pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Recruiting first and second. NIL third. My jaded foundation.
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!
College Football News, Rumor & Humor
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
For $1 million, you would think it's Rising. Though, he might even command more.
Good for the player. Hope he takes it
You believe other university’s and affiliate parties should be able to reach out an tamper with other schools players?
Coaches are routinely contacted by other universities and affiliated parties. Players should be no exception.
I'm not blaming the player. Do what's best for you.
But college needs a governing body with investigative authority and real penalties. This situation would be disallowed under anti-tampering bylaws.
If it is good for the coaching staff, it is good for the player.
I love to read the terms on player contracts vs coaches contracts in your scenario.
I would also have anti-tampering for coaches like in the pros. Want to offer someone else's assistant a promotion? Fine. But a sitting HC should not be able to be tampered with from Feb signing day through Dec signing day.
Meh. I love the wild west of college football.
It’s no longer college. It’s minor league football with unique marketing built in.
Even if the school is USC?
I am not sure if this has been discussed on this board (but likely has). What about "buyout" clauses that would mean a player transferring due to a collective or NIL deal would have a penalty (paid by new school collective) to either old school AD or collective? So that the smaller schools had just a bit more protection from the big schools poaching them away? By no means do I want it to be large enough to restrict players or anything. I want them to do what they can, but the small schools can get absolutely destroyed by big school collectives.
Agree to disagree. I watched a dozen games last Saturday and saw tons of passion in hard fought games.
I don’t hate U$C like y’all do.
This is why I know you’re a fraud: you’re denying people access to the marketplace. You call yourself a libertarian. LMAO.
You realize that we’re not talking about the NFL, right?
BTW - NFL socialism is basically embodied by this quote. Thanks for proving me right, fake libertarian.
Far more efficient and effective organization than the NCAA.
A socialist organization with 32 members is more efficient than a confederation with hundreds of members? You don’t say…
Here’s the bottom line - coaches/their reps in college get contacted. Players/their reps should be able to get contacted too. That’s capitalism, baby.
mid argument. If that’s the case I’d say the university of Colorado should take that idea and shop it’s best players for money from other school.
Ideally we have Rice and Blackmon on contract and instead of them transferring we sell their rights (ala European football) to a different school.
I would not mind trading them for a few DL/OL or cash considerations.
Though the optics of selling the rights of a black athlete might not go over well with American Media.
Hell the CFL in Canada has a list of players that are obligated to play for a specific team if they play CFL football. If you sign to play at a FBS school you have three options. See out your 4 year scholarship, (unless it’s year to year, in which the school has a franchise option to keep them on scholarship), mutually part ways, or you can leave and play football at a lower division.
The University of Colorado/Universities who have football teams do not own the players. Thank goodness.
Schools can’t afford to pay the players market rates and remain compliant with the law, so another market force has to fill the gap. Another NIL collective wants to make an offer to persuade a player to go elsewhere? Great! Sounds like progress to me.
They’re not in my top 3 (maybe even 5) in the P12
I think you can “be a Libertarian” or dislike Socialistic policies of government, and also want your sports leagues used for entertainment to operate in a way that isn’t 100% Capitalistic.
Of course. You just can't do it without being hypocritical
I think implementing a framework that allows the players a bigger slice of the pie while also providing a degree of stability and competitive balance for the schools would be good for everyone.
I’ve read that the mean average NIL deal was $471 per month, but heavily skewed at the top. The median was $35/month. I’ve also read that some NIL deals have not been honored. There are no standards in contracts and generally no representation for the athletes. At the same time, free agency also imposes downside risks for the players. You see more getting cut (effectively) from rosters, and many not finding a landing spot after entering the portal. It will be really interesting to read the studies a few years from now. I suspect that we will find that NIL was great for a small group of players at the top, but ultimately bad for more players at the bottom. I also suspect that negative impacts to competitive balance will actually shrink the revenue pie in the future, which will also ultimately affect the players. However, there are so many variables at play, it’s hard to predict how things will truly evolve.
I’ve read that the mean average NIL deal was $471 per month, but heavily skewed at the top. The median was $35/month. I’ve also read that some NIL deals have not been honored. There are no standards in contracts and generally no representation for the athletes. At the same time, free agency also imposes downside risks for the players. You see more getting cut (effectively) from rosters, and many not finding a landing spot after entering the portal. It will be really interesting to read the studies a few years from now. I suspect that we will find that NIL was great for a small group of players at the top, but ultimately bad for more players at the bottom. I also suspect that negative impacts to competitive balance will actually shrink the revenue pie in the future, which will also ultimately affect the players. However, there are so many variables at play, it’s hard to predict how things will truly evolve.
It depends on what the capitalistic driver is.
If we see every athletic department as an independent actor competing for resources and revenue in the college sports space, then forming cooperatives (NCAA, conferences) are socialistic measures.
If we see college sports as competing as an entity to attract as much of the sports entertainment dollar as possible, then forming cooperatives to best position and grow the college football brand is not socialistic any more than P&G will pool resources to muscle market and doesn't care whether you buy Tide, Cheer or Gain as long as P&G is growing its market share and revenue in the laundry products category.
Therefore, from a business standpoint I don't see American sports leagues as socialistic. I think people misunderstand the nature of their business.