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!

Sounds like the Buffs are going to lose a coach

Big Jim said:
Non-compete clauses are worthless and flat out illegal in some states. In CA for instance, non-competes can effectively only be used in the event a business owner sells their business. The employees, non-owners, of the business are not subject to non-compete clauses.

Non-solicitation clauses are relatively easy to get around.
Click to expand...
I don't have any data, but this certainly matches my perception that in most cases where a non-compete is challenged in court, it's dismissed.
 
Meat’s 100k + 50k buyout was essentially his noncompete penalty. Oregon laughs at that kind of money if it buys his son’s talent and any bonus transfers. Who cares if he can coach?
 
hokiehead said:
I don't have any data, but this certainly matches my perception that in most cases where a non-compete is challenged in court, it's dismissed.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Although when I went to fight one, my lawyer said you will win but do you have $30k to reach that point because your old employer does.
 
manhattanbuff said:
If we’re now saying that college athletes are the equivalent of upper management/C-suite level employees, we’d better up the pay.
Click to expand...
I am nowhere near upper management or C-suite level and I have a non compete.

Regardless, if the lifeblood of a college football program is recruiting/talent/players, then yes, they are important enough to have non competes. Btw, I am not suggesting no transfers, but this is simply a counterpoint to the people who think players should be able to go wherever they want, whenever they want while not sitting out because, “regular people at normal companies can do that”. The comparisons are dumb
 
A non compete clause doesn’t matter if your new company will fight on your behalf. Only corporate secret stealing matters. And none of this is analogous to college football. The only things the Buffs can do is increase the buyout, which has risks of course. The way around that is to increase the PAC 12 buyout only. In Meat’s case it was an extra $50k if he takes a PAC 12 job. Maybe UO would think twice if this was some ridiculous sum.
 
Hallett Hell said:
A non compete clause doesn’t matter if your new company will fight on your behalf. Only corporate secret stealing matters. And none of this is analogous to college football. The only things the Buffs can do is increase the buyout, which has risks of course. The way around that is to increase the PAC 12 buyout only. In Meat’s case it was an extra $50k if he takes a PAC 12 job. Maybe UO would think twice if this was some ridiculous sum.
Click to expand...
Good luck attracting any coach with a massive buyout for leaving
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I am nowhere near upper management or C-suite level and I have a non compete.

Regardless, if the lifeblood of a college football program is recruiting/talent/players, then yes, they are important enough to have non competes. Btw, I am not suggesting no transfers, but this is simply a counterpoint to the people who think players should be able to go wherever they want, whenever they want while not sitting out because, “regular people at normal companies can do that”. The comparisons are dumb
Click to expand...
I’ve worked as a very highly compensated and very valuable employee for a long time. I’ve negotiated non-competes out of every contract/pay plan offer I’ve ever received.
 
manhattanbuff said:
I’ve worked as a very highly compensated and very valuable employee for a long time. I’ve negotiated non-competes out of every contract/pay plan offer I’ve ever received.
Click to expand...
I left it in one writing a note that I planned to challenge it in CO if it ever became applicable. Got another draft. It was deleted.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Good luck attracting any coach with a massive buyout for leaving
Click to expand...
Nah, just a Pac 12 non compete. Leave the rest standard. That seems reasonable. If a prospective coach won't sign that, they have one foot out the door anyway. If they do good work, get noticed and get a better offer from a big boy outside to conference, fine. But Oregon poaching our coaches has to stop.
 
manhattanbuff said:
I’ve worked as a very highly compensated and very valuable employee for a long time. I’ve negotiated non-competes out of every contract/pay plan offer I’ve ever received.
Click to expand...
Ok. And that’s kind of the buyout for coaches. For players, it’s that they used to lose a year of eligibility.

My point is that comparisons are dumb. There are plenty of real world examples of employees not being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without some kind of ramification.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Ok. And that’s kind of the buyout for coaches. For players, it’s that they used to lose a year of eligibility.

My point is that comparisons are dumb. There are plenty of real world examples of employees not being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without some kind of ramification.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it is very limited and often maleable. If coaches aren’t on non-competes, I am unclear why the players would be held to this standard.
 
Hi.O said:
Why would we not hold the people making millions to a higher standard?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what coaches have to do with players? Why would each group be held to the same standards?
manhattanbuff said:
This is a bad argument. Not for profits with a virtual monopoly don’t get to claim the NFP status and make those demands.
Click to expand...
“Not for Profit”… you can’t possibly believe this as it pertains to college football.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I’m not sure what coaches have to do with players? Why would each group be held to the same standards?
Click to expand...
You're right. They don't have to be held to the same standards. Let's hold coaches to higher standards. Make them sit out a year, or whatever the hell you want to do to make college football more equal. Making athletes sit out a year won't lead to more meritocracy. We had that rule in place for many years. The top schools absolutely dominated those years. This just seems like coaches panic whining and not wanting to spend even more time doing roster management.
 
Hi.O said:
You're right. They don't have to be held to the same standards. Let's hold coaches to higher standards. Make them sit out a year, or whatever the hell you want to do to make college football more equal. Making athletes sit out a year won't lead to more meritocracy. We had that rule in place for many years. The top schools absolutely dominated those years. This just seems like coaches panic whining and not wanting to spend even more time doing roster management.
Click to expand...
How do you manage coaches having to sit out a year? A quarter of your coaches not employed year over year? Who is coaching that year, some random HS coach?

Ultimately, similar rules to what the NFL has will be the only options forward. Right now, there are no rules and regulations and it literally is the wild west. We have to accept that the have's will always be the have's and the have nots, will always be the have nots. No rules are going to change that in today's landscape.
 
Hi.O said:
You're right. They don't have to be held to the same standards. Let's hold coaches to higher standards. Make them sit out a year, or whatever the hell you want to do to make college football more equal. Making athletes sit out a year won't lead to more meritocracy. We had that rule in place for many years. The top schools absolutely dominated those years. This just seems like coaches panic whining and not wanting to spend even more time doing roster management.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, there are two types of people on this issue… people who want the players to have freedom to do whatever they want, and those who want what’s best for the sport.
 
patebuff said:
How do you manage coaches having to sit out a year?
Click to expand...
Just make them sit out. That'll devalue them a bunch and that's the point.
I'd be okay with them not having to sit out if they take a job for equal or lesser pay. They can get a pay increase when their contract from the old school was supposed to end.
I'd also be okay with them not sitting out if their contract has run out, or maybe if there's only one year left on it. Hopefully this'll help schools keep good coaches.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
As I said earlier, there are two types of people on this issue… people who want the players to have freedom to do whatever they want, and those who want what’s best for the sport.
Click to expand...
I want to see more ideas about how we can keep good coaches at their current school by limiting their options. I don't see enough of that.
 
Buffnik said:
If that was how their agreements were structured. I'm actually surprised that schools are offering this kind of guaranteed money without a non-compete clause. Could you imagine the IBM CEO being able to leave for the same job at Apple? University folks are terrible businesspeople. At the least, you'd think that there would be a collective bargaining agreement among NCAA member P5s with a set of rules similar to how they behave in the NFL (no poaching of HCs & no leaving your current gig for a promotion if your season is still going on).
Click to expand...
I think a non-compete would only go so far-like it could prevent moves like the one Martin is making-but what if Martin was talking to......Auburn for example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top