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!

2024 Transfer Portal News - Please Respect My Decision

Robert Sorell said:
From that perspective, I'd say the players should be locked in for a long as the money is guaranteed.

If the school wants a player to be committed even if the player finds a better situation elsewhere, then the school needs to be committed to paying the player, even if the school finds a better replacement.

Which, by my approximation, is sort of where we're at. Players get guarantees that last for a season, and can't transfer within a season.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That makes sense from a contractual standpoint.

Could that be where the scholarship comes in (that's how it's worked historically)? There is an agreement as long as there is a scholarship and the student-athlete is welcome to pursue other financial opportunities? But if the player wants to move on there is a penalty (historically, sitting out for a year). Of course, that assumes some sort of governance...
 
Uncle Ken said:
I don't know anything about the NFL, but I get the sense that players are bound by contracts, and that maybe teams have salary caps. I'm trying to understand why they did that and what benefit it brings to the sport.

I know this is college sports, not the NFL, but signing a letter to play for a school should mean something to my way of thinking.

And, I haven't fully thought this through, so I'm open to understanding this more and changing my opinion.
Click to expand...

For the major sports, NBA, NFL and NHL have salary caps based on collective bargaining. As I understand it, there were two purposes: (1) players and owners splitting the overall pie; and (2) ensuring financial/geographical stability of the franchises. Also, promoting parity to a degree for small market v. big market teams. Without a cap, Buffalo would find it hard to compete in either the NFL or NHL. Milwaukee too. Losing that, you lose tradition. I think the NBA did it because they had so many franchises moving. There are always threats to move and there is still some movement. Vegas got the Raiders not just because it was a hotter market, but they had the stadium problems in Oakland. I think the Caps reduce franchise movement, which I believe protects the overall sport to a large degree.

College football is different because you just have so many teams, traditions, and ties to so many communities. This is whether you are Div I, or Montana (Griz) and Montana State (Cats) even Div II, they are really valued for their schools and communities. When you add up the teams Div I, II, III etc..., I don't know the number but it is maybe roughly 300ish. If you use a roster # of 65, that gets you close to 20,000 football players. There are different scholarships etc... but that is a ton of kids off to college. Then college football funds most all the other sports too. That could be 60,000 athletes that benefit--directly (scholarships, stipend etc...) or indirectly (just having a place to play the sport that they love, medical coverage/training facilities). IMO, college football has to continue it's existence at all levels through this restructuring. I think we just have to give this time for things to shake out and modify as we go. In the old system, the AD had to release a player to transfer--that is not fair. The patience, is sort of like Monday-morning quarterbacking Covid--the response and then the external immeasurable impacts that we are just learning about.

You go to the NFL, the roster size is 67 (53 active and 14 practice squad) which is roughly 2,150 + 200-300 more guys that get called up. Small pool of players, that come out that 20,000 that play. NBA has less players, NHL too. MLB have more, but still the long shot to make it to the bigs. DBT said 1.6% make it to the NFL. Then the average time span for NFL career is like 4.4 years. For some whatever NIL and the education received will be the benefit. That is boggling.

I think signing an LOI can be looked at as a contract of sorts--both school and athlete commit. However, they still need to have flexibility too. For HS recruits these are 17-18 yo kids, so to make a binding decision is tough. Their coaches get to move freely--this can be why a player commits. I like the 1- free transfer rule (this means the players are maybe 19-22), when they make it. I think the multi-transfer rule should maybe have penalty (sit out a year), unless a player goes up or down a Division, including FBS and FCS. Also, they need to figure out the hardship items--HC leaving with most of staff, a kid that needs to get closer to home. Even with Grad transfers, players should generally not go to three schools. Thus, I generally support freedom of movement, especially if the player really believes they have a shot at the 1.6%; that might really be 8-10% of the kids playing.
 
Last edited:
Uncle Ken said:
If someone could make money off of my name, or my image due to my talent and hard work and I wasn't allowed to see a dime, I'd be furious.

As I said a few years ago, NIL is the right thing to do, AND it may destroy college football. Both things can be true.

Obviously NIL is abused and its intent has been problematically twisted.

However, to me the larger issue is transferring without penalty.
Click to expand...
What about coaches? They should have to have penalties for transferring too, right?
 
manhattanbuff said:
Assistants almost never do. Head coaches sometimes do. Good ones don’t have any with teeth because they’re the ones with leverage. They never have to sit.
Click to expand...
So to answer your question, yes, I think there should be penalties for coaches who abandon their contracts. And I think they should be accountable for any violations that occur on their watch (not just the institution).

