Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

2022 Transfer Portal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Highlander said:
Even with the offensive losses, we will be better on O next season.

However:
1) We need to be twice as good to even be average
Click to expand...
I was sort of curious if that was true, and I was actually surprised to learn that it's not.

If we look at yards per game, if the offense doubled it would be 3rd best in FBS. By points per game, doubling would be 11th best in FBS. Although that was just a quick sort at espn.com, and I don't know if those points include defense points.

I looked at the stats section of ncaa.com, and looked at the various offensive stats, and it's pretty universal almost no matter the stat: we were always in the bottom 10, and often bottom 2-3.

But, if we doubled our production, we'd be consistently in the top 10, and often top 3.

OTOH, if we improved by a more modest 50% or so, that would make the offense pretty average.
 
I heard this was going to happen...from a War Eagle. Saban's reloading for another run and the SEC will be to watch FB next Fall.
 
Always BUFF said:
It's a chess match between those two...then there's everyone else.
Click to expand...
Chess match? More like a Roman gladiator battle.
ridley scott gladiator GIF
 
I think prorams like CU need to band together with other programs to pressure the NCAA to make changes. Players that transfer within the conference got to seat out a year. Teams like USC are going around picking off rivals players, they are tapping up players.
 
bigbang2 said:
I think prorams like CU need to band together with other programs to pressure the NCAA to make changes. Players that transfer within the conference got to seat out a year. Teams like USC are going around picking off rivals players, they are tapping up players.
Click to expand...
Your only solution is to take power away from the player.
 
What so many people refuse to even engage with is that the NCAA isn't setting the rules: the legal system is setting the rules, both through the courts and the legislature.

"Pressuring the NCAA" does jack **** if what you want the NCAA to do is something that is illegal under state or federal law.
 
skibum said:
What so many people refuse to even engage with is that the NCAA isn't setting the rules: the legal system is setting the rules, both through the courts and the legislature.

"Pressuring the NCAA" does jack **** if what you want the NCAA to do is something that is illegal under state or federal law.
Click to expand...
Not really. The NCAA can absolutely put rules in place to limit eligibility/transfer requirements that have nothing to do with state or federal law.
 
bigbang2 said:
I think prorams like CU need to band together with other programs to pressure the NCAA to make changes. Players that transfer within the conference got to seat out a year. Teams like USC are going around picking off rivals players, they are tapping up players.
Click to expand...
or....we could target good players in conference and entice them to come to CU (strengthens your team and weakens your opponent - win/win!)
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Not really. The NCAA can absolutely put rules in place to limit eligibility/transfer requirements that have nothing to do with state or federal law.
Click to expand...
Do you *know* that, or are you assuming they can because they used to be able to do that?

It's not a "gotcha" question - but a serious one. There's a very good chance that rule was changed because the NCAA realized it would fail if challenged in court.
 
skibum said:
Do you *know* that, or are you assuming they can because they used to be able to do that?

It's not a "gotcha" question - but a serious one. There's a very good chance that rule was changed because the NCAA realized it would fail if challenged in court.
Click to expand...
Well, everything is an assumption until challenged and won or lost in court. The NCAA, not Congress or the SCOTUS, granted an extra year of eligibility due to COVID and allowed an increase of scholarship numbers and number of recruits/transfers allowed to sign in a given class.

I think the lawmakers hold the power w/r/t NIL, but even that is going to reined in by whatever this new NCAA Constitution ends up being, but the NCAA still makes eligibility rules.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Well, everything is an assumption until challenged and won or lost in court.
Click to expand...
Disagree.

The law isn't always some enigma. There's a lot of stuff that you can say "hey, they can/can't do that" without ever going to court.

Being eligible to play is probably something the NCAA can rule on, probably. But I wouldn't bet on it. There are 50 states, and any one (or combination) of them could have something on the books.
 
skibum said:
Disagree.

