Wouldn't it be more obvious that money was involved if he went to a non-blue blood? People have wanted to play for teams like UNC, Duke, Kansas etc (Texas is not a blue blood) forever.
Can players now not leave after committing at all, or they just can't go to blue blood schools, or they can't go anywhere if we think they're not leaving for the right reason?
We've certainly taken in our fair share of transfers from other schools.
I don't think it would be more obvious because there are schools (Arkansas) that aren't bluebloods and have some big time donors/alum that will pony up the money. UNC is reportedly set to pay Bacot north of 1Mil for him to return to school. The blue bloods will have more money to give to these players. The playing field is going to be so narrow because only a handful of schools can come up with the funds to get the best players. You'll have teams (probably blue bloods) with a whole new roster year after year if this continues.
Players can leave after committing, sure. They can go to blue bloods or anywhere for that fact. But you can't sit there and say what went down with Hunter isn't fishy. When things are going well after the season and he's happy and plans to return and then all of a sudden he's hitting the transfer market. But it's going to become more and more obvious if they're leaving for money.
We have taken our fair share of transfers and we're going to continue to take our fair share of transfers. Our transfers are going to become guys from smaller conferences though. We aren't going to be able to pay some of these transfers from P5 schools.
If NIL is around back when we started the whole transfer deal, we aren't probably getting the likes of Royce White, Will Clyburn, Korie Lucious, Chris Allen.