It's not a bad rule. Maybe the DOBO shouldn't be included, but that position could be a place to put a guy who doesn't have the coaching chops but has the players to follow him. Come on. You all know this happens. And here in NY, there are 3 relatively major schools, with U Conn and the Philly schools nearby. This isn't denying a player the chance at an education.
As PMG said, St. John's knew what they were gaining and losing by hiring Hicks at that position. And Hicks knew as well. Part of why Kadeem Jack and Sanders would come would be, in Jack's words in the article, because of the "familiar face." Isn't that an advantage? What's wrong with putting some restrictions on how you can hire those familiar faces? If a college coach loses a pipeline for 2 years to hire a lower-level guy as a DOBO or assistant, is the coach they want to hire worthless? He shouldn't be.
Calling this a hardship is bull. It's an annoyance. And if it's such a big annoyance, the colleges need to hire these guys as full assistants or not at all.
But you're mischaracterizing the issue. I agree that it's not a hardship for the university: SJU entered into an agreement with Hicks knowing that the employment contract would effect its recruiting in some manner. Fine. And clearly the contract is in Hicks' benefit, or at least he thinks it is. The problem with the rule - leaving aside antitrust law, because I think the rule clearly violates the Sherman Act - is the hardship that falls on the recruit: the player's freedom to contract is curtailed based upon the coach's choice. Player A cannot attend School B because of a contract entered into by Coach C. That effect of the rule is detrimental to the player, and that detriment is not mitigated by the fact that he can attend School D or E in City F or G - because the issue is not whether he's being "deprived of an education," that's a strawman: the issue is whether he's being deprived of the education of his choosing. And he is: the player's choices are limited based merely upon the choices of his former coach.
It's a frivolous analogy, but: say I were to enter into a contract with Dave that said that I would post on this website, but only under the condition that you no longer post on this website. That is fine as far as it goes - for Dave and I. We have freely negotiated an agreement to our seeming mutual benefit. But in the meanwhile, your freedoms - the freedoms of one not party to the contract - are curtailed. Does the fact that you can move your tack to the highly trafficked and intellectually stimulating BEB obviate the fact that by our actions Dave and I have limited yours? What if you like posting here? Doesn't matter. What if you don't like posting on BEB? Doesn't matter. You have to make do, because I have decided thus.
(Yes, all contracts to one extent or another limit the freedom of third parties: if I buy House 1 you cannot. But you at least had the opportunity to buy it, and if not house 1 then house 2 next door or down the street. This is not that. There are 300 or so D1 schools and mostly they are unique: Drexel is not Saint John's is not Uconn and Philly is not New York is not Storrs. And its pretty cavalier to say that they are and if they aren't it's probably no big deal - to the guy who had to spend 4 years there.)
The NCAA's mission statement says that it is intended to make "the educational experience of the student-athlete ... paramount." Does this rule accomplish that? What I see is the student athlete getting screwed at the expense of his former coach, based upon the effect of an arbitrary and arguably illegal rule - the Sherman Act makes illegal "every contract ... in restraint of trade." The fact is that the NCAA enact these nonsensical and panceatic rules and investigates SW Missouri State for recruiting violations to erect a facade of maintaining "the highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship" while countenancing the antics of scoundrels like John Calipari, because its to their economic benefit to do so.