Look Who's Transferring Now (The Portal)

[Captain Buckeye]

Some arbitrary, self appointed governing body of whatever you do for a living tells you you can only change jobs 1 time in the next 5 years no matter what.

You good with that? So your employer and those like your employer can keep a stable roster of employees?

Because that's what this is.

I think you’re missing the mark here. Every professional sport (that’s what this is now) has contracts. Besides the kids could just sign 1 year contracts anyhow. At least you’d know what you’re dealing with.

For kids to be able to up and leave year to year for better pay is pretty ridiculous. I’d wager a good bit of money that schools would sign kids to 2+ year contracts at a minimum.

 

[Jaxbuck]

For kids to be able to up and leave year to year for better pay is pretty ridiculous.

speaking of missing the mark....what is different about these kids and any other tax paying citizen? Anyone can leave for more money anytime they want to. This is America.

You down for having your profession regulated like that? By a governing body you have no say in?

 

[Zurp]

speaking of missing the mark....what is different about these kids and any other tax paying citizen? Anyone can leave for more money anytime they want to. This is America.

You down for having your profession regulated like that? By a governing body you have no say in?

I think the argument is with having the kids sign contracts. Sign a 2-year or 3-year or 4-year contract. There... now you're stuck in this contract, unless we release you. And the road should run both ways. You signed me to a 3-year contract. You can't release me until it's up, unless I agree to part ways.
I'm no lawyer, so I don't know what clauses need to go into those contracts.

I mean, Joey Joe Joe can't just leave the Miami Dolphins any time he wants - he needs to play out his contract. I know the Dolphins can cut Joey Joe Joe, so he was smart and made a certain amount of his contract "guaranteed".

I think the difference between NCAA and NFL is that the NCAA pretends to include higher education as the reason the kids are there. "This school doesn't have what I really want to study, so I'd like to transfer to another school." And who am I to tell him that he can't transfer schools? Sure, his contract might say he has 2 more years to play football for the first school, but he's already transferred out. He can't go to play football for one school and go play college in another school. So contracts probably can't work for college athletes.

 

[Jaxbuck]

I think the argument is with having the kids sign contracts. Sign a 2-year or 3-year or 4-year contract. There... now you're stuck in this contract, unless we release you. And the road should run both ways. You signed me to a 3-year contract. You can't release me until it's up, unless I agree to part ways.
I'm no lawyer, so I don't know what clauses need to go into those contracts.

I mean, Joey Joe Joe can't just leave the Miami Dolphins any time he wants - he needs to play out his contract. I know the Dolphins can cut Joey Joe Joe, so he was smart and made a certain amount of his contract "guaranteed".

I think the difference between NCAA and NFL is that the NCAA pretends to include higher education as the reason the kids are there. "This school doesn't have what I really want to study, so I'd like to transfer to another school." And who am I to tell him that he can't transfer schools? Sure, his contract might say he has 2 more years to play football for the first school, but he's already transferred out. He can't go to play football for one school and go play college in another school. So contracts probably can't work for college athletes.

Correct-contracts with the school(s) is so far off the real world reality why even bring it up? The conversation was on what's wrongheaded about the attempt to limit their movement (and indirectly their income).

The players being on 1 year agreements with schools/NIL was referred to as "ridiculous". My question is why it's ridiculous for anyone, in any profession to have the freedom to change jobs as often as they like unless they have agreed to participate in a CBA and movement is restricted?

 

[Zurp]

Correct-contracts with the school(s) is so far off the real world reality why even bring it up? The conversation was on what's wrongheaded about the attempt to limit their movement (and indirectly their income).

The players being on 1 year agreements with schools/NIL was referred to as "ridiculous". My question is why it's ridiculous for anyone, in any profession to have the freedom to change jobs as often as they like unless they have agreed to participate in a CBA and movement is restricted?

I'm not going to speak for Captain Buckeye. Was he the one who originally brought it up? I don't recall. But I'd say that I mentioned it because there seems (to me, at least) that there should be a correlation between pro sports, and college sports where players are getting paid. The pros aren't free to move from job to job. So why should the college players be free to move from school to school?

