they want to curb this practice. This is one area where the players have an advantage, and it's not surprising that the programs want to end it. But they've got a nasty game-theoretic problem on their hands, and even if they develop some binding rule about it, enforcement is going to be very difficult.
So K has my blessing to go after all the 8th graders he wants. There was a running joke at the old uncbasketball forum about the next recruit: "sperm."