Correct, but in those cases the employee doesn't have to publicly post their openness to a forum that their own employer also is a member to.
They can return, but you have to wonder about the ramifications within the program, particularly considering to even be looking, the kid likely wasn't exceedingly happy with his role prior.
I completely agree. It's complicated and uncomfortable. And may unglue some teams. Of course, the previous system where all the power resided with coaches was complicated and uncomfortable, too. But apologists didn't notice or mind for sake of "tradition" because they liked the feel of amateurism.
I don't like the new system. It is very clumsy. But I equally dislike the habits of NCAA amateurism apologists that contributed to this sort of breaking point in 2019. The transfer portal is the inevitable consequence of decades of resisting that NCAA players receive compensation. Because that led to the NCAA standing on its last leg in court, hellbent on preventing compensation and newly open to fixing other criticisms that opponent lawyers (and judges in summation) have levied against them.
Many of those criticisms relate to the power asymmetries involved in player contracts. And in the wake of O'Bannon et al. and newly proposed California/federal legislation, the NCAA is suddenly interested in fixing those criticisms. Namely: How their coaches can safely shop around and leave without consequence but the players previously couldn't safely shop around and how non-grad transfers had to (always) sit out a year. Etc.
Anyway, we can call the transfer portal inelegant and problematic. And I have. Nevertheless, although there's a chance the current system has solved no problems in net (that it created as many new problems as it solved) ...
(1) it still has a couple inches more justice
(2) and all of this is the NCAA's (and - to an extent - all amateurism apologists') own fault