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!

Possible way around TABOR?

DBT

DBT

Club Member
Club Member
I was thinking of this today but my contracting knowledge is sketchy. What if we hired the HC as a prime contractor in a service contract and he hired the assistants as subcontractors? We then upfront the, say, 5 year salary for the "subcontractor's" to the HC and he pays their salary?

Sorry. I hate TABOR and kind of obsess about it and figure there must be a way around it in this situation. And I know there are problems with my scenario. Just trying to think outside the box a bit. I know one problem right off the bat. What if the HC fires an assistant or the assistant leaves? Things like that.
 
Tabor is not why we have bad football at CU. but it does seem to be for those dweebs you listen to on the radio.
 
I've always wondered if having a "private athletic department" would do the trick, similar to Florida Gators. The school pays the head coach a nominal salary and holds the employment contract, while the AD (funded by tickets, donations, conference distributions, etc the same way CU does but without any institutional support) then negotiates the rest of the salary and guarantees/bonuses and assistant salaries.

Check out their site: http://www.uaa.ufl.edu/index.asp

There certainly could be some abuse in that situation, but by not receiving institutional support from the University or the State of Colorado, the AD (a separate legal entity) would then not have to fall under TABOR? At least it seems that way in simple logic, there could be many loopholes to TABOR that I am not aware of since I am not an attorney.

Now, I don't think we operate in the black at this point to cutoff state funding, but with Pac-12 revenues set to increase and a coordinated booster drive, maybe we could be there in a few years.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Tabor is not why we have bad football at CU. but it does seem to be for those dweebs you listen to on the radio.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it isn't why we have bad football. But it makes it more difficult for us to hire and retain good assistants. Plus, it screws assistants when changes are made which kind of sucks.
 
DBT said:
Wow. Almost exactly what I'm proposing.
Click to expand...

Except if the Coach set up an LLC then the LLC becomes a contractor to the State and subject to a whole set of procurement regulations.

Your fascination with Tabor is misguided and has little impact on the Football team.
 
Why can't the assistant coaches get multi year contract at some sham company funded by boosters. I guess we would need boosters for that to happen.
 
BlackNGold said:
Except if the Coach set up an LLC then the LLC becomes a contractor to the State and subject to a whole set of procurement regulations.

Your fascination with Tabor is misguided and has little impact on the Football team.
Click to expand...
OK then. Screw it. I guess all the complaining about it over the years was bull****.
 
tante said:
I see that but in my scenario it isn't setup by the coach. It is an outside entity.
Click to expand...

If its not an employment contract then its private company contract between the company and the state and its subject to state procurement contracting rules (lowest bidder, fee schedules, POs, reasonable expenses, auditing, insurance compliance, etc.). The coach would have to hire someone just to mange all that on top of the staff. How would you expenses recruiting travel? Can these people drive a state vehicle? It's a slippery slope.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
If its not an employment contract then its private company contract between the company and the state and its subject to state procurement contracting rules (lowest bidder, fee schedules, POs, reasonable expenses, auditing, insurance compliance, etc.). The coach would have to hire someone just to mange all that on top of the staff. How would you expenses recruiting travel? Can these people drive a state vehicle? It's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...


There isn't a business out there that has a clear path through bureaucracy and legitimacy. Hiring someone to manage those details would be minor in the big scheme of things. I would send a team to Florida and learn about how they put everything together and deal with some of the regulations and then come back and figure out how that may translate in Colorado law.

This isn't a direct cause for Colorado being bad, but it is a huge red flag and deal breaker for the best coaches and staffs in the country even considering coming here. Success comes from figuring out how to work through barriers. I don't think this should be all that difficult. There is a slippery slope right up until we figure out how to deal with it.
 
TimmyDUBs said:
There isn't a business out there that has a clear path through bureaucracy and legitimacy. Hiring someone to manage those details would be minor in the big scheme of things. I would send a team to Florida and learn about how they put everything together and deal with some of the regulations and then come back and figure out how that may translate in Colorado law.

This isn't a direct cause for Colorado being bad, but it is a huge red flag and deal breaker for the best coaches and staffs in the country even considering coming here. Success comes from figuring out how to work through barriers. I don't think this should be all that difficult. There is a slippery slope right up until we figure out how to deal with it.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the head coach forming an LLC then subcontracting the assistants to his LLC.

Privatization the entire AD like UF did is a different matter. CUAD has needed loans in the past to stay afloat. UF on the other hand is one of 22 schools that are revenue positive. Florida does not have anything like TABOR either so I'm not sure why they did it that way.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
If its not an employment contract then its private company contract between the company and the state and its subject to state procurement contracting rules (lowest bidder, fee schedules, POs, reasonable expenses, auditing, insurance compliance, etc.). The coach would have to hire someone just to mange all that on top of the staff. How would you expenses recruiting travel? Can these people drive a state vehicle? It's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

No they are hired by a private entity in addition to the school. No law against having two jobs. One would be year to year from the school and the other could be multi year private. The salary layout can be split any way.
 
BlackNGold said:
Except if the Coach set up an LLC then the LLC becomes a contractor to the State and subject to a whole set of procurement regulations.

Your fascination with Tabor is misguided and has little impact on the Football team.
Click to expand...
Honestly, if it isn't a problem, I don't care what they do. All I ever hear coming from coaches and the AD is that it is kind of a big deal. Also, I deal with procurement regulations every day. I'm not saying my solution is the end all. It is just an nebulous idea. You would think there would be a creative way to fix the problem. Guys on Embree's staff that were under one year contracts got screwed compared to most assistants in the same position and I don't think that is fair to them or their families.
 
At any rate, we have Mike Bohn as AD. So, I'm sure all creative ideas have been considered.
 
Is it truly TABOR (constitutional amendment) that limits multi-year contracts for state employees? I wonder, because in the last 10 years, something was changed to allow each University something like 6 multi-year contracts. I think they are commonly Prez, AD, head FB, head BB and a few others. I'm pretty certain that change was NOT done through constitutional amendment but more like state statute change.
If it the limitation is spelled out in state statute, it simply (haha, simply, ask me about a no brainer investment legislative bill I ran last year that caused way too much drama) requires legislative action to add positions.
 
No, it's not TABOR, but a state law passed around the same time. It can be changed and modified by the legislature. However, the legislature just updated the law this year (allowing some more flexibility for non-tenure track classroom instructors at state schools), and they deliberately chose to not lift the number or exempt athletics. It will probably be several years before the legislature even wants to look at it again (a part time legislature means very limited time to actually legislate, once they take something up and reach a decision, they don't typically take the issue up again for several years).

For right now, the law is what is - one of the problems is that if CU were to try and find a way around this, it would likely piss off the legislature (because they considered directly allowing athletic coaches to be excluded, and decided they didn't want them to be) - for some reason politicians don't like people to do things that they have decreed should not be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top