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!

Mel Tucker leaves CU for Michigan State

GawainBuff said:
Again, I disagree with this standard “free market” idiom, as it purposefully ignores one of the essential bases of a functioning “free market”: the binding nature of contracts. Everyone seems to skip over this part of the present problem.
A “free market” is only “free” when the parties have faith there is an ability to enforce mutual agreements; otherwise, we merely exist in some Hobbsean state of nature: i.e., “we should keep our covenants (so long as there is a common power to enforce them).”

The present system is cresting toward acceptability of unilateral breach of contracts, by those with so much money contract terms (and liquidated damages provisions) are meaningless to enforce the spirit of the agreement.
As in criminal law, we are moving toward the place where if you have enough money, you can get out of any liability.

Even the “free market” breaks down when contracts are meaningless.

Of course, all of this presumes that a “free market” is the point of the system, which it isn’t. The NFL, just for one example, operates under a strict collective bargaining agreement. It is not a “free market.” College athletics are strictly regulated as to movement of athletes, but not as to coaches.

Amazingly, there may be a simple solution to this lack of oversight or rules re movement of coaches, which derives from the essence of contract law (and was mentioned by RG): stop the accepted “norm” of granting other schools permission to talk to your coach about other jobs.

Absent that waiver, such conduct can be considered “tortious interference,” subject to actual, substantial damages.

If you truly desire a “free market,” people should be held to the obligations they are “free” to choose to enter into.
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly, coaches apparently are free to float wherever they may win or lose and cash checks and break their word, but athletes, for whom the HEAD COACH that they’re signing up to play for, don’t have that freedom. Kinda BS. Either remove all barriers to those responsible (I.e. the players) for the team performance running from place to place (which would just make it one step closer to NFL and make it less enjoyable to fans, in my opinion) or have some parity for the whole group, such that relying solely on a person’s word/commitments they’ve voiced isn’t the only thing protecting us: the fans, the players, alumni, students, and institutions. Obviously recent history has taught us it’s foolhardy to trust someone to live up to their commitments and people are getting burned so that a dude can get $5m instead of $3m to go 5-7 again.

As much as this sucks as a fan, mostly I feel bad for the players who got screwed in this.

I hate to be sour grapes about it, but I hope he never has a winning season at MSU.
 
Last edited:
GawainBuff said:
Again, I disagree with this standard “free market” idiom, as it purposefully ignores one of the essential bases of a functioning “free market”: the binding nature of contracts. Everyone seems to skip over this part of the present problem.
A “free market” is only “free” when the parties have faith there is an ability to enforce mutual agreements; otherwise, we merely exist in some Hobbsean state of nature: i.e., “we should keep our covenants (so long as there is a common power to enforce them).”

The present system is cresting toward acceptability of unilateral breach of contracts, by those with so much money contract terms (and liquidated damages provisions) are meaningless to enforce the spirit of the agreement.
As in criminal law, we are moving toward the place where if you have enough money, you can get out of any liability.

Even the “free market” breaks down when contracts are meaningless.

Of course, all of this presumes that a “free market” is the point of the system, which it isn’t. The NFL, just for one example, operates under a strict collective bargaining agreement. It is not a “free market.” College athletics are strictly regulated as to movement of athletes, but not as to coaches.

Amazingly, there may be a simple solution to this lack of oversight or rules re movement of coaches, which derives from the essence of contract law (and was mentioned by RG): stop the accepted “norm” of granting other schools permission to talk to your coach about other jobs.

Absent that waiver, such conduct can be considered “tortious interference,” subject to actual, substantial damages.

If you truly desire a “free market,” people should be held to the obligations they are “free” to choose to enter into.
Click to expand...
Yes. Tortious Interference with a contract has been allowed to become standard practice in the business of sports. But it's also probably not the basis for a lawsuit considering that buyout clauses are agreed to by both parties. Either side not choosing to fulfill the agreement is anticipated in the terms.

That said, it's a bad thing when coaches are hired within that structure to lead young adults who have little power and no way to change their own situations without paying significant penalties with eligibility & the ability to showcase their skills for potential future professional opportunities.

Very few coaches have credibility when they deliver messages to their players about the team being bigger than themselves, the value of loyalty and commitment, the life lesson of how rewarding it is to work through challenges instead of running away from them, etc. This credibility problem is made much worse when coaches lie Tucker talk about how there's no transfer portal in life.
 
Buffnik said:
Yes. Tortious Interference with a contract has been allowed to become standard practice in the business of sports. But it's also probably not the basis for a lawsuit considering that buyout clauses are agreed to by both parties. Either side not choosing to fulfill the agreement is anticipated in the terms.

That said, it's a bad thing when coaches are hired within that structure to lead young adults who have little power and no way to change their own situations without paying significant penalties with eligibility & the ability to showcase their skills for potential future professional opportunities.

Very few coaches have credibility when they deliver messages to their players about the team being bigger than themselves, the value of loyalty and commitment, the life lesson of how rewarding it is to work through challenges instead of running away from them, etc. This credibility problem is made much worse when coaches lie Tucker talk about how there's no transfer portal in life.
Click to expand...
Iirc, RG said he gave MSU permission to talk to MT. And that's just what you do, attempting to limit employees just creates disgruntled employees.
 
White_Rabbit said:
How do NFL teams shoot down assistants for interviews? Is that just a courtesy?
Click to expand...
NFL contract structures are different than college. The NFLCA has an agreement with the league to permit this practice of teams being able to prevent interviews. The standard practice is to permit coaches to interview for promotions. Even then, some teams will only permit outside interviews for a person interviewing for an HC job. Those are bad franchises like Cincinnati.
 
zbuff said:
BS, assistants' jobs are in jeopardy and don't have the wherewithall that HCes do. Don't blame Kap one bit.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He has no idea when a new coach will be hired or if that coach will even want to keep him. An offer from MSU is a bird in the hand.
 
More I think about this move by mel ****er CU should be owed more than just a buy out. Look at all the unnecessary spending we are having to do in this new search. Threat of scholarships bailing and new support staff having to be hired and trained...
#cutthroat
 
BuffUp said:
More I think about this move by mel ****er CU should be owed more than just a buy out. Look at all the unnecessary spending we are having to do in this new search. Threat of scholarships bailing and new support staff having to be hired and trained...
#cutthroat
Click to expand...

As I said before, the norm of allowing other schools to talk to your coaches re poaching them needs to change. It is essentially a waiver of all tortious interference claims for these sorts of damage claims.

To quote the great Harvey Korman: “No more Mr. Goodbar.”
 

Attachments

  • 374BA5C9-046B-4A4F-B01C-DFAA19901BB1.jpeg
    374BA5C9-046B-4A4F-B01C-DFAA19901BB1.jpeg
    15 KB · Views: 1
BuffUp said:
More I think about this move by mel ****er CU should be owed more than just a buy out. Look at all the unnecessary spending we are having to do in this new search. Threat of scholarships bailing and new support staff having to be hired and trained...
#cutthroat
Click to expand...
So, you think that Colorado should break the contract that its lawyers wrote? Cool story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top