RB O'Maury Samuels Denied Waiver for 2019 Eligibility

I think it has more to do with access to lawyers. The ones who lawyer up seem to have better success fighting the NCAA.

Just read about some Arizona receiver getting approved as he moved to C-USA team so my guess is the data would show that like most things with the NCAA there is no rhyme or reason but money makers get the benefit of the doubt and everything else is a coin flip

Antonio Williams transferred from OSU to UNC in 2018 and was granted immediate eligibility.  Williams was, IIRC, a top ~150 recruit so not super elite but still really highly rated.  I think I agree with your feel on this.  Higher profile transfers get a ton of coverage in the media and I'm sure that's something the NCAA considers when they make their ruling.  Once you get out of the elite recruit range, it seems to become much more of a crapshoot:

• Luke Ford, high 4* denied
• Antonio Williams, 4* granted
• James Hudson, 4* denied
• L,Christian Smith, 4* granted
• O'maury Samuels, 4* denied
• Oliver Martin, 4* *pending*

The correlation that matters is did the school who the player is transferring from approve and support the transfer.   That’s why Shea had to fight so long and hard because Ole Miss fought the transfer while Martell and Fields were easily granted eligibility.  OSU, and GA after arm twisting supported the transfer.    

Also see Grimes, Williams, Jones, Burrow and Blue Smith.  Blue transferred to Cincy for mental health reasons, OSU filed a waiver in support of the transfer and he was approved.  Contrast that to a recent UM transfer that was denied because the university didn’t support the transfer.  

The NCAA has signaled that if they don’t have to fight the school the player is departing from, they will likely approve the transfer.  

Headline would read, "Samuels immediately reinstated and granted five years of eligibility."

(Incidentally, with his physique, Samuels would become the most ripped football player of all time on MSU's "dietary regimen.")

While I generally agree with the Harbaugh-rule and anything that gives the players a little more power in the NCAA system....I will attempt to argue the other side of this from the NCAA point of view:

• We are providing the STUDENT-athlete a valuable scholarship and the benefits that come with that.
• This student athlete did things severe enough to get him booted off of Michigan and in some form of legal jeopardy.
• He wants to go somewhere else and immediately play.
• Perhaps he should focus on learning from his mistakes and get his life in order as a STUDENT before he is allowed to participate in the athlete stuff while we continue to allow him to get a full ride at a school.

Again, I don't really agree with that, but I can see the logic.  

I am in support of the "Harbaugh Rule" but here might be where an exception might be written in. Being excused from a team for violation of team rules or criminal behavior may "deserve" reason to mandate sitting out a year. 

Gotta ask this about the Harbaugh, if that’s his core belief, why didn’t the university file a waiver in support of the Hudson  transfer?  Leaders generally have actions that support their words but it was absolutely the opposite. 

I'm just thinking out loud here, but the the biggest potential downside I can see to giving all players a free pass is that itmight extend recruiting through enrollment. If I was coach who narrowly lost out on a blue chipper,  I would tempted to keep recruiting that kid way past signing day and well into the player's freshman year. At the very least, as soon as I heard the slightest hint of the kid not being happy, I'd be texting him.

I suppose the NCAA could ban all contact between coaches and enrolled players or severely limit it to a short time frame after the season (similar to what professional leagues do for players under contract), but then we're back into a situation where we have to trust the NCAA to police something and to handle transgressions fairly when they uncover them. The use of the portal could allow some players to lock out all contact. Still, I think the chances of coaches having to continue to recruit their own freshmen and maybe even sophomores against teams trying to poach them would still be there. 

If you force a year of sitting out that might cool the jets of most coaches pretty quickly. Not having the sit year count as a year of eligibility would minimize the pain to the player. For those kids that do get 6 years of eligibility, it will likely increase the number of players finishing a degree.

Again, I am just thinking out loud about the potential downside. It's quite possible that the free pass to transfer might still offer more benefits than detriments.