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

Medford M. said:
No. I'm thinking you don't know what irony is at this point. You're putting words in my mouth I never said. I never even inferred them in fact.
Click to expand...
Again, just because you refuse to see what you are doing doesn't mean others can't.

The kids should get paid. The system is broken. But it's always been broken. Now it's just broken in a way that is less harmful to the players. It will take congress and a whole bunch of people doing the right thing to fix it. Good luck.
 
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...
5 years of eligibility vs a lifetime career? Proportionately, way more mobility
 
I'd be very much in favor of only allowing 1 transfer as an undergrad and getting rid of redshirt years (just have a 5-year eligibility clock). But that's only fair if it's part of a CBA negotiation which gets players a profit share and protects their rights in other ways.
 
Robert Sorell said:
I can't get behind limiting transfers.

If an excellent biochemistry student was stuck washing dishes in one lab at their original school then offered a great project in a lab at a competiting institution should they be prevented from transferring all together, or not allowed to do a research project if they transfer?

Sure, football players aren't biochemists, but restricting kids eligibility to participate in extracurriculars of they switch schools is just fundamentally wrong in my brain.
Click to expand...
I get it, I get it. No need to get overly heavy handed.

And for years, I’ve acknowledged the inequity that surrounds the sport.

Let’s assume that we want the same outcome: Opportunities for young people to grow and develop, fair distribution of earnings, and preservation of what makes CFB unique while progressing into a system that is more fair to the players.

So what does that look like? Is there an incentive system that can support all of those things?
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
I'd be very much in favor of only allowing 1 transfer as an undergrad and getting rid of redshirt years (just have a 5-year eligibility clock). But that's only fair if it's part of a CBA negotiation which gets players a profit share and protects their rights in other ways.
Click to expand...
There's probably a vast margin of manageable equity between players becoming NIL mercenaries and indentured servitude, CFB needs to get there.
 
Darth Snow said:
Again, just because you refuse to see what you are doing doesn't mean others can't.

The kids should get paid. The system is broken. But it's always been broken. Now it's just broken in a way that is less harmful to the players. It will take congress and a whole bunch of people doing the right thing to fix it. Good luck.
Click to expand...
I've defended and pushed for kids to get paid now and in the past...so I don't know what you think I'm doing.

You said I supported indentured servitude, so I used hyperbole, saying you were at the other end of the spectrum.

Money is at the heart of all the ills in college football...be it the coaches, conferences, schools, or the players now.

Congress, Senate, government shouldn't even get involved in sports. Unless there's a crime being committed.
 
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...
The issue is that nearly all players are on one year contracts. They aren’t really breaking them with unlimited transfers. If anybody is breaking the contracts, I think it’s the programs.
 
manhattanbuff said:
The issue is that nearly all players are on one year contracts. They aren’t really breaking them with unlimited transfers. If anybody is breaking the contracts, I think it’s the programs.
Click to expand...
Weren't 4 year guaranteed scholarships a thing that became reality a few years back? I guess no school offers them really?

If there ends up being a CNA and a players union, I don't see how unlimited transfers is still a thing if kids are employees.
 
Medford M. said:
No. Do professional coaches face penalties for taking other jobs?

You're saying you support limitless, consequence free transfers?
Click to expand...
NFL head coaches are bound by their contracts. They can't leave for another NFL team before their contract expires unless the other team agrees to terms of a trade (draft picks or monetary considerations). If they leave for any other job outside the NFL, there may be a liquidated damages clause, however the NFL team they leave would continue to hold their rights if they return to the NFL.
 
SewallBeach said:
Click to expand...

Cowboy GIF
 
Robert Sorell said:
I can't get behind limiting transfers.

If an excellent biochemistry student was stuck washing dishes in one lab at their original school then offered a great project in a lab at a competiting institution should they be prevented from transferring all together, or not allowed to do a research project if they transfer?

Sure, football players aren't biochemists, but restricting kids eligibility to participate in extracurriculars of they switch schools is just fundamentally wrong in my brain.
Click to expand...
This.