And as I understand your point, if coaches aren't penalized then players shouldn't be either, it is a fair one.
 
Uncle Ken said:
So to answer your question, yes, I think there should be penalties for coaches who abandon their contracts. And I think they should be accountable for any violations that occur on their watch (not just the institution).

And as I understand your point, if coaches aren't penalized then players shouldn't be either, it is a fair one.
Click to expand...
Counterpoint...how often coaches (head coaches) change jobs? It's not two or three times in four years.

Hell, coaches have less mobility than players at this point.
 
Medford M. said:
Counterpoint...how often coaches (head coaches) change jobs? It's not two or three times in four years.

Hell, coaches have less mobility than players at this point.
Click to expand...
Coaches have the same amount of mobiity as players. They can literally leave a program any time they want. Just because they often don't doesn't mean they can't
 
No coaches are getting better offers every single year though.

You're never going to find an angle that I agree with when it comes to giving players unlimited mobility... especially now that they're being compensated.

Every team should start doing their NIL with buyout clauses like aTm, IMO

The Alabaster Yak said:
Coaches have the same amount of mobiity as players. They can literally leave a program any time they want. Just because they often don't doesn't mean they can't
Click to expand...
 
Medford M. said:
No coaches are getting better offers every single year though.

You're never going to find an angle that I agree with when it comes to giving players unlimited mobility... especially now that they're being compensated.

Every team should start doing their NIL with buyout clauses like aTm, IMO
Click to expand...
"Better offers" is subjective and as long as coaches continue to be successful, they'd be able to get better offers. Just like players. Player X balls out at G5 and get's poached to a mid P5 program. Balls out there and might be a Georgia offer and a lot more money, unless he decides to go to the league.

It's all the same. Just because you refuse to realize it, doesn't change that
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
"Better offers" is subjective and as long as coaches continue to be successful, they'd be able to get better offers. Just like players. Player X balls out at G5 and get's poached to a mid P5 program. Balls out there and might be a Georgia offer and a lot more money, unless he decides to go to the league.

It's all the same. Just because you refuse to realize it, doesn't change that
Click to expand...
Then blow up the whole sport.

If the kids want to get paid, then they should be treated like professional athletes with no leverage on their contracts.

What you're advocating for is gross.

College kids shouldn't be afforded mobility that pros aren't.
 
Medford M. said:
Then blow up the whole sport.

If the kids want to get paid, then they should be treated like professional athletes with no leverage on their contracts.

What you're advocating for is gross.
Click to expand...
You're confusing me with manhattan. I'm not opposed to uniform rules limiting transfers. In fact, I am fully on board with one governing body for the P4 conferences (at least) that has uniform rules for scheduling, transfers, collective/NIL/salary cap, etc.

You are yearning for how the sport was 20 years ago before mega TV contracts changed everything. That's fine, but it's gone, it's not coming back, and that was actually a "gross" sport with the way it exploited 18-22 year olds.
 
Darth Snow said:
FYI, just because you don't have the gumption to admit it doesn't mean you aren't advocating for indentured servitude.
Click to expand...
You're being a obtuse as ****, here. Darth is right everybody. There is no nuance to be had in this discussion.

It's either unlimited earning potential and mobility for players or it's indentured servitude.
 
Medford M. said:
I don't hear any suggestions about how to make the system better coming from you, so maybe sit this one out until you add something to the conversation other than calling other people out.
Click to expand...
Another pivot from a losing point. Medford goes 0-2 but you have to respect his desire to go on the offensive. It must arise from his firm belief that college players should not be fairly compensated for the money they generate.
 
Darth Snow said:
Another pivot from a losing point. Medford goes 0-2 but you have to respect his desire to go on the offensive. It must arise from his firm belief that college players should not be fairly compensated for the money they generate.
Click to expand...
Jesus... you're really good at putting words in people's mouths.

You drunk? If you can find anywhere I specifically said anything you're putting out there, then be my guest.
 
I’m fine with paying players or them transferring within reason regarding credit completion. I just find this free for all very damaging to the original concept of amateur athletics and like all things in capitalism will make the rich richer without regulation.

However, giving students scholarships and limiting transfers is not indentured servitude. They are free to give up a scholarship and stop playing at any time. It may violate employee ethics regarding freedom to work, but it’s not servitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top