The law isn't always some enigma. There's a lot of stuff that you can say "hey, they can/can't do that" without ever going to court.

Being eligible to play is probably something the NCAA can rule on, probably. But I wouldn't bet on it. There are 50 states, and any one (or combination) of them could have something on the books.
Click to expand...
The NCAA has been making eligibility decisions for years, including our own Mustafa Johnson this past year, Antonio Alfano a few years prior, etc. There is a difference between them making these eligibility decisions that are based on rules around transferring and injuries, and ones that are based on NIL-type rules in the past.
 
bigbang2 said:
Players can still transfer but will have to seat out a year if the transfer is in conference.
Click to expand...
And you don’t see that as taking power away from them? Why should players be limited because of conference? I don’t hear any cries for limiting coaches jumping to another conference team.
 
bigbang2 said:
I think prorams like CU need to band together with other programs to pressure the NCAA to make changes. Players that transfer within the conference got to seat out a year. Teams like USC are going around picking off rivals players, they are tapping up players.
Click to expand...
In light of O’Bannon and Alston (and Kavanaugh’s warning), why will the NCAA act?
 
NW Buff said:
And you don’t see that as taking power away from them? Why should players be limited because of conference? I don’t hear any cries for limiting coaches jumping to another conference team.
Click to expand...

No it is not. The Player got into a contract. Can still cancel the contract but to maintain some level of competition, new rules on eligibility have to be introduced. Can still tranfer out of conference and be eligible immediately.
 
bigbang2 said:
No it is not. The Player got into a contract. Can still cancel the contract but to maintain some level of competition, new rules on eligibility have to be introduced. Can still tranfer out of conference and be eligible immediately.
Click to expand...
Contracts (scholarships) are year to year.
 
NW Buff said:
And you don’t see that as taking power away from them? Why should players be limited because of conference? I don’t hear any cries for limiting coaches jumping to another conference team.
Click to expand...
I'd be all for putting rules in place for coach movement, tbh, but of course, any rules that keeps coaches from leaving whenever they want would also prevent schools from firing said coach whenever they want.

Maybe a rule that all coaching contracts are fully guaranteed by the school, so if they are fired w/o cause, they get every last dollar, but if they choose to leave for another HC opportunity, they have to pay the school the full amount of the entire contract, rather than some small buy out number that most schools have to agree to.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I'd be all for putting rules in place for coach movement, tbh, but of course, any rules that keeps coaches from leaving whenever they want would also prevent schools from firing said coach whenever they want.

Maybe a rule that all coaching contracts are fully guaranteed by the school, so if they are fired w/o cause, they get every last dollar, but if they choose to leave for another HC opportunity, they have to pay the school the full amount of the entire contract, rather than some small buy out number that most schools have to agree to.
Click to expand...
Buyouts are part of the contract. Good luck getting any coach to sign a contract with that stipulation.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
The NCAA has been making eligibility decisions for years, including our own Mustafa Johnson this past year, Antonio Alfano a few years prior, etc. There is a difference between them making these eligibility decisions that are based on rules around transferring and injuries, and ones that are based on NIL-type rules in the past.
Click to expand...
I think skibum is probably right.

The third issue Delrahim discussed appears to show the true vulnerability the NCAA has with antitrust legislation-the Division I transfer rules.

In every other sport except FBS football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and ice hockey, you can transfer without penalty. These sports penalize all athletes with a one year penalty...

But here’s the rub: why is it okay to transfer in all the other Division I sports, but not the ones that make serious money for the school? To Delrahim, that doesn’t sound right, and he let the NCAA President know it. He told me, “To do this with students in the name of protecting students, (and their “integrity”), I thought was just a bridge too far. And I encouraged them to change those rules.”
Click to expand...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karenw...ntal-change-to--organization/?sh=30b4337c21df

Delrahim was the former Assistant US Attorney for the Antitrust Division. After Alston, the transfer rules were surely to be challenged again (likely in the Ninth Circuit).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top