But I think I agree with Jaxbuck - we can't limit the movement because of the fact that they are still labeled as "students". And even though fans don't care about the student part of the "student athlete", it's still there. It will always be there. And I think it should be there. The only way to get rid of it is to take the "student athlete" away from the school. Start a minor league system. I mean, don't do that because I love college football. But I think that's the only way you can restrict the kids from moving from one school to another. Sure - we all know that they're switching for playing time, to play under a new coach, to win championships, or a dozen other reasons that are sports-related and not college-related. But under the guise of academics, we cannot restrict it.

To answer your last question, though, I mean, if contracts are on the table (again, I don't see how they can be on the table), we should be able to hold the athletes to their end of the bargain. Shedeur isn't really free to go play for the Lions, until the Browns show him the door. Or am I not understanding the question?

 

[Jaxbuck]

I'm not going to speak for Captain Buckeye. Was he the one who originally brought it up? I don't recall. But I'd say that I mentioned it because there seems (to me, at least) that there should be a correlation between pro sports, and college sports where players are getting paid. The pros aren't free to move from job to job. So why should the college players be free to move from school to school?

But I think I agree with Jaxbuck - we can't limit the movement because of the fact that they are still labeled as "students". And even though fans don't care about the student part of the "student athlete", it's still there. It will always be there. And I think it should be there. The only way to get rid of it is to take the "student athlete" away from the school. Start a minor league system. I mean, don't do that because I love college football. But I think that's the only way you can restrict the kids from moving from one school to another. Sure - we all know that they're switching for playing time, to play under a new coach, to win championships, or a dozen other reasons that are sports-related and not college-related. But under the guise of academics, we cannot restrict it.

To answer your last question, though, I mean, if contracts are on the table (again, I don't see how they can be on the table), we should be able to hold the athletes to their end of the bargain. Shedeur isn't really free to go play for the Lions, until the Browns show him the door. Or am I not understanding the question?

The question I started with was that about Tuberville and others trying to impose restrictions on the movement of players without the players in any way getting a say in it.

That somehow pivoted to "contracts" which just didn't make any sense to me.

A company does an NIL deal with an athlete they can put damn near anything they want in a contract, player leaves early they claw back money etc etc BUT all this stuff you read from fans about ways to punish the player for leaving cuts both ways. The more restrictive the agreement, the more unappealing to the athlete. Your position in the market place is a huge factor in compensation strategy.

As far as contract with the school-if I am an employee and a union member then whatever rights non union people have can be bargained "away" presumably in return for something else. Again though, practical reality-why on Woody's green earth would a player join a union right now? They have all the leverage and are 1 year free agents. It's heaven for them.

Lastly before anyone gets all old man shaking their fist at a cloud on these damn kids and their leverage-for the vast majority of CFB history the schools had a 1 year renewable contract on the "student" athlete. They could revoke a scholarship if they really wanted to and in some places (SEC) you had that type of roster manipulation well into the 21st century. So again, abuse leads to restrictions and nobody was on message boards crying about how ridiculously unfair that was to the players. No one had their vag clenched about ruining the game, integrity of the sport and all that bullshit.

Fans, coaches and most especially administrators LOVED the old indentured servitude model and just want that back so it looks like the "game they grew up with" yadda, yadda, yadda. It's just a lot of talk. It's gone. You can't restrict wages or movement of workers by collusion. Players are workers just like you and me (and especially @Thump mom) This was settled over a hundred years ago. SCOTUS ruled on it. It wasn't particularly vague.

 

[zbuck]

The question I started with was that about Tuberville and others trying to impose restrictions on the movement of players without the players in any way getting a say in it.

That somehow pivoted to "contracts" which just didn't make any sense to me.

A company does an NIL deal with an athlete they can put damn near anything they want in a contract, player leaves early they claw back money etc etc BUT all this stuff you read from fans about ways to punish the player for leaving cuts both ways. The more restrictive the agreement, the more unappealing to the athlete. Your position in the market place is a huge factor in compensation strategy.

As far as contract with the school-if I am an employee and a union member then whatever rights non union people have can be bargained "away" presumably in return for something else. Again though, practical reality-why on Woody's green earth would a player join a union right now? They have all the leverage and are 1 year free agents. It's heaven for them.

