As mentioned in my above post, I think this mentality is a mistake when we are talking about future implications and a career outside of basketball. As I mentioned in my above post, if you "actually play basketball" at Creighton (example) as opposed to riding the pine at UK what does it net you? Congrats, you "played basketball" at Creighton. If getting more minutes gets you more exposure to go to the NBA after college then the plan worked. But does anyone think Perry is going to the NBA? Maybe he gets some opportunities as a professional elsewhere (overseas), but those opportunities are likely still there as a role player at UK.
Meanwhile, you've decided to move back home to Kentucky upon graduation to pursue a career in business (example) and now everyone remembers that you left to "play basketball" at Creighton instead of being remembered as the kid who scored more points than anyone in the history of Kentucky, and then played 4-5 years at the University of Kentucky.
We're talking about big time serious life-altering decisions here with major impact on the future and we have posters trying to claim some kind of desire to actually just get to play basketball on the court as a legitimate reason for leaving a school that could create lucrative financial opportunities in perpetuity simply for being a part of it. Its asinine. "Oh you don't understand the heart of a competitor, they don't want to sit and watch, they want to play". Well when we're considering what it could mean for his future then maybe he should be smart and learn to like just sitting and watching. And again, it's not like he's some whipping boy at UK, he's getting paid 6-figures and will have every opportunity to improve and compete.
Let's just say he stays and NEVER gets to play. If thats the case, literally the worst thing that happened is he made 6-figures plus, solidified his future in this state, all while being wildly popular, but didn't actually get to play.