I want to say that I could get behind limiting transfers, as long as the same limits applied to coaches and ADs, but they're both sides of the same coin.

It's wrong to limit transfers for either students or coaches. It's even more wrong to limit transfers for players, but not coaches.

In my opinion the options are:

A. Unlimited transfers for players and coaches.
B. Limited transfers, with similar rules/restrictions, for players and coaches.
C. Unlimited transfers for players, limited transfers for coaches.
D. Unlimited transfers for coaches, limited transfers for players.

I rank D. as the worst possible world due to the power differential between the two. The person that has more power should be more limited that the person with less power.

Anyway, I find it interesting that people (including @Uncle Ken who I don't think would normally take this stance) are yearning for D. There's no reason that I can see to prefer it other than nostalgia and old time conservatism (not political, but just unwilling to accept change conservatism).

At the end of the day, I can see a good case for A., and a good case for B. The other two are inherently unjust.
 
skibum said:
This.

I want to say that I could get behind limiting transfers, as long as the same limits applied to coaches and ADs, but they're both sides of the same coin.

It's wrong to limit transfers for either students or coaches. It's even more wrong to limit transfers for players, but not coaches.

In my opinion the options are:

A. Unlimited transfers for players and coaches.
B. Limited transfers, with similar rules/restrictions, for players and coaches.
C. Unlimited transfers for players, limited transfers for coaches.
D. Unlimited transfers for coaches, limited transfers for players.

I rank D. as the worst possible world due to the power differential between the two. The person that has more power should be more limited that the person with less power.

Anyway, I find it interesting that people (including @Uncle Ken who I don't think would normally take this stance) are yearning for D. There's no reason that I can see to prefer it other than nostalgia and old time conservatism (not political, but just unwilling to accept change conservatism).

At the end of the day, I can see a good case for A., and a good case for B. The other two are inherently unjust.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember advocating for D. I believe I advocated for B.
 
Uncle Ken said:
I don’t remember advocating for D. I believe I advocated for B.
Click to expand...
I read your posts as a desire to return to the past, with limited transfers for players (at least the post @Robert Sorell was initially responding to).

Basically, at the onset, you were silent on coaches (and ADs); you did clarify though - so I shouldn't have put you in the "D" column.
 
Spin it off and make it a separate league and you can opt out of getting a degree and sign contracts like the NFL pay for play.

It seems degrees don't matter much here unfortunately it's all about the bag. I think it's a travesty but that's how it is. As it stands I'm going to opt out of watching. There needs to be some kind of regulation.
 
Flat_Iron_Rising said:
Spin it off and make it a separate league and you can opt out of getting a degree and sign contracts like the NFL pay for play.

It seems degrees don't matter much here unfortunately it's all about the bag. I think it's a travesty but that's how it is. As it stands I'm going to opt out of watching. There needs to be some kind of regulation.
Click to expand...
While that makes sense in so many ways, the money grubbers understand that so much of the value of CFB is derived from the branding of the universities.

A developmental league in the vein of USFL or whatever, won't be a cash cow, even if they licensed the use of school names and mascots.
 
Robert Sorell said:
While that makes sense in so many ways, the money grubbers understand that so much of the value of CFB is derived from the branding of the universities.

A developmental league in the vein of USFL or whatever, won't be a cash cow, even if they licensed the use of school names and mascots.
Click to expand...
Right. Nobody cares about the XFL, AAFL, USFL, and now the newly merged UFL or whatever the Rock is running. CFB is only successful because of tribalism. If you remove all affiliation to the schools, you lose that.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Right. Nobody cares about the XFL, AAFL, USFL, and now the newly merged UFL or whatever the Rock is running. CFB is only successful because of tribalism. If you remove all affiliation to the schools, you lose that.
Click to expand...
Unless they build some structure around the current system I'd say it's meaningless as well.

Spin off is one of the only ways this works without regulation in my opinion (with school affiliation). Time will tell though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top