Lastly before anyone gets all old man shaking their fist at a cloud on these damn kids and their leverage-for the vast majority of CFB history the schools had a 1 year renewable contract on the "student" athlete. They could revoke a scholarship if they really wanted to and in some places (SEC) you had that type of roster manipulation well into the 21st century. So again, abuse leads to restrictions and nobody was on message boards crying about how ridiculously unfair that was to the players. No one had their vag clenched about ruining the game, integrity of the sport and all that bullshit.

Fans, coaches and most especially administrators LOVED the old indentured servitude model and just want that back so it looks like the "game they grew up with" yadda, yadda, yadda. It's just a lot of talk. It's gone. You can't restrict wages or movement of workers by collusion. Players are workers just like you and me (and especially @Thump mom) This was settled over a hundred years ago. SCOTUS ruled on it. It wasn't particularly vague.

At the end of the day I just have to lean into the fact that my / our team will be just fine. They appear to be taking a very professional approach to the brave new world. Hopefully Day and Co./ AD will stay ahead of the curve .....

 

[Captain Buckeye]

Correct-contracts with the school(s) is so far off the real world reality why even bring it up? The conversation was on what's wrongheaded about the attempt to limit their movement (and indirectly their income).

The players being on 1 year agreements with schools/NIL was referred to as "ridiculous". My question is why it's ridiculous for anyone, in any profession to have the freedom to change jobs as often as they like unless they have agreed to participate in a CBA and movement is restricted?

It’s ridiculous because there aren’t contracts so schools are forced into a position of competing for every kid on their roster every year.

If there were 1 year deals signed then hey have at it. But the lack of contacts is wild,

Could you imagine pro sports if every off season everyone was a free agent? Thats nuts.

 

[Captain Buckeye]

The question I started with was that about Tuberville and others trying to impose restrictions on the movement of players without the players in any way getting a say in it.

That somehow pivoted to "contracts" which just didn't make any sense to me.

A company does an NIL deal with an athlete they can put damn near anything they want in a contract, player leaves early they claw back money etc etc BUT all this stuff you read from fans about ways to punish the player for leaving cuts both ways. The more restrictive the agreement, the more unappealing to the athlete. Your position in the market place is a huge factor in compensation strategy.

As far as contract with the school-if I am an employee and a union member then whatever rights non union people have can be bargained "away" presumably in return for something else. Again though, practical reality-why on Woody's green earth would a player join a union right now? They have all the leverage and are 1 year free agents. It's heaven for them.

Lastly before anyone gets all old man shaking their fist at a cloud on these damn kids and their leverage-for the vast majority of CFB history the schools had a 1 year renewable contract on the "student" athlete. They could revoke a scholarship if they really wanted to and in some places (SEC) you had that type of roster manipulation well into the 21st century. So again, abuse leads to restrictions and nobody was on message boards crying about how ridiculously unfair that was to the players. No one had their vag clenched about ruining the game, integrity of the sport and all that bullshit.

Fans, coaches and most especially administrators LOVED the old indentured servitude model and just want that back so it looks like the "game they grew up with" yadda, yadda, yadda. It's just a lot of talk. It's gone. You can't restrict wages or movement of workers by collusion. Players are workers just like you and me (and especially @Thump mom) This was settled over a hundred years ago. SCOTUS ruled on it. It wasn't particularly vague.

My point was that’d be a way to prevent the constant moving anyhow.

I’m glad the players can make money now but right now they have all the say for the most part.

 

[Jaxbuck]

It’s ridiculous because there aren’t contracts so schools are forced into a position of competing for every kid on their roster every year.

Like every business in America that hasn't collectively bargained with it's employees and contractors.

The companies that do NIL deals can have contracts all the live long day. All it takes to get out of a contract is someone willing to pay to do so. You can't press gang them into staying.

If there were 1 year deals signed then hey have at it. But the lack of contacts is wild,

Could you imagine pro sports if every off season everyone was a free agent? Thats nuts.

I can't imagine in in pro sports leagues, no because they have legal entities that employ players and therefore can have employment contracts with the players or their union.

My point was that’d be a way to prevent the constant moving anyhow.

Trying to "prevent" movement is the exact thinking I was pointing out.

It's not legal unless its agreed to by both parties. Things that aren't exactly legal probably shouldn't be the thing you are trying to accomplish.

 

[Thump]

‘Murica!