I think the fundamental flaw is that the players are treated as pawns instead of people. It's about the NCAA and the NBA, not the players who we all want to watch. Who cares if college is rewarding to them in and of itself, or they have more to learn? Who cares if the organization is making millions or billions of dollars which it uses for its own betterment? At least Steve Kerr tries to answer the question of whether it's better for the player to stay in college, from a professional legacy standpoint. Yeah, sure, the level of play in college might increase. But that just means the NCAA is improving its product at the expense of legal adults, because those adults don't have a better choice (but deserve one). Regular students aren't tied into three-year contracts-- why should student-athletes be?
Yeah, right. Regular students aren't tied into three-year contracts, but their goals are the four year degree. This is an apple and orange comparison. Even with regular students there is a quantity of disappointments. How many people have graduated without finding a job in their chosen profession. What about that pre-med student that ends up as a pharmaceutical sales person. Why should athletes have total control in how they get to their goals? If one's goal is to be a point guard in the NBA, college is not necessarily the road to success, but if that is the way an athlete chooses to go, the college to which he goes has some requirements for him in exchange for the free ride he gets.