Lame for the mercenaries. Great for the team owners and associated leaches.
Post Reply
1 of 1
A short single transfer portal in early January is in the works.
1,147 Views |
9 Replies |
Last: 4 days ago by upsetof86
please elaborate.Bobodeluxe said:
Lame for the mercenaries. Great for the team owners and associated leaches.
Is this in addition to the regular Portal?
why have a portal at all? Let people transfer during the season too. We can have super teams form during the season according to who's the best! Imagine how much the commercial interests would love it!
I can't wait to see a player up 21 at halftime transfer to his hometown team in the other locker room and spark a miracle comeback. It'll be the stuff of legends, like "Rudy" for a new generation (but true because Rudy was an almost entirely fabricated story)
How about trades? Say our RB1 goes down for the season in game 3. Let's trade couple of our 3rd stringers and cash considerations for another team's RB1.
I for one don't want to see college FB devolve into having this kind of a system.
I for one don't want to see college FB devolve into having this kind of a system.
This is why only the brightest get into Cal! Completely shifting the matrix! Player swaps during commercial breaks which means we must have longer commercial breaks which means more revenue!
A one-time Transfer Portal in January will just mean players will start transferring outside the Portal system.
The Portal works because, in a free market system, it is in the interest of buyers and sellers to voluntarily join a central regulated market. All the buyers are aware of all the sellers and vice-Vera's. There can rules that protect both.
If the Portal is limited to January only, and players want to leave after Spring (a natural time, they will have seen how position competition is playing out and it is end of the school year) they will transfer anyway and if anyone tries to challenge that they will lose in court. The result will be a massive unregulated free for all, with bagmen soliciting players and teams losing players unexpectedly going into Fall Camp.
The Portal works because, in a free market system, it is in the interest of buyers and sellers to voluntarily join a central regulated market. All the buyers are aware of all the sellers and vice-Vera's. There can rules that protect both.
If the Portal is limited to January only, and players want to leave after Spring (a natural time, they will have seen how position competition is playing out and it is end of the school year) they will transfer anyway and if anyone tries to challenge that they will lose in court. The result will be a massive unregulated free for all, with bagmen soliciting players and teams losing players unexpectedly going into Fall Camp.
This proposal and your comments raise some interesting issues:calumnus said:
A one-time Transfer Portal in January will just mean players will start transferring outside the Portal system.
The Portal works because, in a free market system, it is in the interest of buyers and sellers to voluntarily join a central regulated market. All the buyers are aware of all the sellers and vice-Vera's. There can rules that protect both.
If the Portal is limited to January only, and players want to leave after Spring (a natural time, they will have seen how position competition is playing out and it is end of the school year) they will transfer anyway and if anyone tries to challenge that they will lose in court. The result will be a massive unregulated free for all, with bagmen soliciting players and teams losing players unexpectedly going into Fall Camp.
1. Let's assume that Player 1 and a Third-party A (team, school, third party booster, etc.) enter into a contract for $1.0 million to play for School OSU during January of 2026 for the 2026 season through January 2027. Then at the end of Spring Practice in April 2026, Player 1 is designated to be the second-string QB. So Player 1 decides to move to School ND and signs a new Contract with Third-party B to play for $1.0 million .
a. Would the Contract between Player 1 and Third-party A be enforceable and Player 1 would be prevented from playing for School ND?
b. Would Third-party A be required to pay Player 1 the $1.0 million to Player 1 even though he is not the starting QB? Or would that depend upon whether the contract includes a condition that Player 1 be the starter.
c. Would the January Portal have any effect on questions a or b.
d. Some states (including CA) prohibit the enforcement of "non-compete" provisions in a personal service contract. Would such a state statute be held to apply to the contract between Player 1 and Third-party A.
e. Would the addition of the January Portal limitation, supersede state laws prohibiting "non-compete" provisions in provisions
f. Would any person advising Player 1 be subject to liability if that person is not adequately qualified to advise Player 1 and Player 1 gets screwed in the process.
GivemTheAxe said:This proposal and your comments raise some interesting issues:calumnus said:
A one-time Transfer Portal in January will just mean players will start transferring outside the Portal system.
The Portal works because, in a free market system, it is in the interest of buyers and sellers to voluntarily join a central regulated market. All the buyers are aware of all the sellers and vice-Vera's. There can rules that protect both.
If the Portal is limited to January only, and players want to leave after Spring (a natural time, they will have seen how position competition is playing out and it is end of the school year) they will transfer anyway and if anyone tries to challenge that they will lose in court. The result will be a massive unregulated free for all, with bagmen soliciting players and teams losing players unexpectedly going into Fall Camp.
1. Let's assume that Player 1 and a Third-party A (team, school, third party booster, etc.) enter into a contract for $1.0 million to play for School OSU during January of 2026 for the 2026 season through January 2027. Then at the end of Spring Practice in April 2026, Player 1 is designated to be the second-string QB. So Player 1 decides to move to School ND and signs a new Contract with Third-party B to play for $1.0 million .
a. Would the Contract between Player 1 and Third-party A be enforceable and Player 1 would be prevented from playing for School ND?
b. Would Third-party A be required to pay Player 1 the $1.0 million to Player 1 even though he is not the starting QB? Or would that depend upon whether the contract includes a condition that Player 1 be the starter.
c. Would the January Portal have any effect on questions a or b.
d. Some states (including CA) prohibit the enforcement of "non-compete" provisions in a personal service contract. Would such a state statute be held to apply to the contract between Player 1 and Third-party A.
e. Would the addition of the January Portal limitation, supersede state laws prohibiting "non-compete" provisions in provisions
f. Would any person advising Player 1 be subject to liability if that person is not adequately qualified to advise Player 1 and Player 1 gets screwed in the process. [Remember there are lots of hungry negligence lawyers out there ready to sue at the drop of a hat.]
And their academic acceptance and credit hours transfer seamlessly, fractionally, and pro rata, with them, in real time lol.
Featured Stories
See All
Carlsbad LB/TE Rocky Cummings Commits to Cal
by Jim McGill
Bear Insider Podcast #E106: Former Cal & Current NFL QB Jared Goff
by Mike Pawlawski
Rugby Becomes 3rd Endowed Sport At Cal
by Cal Athletics
Bears Add Speedy Fresno Receiver Tyree Sams
by Jim McGill