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
- Thread starter Buffs61
- Start date
At least provide a source or something to start a brand new thread on a topic that has already been discussed in multiple threads. This is the worst of the Miamis.
To be honest, Martin was one of CUs better coaches, but I can't see OU fans being that excited about this.
To be honest, Martin was one of CUs better coaches, but I can't see OU fans being that excited about this.
I just simply can’t watch all of this …
Here‘s a novel idea for Allbuffs: let’s panic.
I saw that about a dozen players are following Norvell from Nevada to CSU. It is going to be common for players to move with coaches from school-to-school now.
bigbang2
blindslighted
Changes will have to be made to the transfer portal to help promote competition. Can't have players follow coaches to their new school. Maybe in that scenario the player will have to seat out a year. Also to qualify for immediate playing time you have to face a life changing event. Not like I don't like my current sdchool. I want to go to another school that can give me mnoney or more NIL opportunities, Even NFL free agency have rules. This transfer protal system is crazy.
We need to go back to a year at the new school before eligible to compete if you haven't already graduated. But don't count that year against their 5-year eligibility clock.
I think the transfer portal finally gives the players some control over their career that they've never truly had. We don't make coaches sit out a year while changing jobs, so why should the players be penalized for now having just as much freedom of movement as the coaches? If you have a good staff, a good program that gives a **** about winning and taking care of players then you'll have fewer transfers. You know, like any employer needs to do to retain its staff.
The only justification is academics.
It's a weird sport in that we've always had rosters turn over by 20-25% every year. Pushing that to 30% is as much an opportunity as threat on competitiveness.
I personally like the idea of emphasizing academics since that's supposed to be the mission of the franchise owners who run college sports.
King_George_XXIV_Rules
Well-Known Member
Does Oregon even accept players transferring from CU?
I am not following at all. Are you saying we should restrict transfers for academic reasons? There are no such limitations on non-athlete transfers between universities, which happen a LOT. Why are we treating athletes differently?
seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be to continue allow what is essentially unfettered transferring between schools, but place restrictions on the scholarship. e.g. you can transfer now and you can play next season, but you have to wait a year for an athletic scholarship.
that seems like the win/win -- student athletes would have the same freedom of movement as other students but the free ride aspect is throttled to disincentivize transfers.
that seems like the win/win -- student athletes would have the same freedom of movement as other students but the free ride aspect is throttled to disincentivize transfers.
I think you’re either interested in the competitiveness of the sport, OR the best interests of the players. Honestly, those two are about as mutually exclusive as it gets in todays college football, and sports in general. There are probably some rules that could be made with both in mind, but as currently constructed, it’s one or the other.
It's the only justification - that with all the responsibilities put onto a student-athlete they need to acclimate as a student before playing sports. It's why freshmen are often not allowed to pledge a frat or sorority their first semester, why we had Props 42 & 48, why grad transfers were treated differently, why in the old days they even had freshman teams & they weren't eligible to play varsity until their 2nd year.
And specific to your question: nothing would stop an athlete to transfer and be a student - just like everyone else who is a student. We're only talking about game participation.
If we’re going to keep comparing this to real life with people jumping from company to company, why are we not discussing non-compete clauses that exist for high level employees? Why are we not comparing the 4 year commitment these players make to a University on a similar level to military commitments?
Framing this issue as “college athletes are the only people in our society who aren’t able to transfer to better their situation” is patently false.
Framing this issue as “college athletes are the only people in our society who aren’t able to transfer to better their situation” is patently false.
Last edited:
People switch schools all of the time for many reasons.
Sure. No one is stopping anyone from going to school or getting it paid for with a scholarship. This only impacts game participation.
further, I'm not aware of any practice outside of athletics where students on scholarship commonly transfer from one school to another mid-degree and remain covered by full scholarship.
If we’re now saying that college athletes are the equivalent of upper management/C-suite level employees, we’d better up the pay.
Again, why? Are you also saying coaches should be required to stay?
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).
The NCAA and member Universities are not for profit organizations. Non-competes are not a major thing in these organizations. Non-competes are not a thing in the AC market because schools don’t provide the security necessary to retain those employees for long periods. Head coaches at the highest level get major guarantees without non-competes mostly because the schools care more about winning and not being encumbered by an item that’ll be thrown out in negotiation.
If Oregon or another school with $$ is able to target a talented position group of need from another school by throwing $$ at said position group coach, that’s a problem. This is worse than hiring a prized high school recruit’s parent just to get that recruit. If we lose Gonzales to UO how can we compete in this world?
buff_fanatic
Well-Known Member
If Gonzales follows to a place like Oregon, then he might not start. Hopefully he stays here where he is already starting.
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.