In a second meeting a few days later, according to O’Brien and his lawyer, Martelli told him that he would either “be playing at St. Joe’s next year or not playing anywhere.” O’Brien had already ascertained that there was no N.C.A.A. impediment to him playing for another school. It has a special rule for athletes like him — graduate students with remaining eligibility — allowing them to enroll in another university without having to sit out a year. The rule also states, though, that the player’s previous school has to agree to “release” him. St. Joe’s, clearly acting at Martelli’s behest, refused to sign the necessary paperwork.

Let’s put aside the question of why college athletes usually have to sit out a year when they transfer, even though coaches can switch schools at the drop of a hat. That’s a column for another day. Let’s focus instead on O’Brien’s plight. How can a student who has graduated from one institution be prevented from participating in an extracurricular activity at a different school? How can a miffed coach’s pique control the activities of a student who doesn’t even play for him anymore? Can a music teacher who is angry at a violin student prevent him from playing in another school’s orchestra? The very idea is absurd. Why is it any less absurd when the student is an athlete? Why is it any less wrong? Yet that is precisely what the N.C.A.A.’s rules make possible.

And which it then reinforces with its own iron fist. Unable to persuade St. Joe’s to change its mind, O’Brien appealed to the N.C.A.A. Did the N.C.A.A., which purports to care about the welfare of its “student-athletes,” take stern action against St. Joe’s? Of course not.

In response to O’Brien’s appeal, St. Joe’s submitted a letter complaining, among other things, that his transfer was done for “athletic reasons” rather than academic ones. Though that clearly is untrue, so what if it had been? Why should his reason matter? Nevertheless, the N.C.A.A. sided with the school. An N.C.A.A. spokeswoman sent me a statement saying, “St. Joseph’s opposition was an important factor” in denying O’Brien’s request. Which only makes sense, since coaches, not athletes, are the N.C.A.A.’s real constituency. (She also said that the N.C.A.A. would review the case again this week.) For its part, St. Joe’s has refused to discuss the situation, citing “privacy laws.”

In a column in The Wall Street Journal this week, Mark Emmert, the N.C.A.A. president, complained about unnamed critics who were calling for players to be paid — gee, who could he be referring to? — and said that the N.C.A.A. had to come up with solutions “that reflect our values.” Its real values are reflected in cases like Todd O’Brien’s. There are a hundred others just like his.