I do not have a problem with a 'general studies degree,' as long as it has discipline and content. The degree should be upper-hours oriented, and have a consistent theme. I knew a guy I went to school that made up his own degree with upper level psychology, sociology, economics, and political science classes. He did a custom internship, project kind of thing, (I don't remember details,) had he had a statistic course and some other math that totally intimidated me.
There is no comparison between a degree like that and what some schools allow athletes to cobble together.
And for the Michigan student-athlete in question, at least he got a degree. (But again, we don't know the details of the discipline.)
As far as Golson and Texas, from all I have heard, he was told Texas would be a problem because; A) Golson was a signal caller, and knew the offense pretty well, B) He initiated leaving, and had been encouraged by staff to stay, C) The timing made it impossible for the staff to deal with replacing him, and reconstructing the offense in any meaningful way, D) Everett had the most interest in SEC schools from the beginning, and E) Charlie Strong's integrity gets left out every time. Strong had already made it clear that because of the situation, and the fact he felt like he needed to grow a quarterback of the future, out of his existing pool, he wasn't interested.
The germane point is whether a school invites a player back, or shuts him out. It should be an NCAA rule that if you shut a player out, you do not control where he goes.
If you want to automatically, across the NCAA ban a kid from transferring to any in conference, major rivalry, or conference school with division, or geographic proximity, that should be an NCAA members vote. (Not a dickhead move on the part of a douche-clown Athletic Director.)
