Recruiting Football Talk VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#79,002
#79,002
Devo182 said:
It's hilarious how far the SEC/pro-committee crowd has to stretch to perform their mental gymnastics.

First 13 games: "None of those games mattered"

14th game after everyone left: "Wait...this game...yeah this game matters!"

Make up yer mind. Because it's not logical.
Click to expand...
FSU had multiple games after they lost their QB to show those first 11 games still held weight - they looked like absolute dogsh!t.

Then they showed up at the Orange Bowl and looked like run over dogsh!t.

In summation - FSU without their QB = Dogsh!t

And my oh my are some of you butthurt about it lol.
 
#79,003
#79,003
drylo said:
I don’t understand the idea that players are “entitled” to anything. People fill Neyland Stadium and buy ESPN packages because of the power T. It’s not that different from high school sports, just on a much larger scale because instead of thousands of small high schools in each state, you have a small number of larger flagship universities — so larger fan bases, etc. But high school kids aren’t “entitled” to be paid just because people like to come out on Friday nights and cheer for them. I don’t see why college football needs to be any different.

I’m not opposed to kids making money. If someone wants to start another pro/semi-pro league based on paying players, then knock yourself out. But it’s been tried, and it won’t work. Because at the end of the day, contrary to popular belief in sportswriter world, the value is actually not in the players, but in the schools.
Click to expand...
we fill the stadiums for the product on the field… it’s why we aren’t filling the women’s soccer stadium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jave36
#79,005
#79,005
The other thing I’m interested to see is how does this team play in response to Nico starting? What does our energy look like? I have thought we have played without any energy almost all year. Too laid back, like Joe. Does the team take on a different look and energy with Nico taking over? Sure hope so. Maybe the team plays harder because maybe deep down they felt Nico should have been the guy most of the year? Will be interesting to watch our response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Orange#1, Brillovol, VolsDoc81TX and 11 others
#79,006
#79,006
85SugarVol said:
FSU had multiple games after they lost their QB to show those first 11 games still held weight - they looked like absolute dogsh!t.

Then they showed up at the Orange Bowl and looked like run over dogsh!t.

In summation - FSU without their QB = Dogsh!t

And my oh my are some of you butthurt about it lol.
Click to expand...
they didn’t even have a full game with the back up qb.
 
#79,008
#79,008
Orange_Crush said:
You're arguing that the market doesn't need to be free because in a free market UT would still make as much money. Why not test that assumption. Tell the NCAA, you don't have to be willing to pay a student athlete, but no university or organization can PREVENT another from paying, or limit how much they can pay...
Click to expand...
No, I’m arguing this isn’t a “market” in the sense you are talking about it. This is schools wanting to offer a football team, as basically every school in this country has done for 100 years. And they can absolutely establish a governing body and rules that they will all abide by. This idea that schools can’t do this unless they pay kids to play on the team is ridiculous and, i think you would admit, only a topic of discussion because of how popular these sports have become. But I don’t agree that a lot of people wanting to watch the games means that the schools shouldn’t be allowed to have football teams, etc., unless they pay kids to play on them. That creates a whole lot of other problems, for one thing. But fundamentally, it also misunderstands the dynamics here —namely, that the school brands are what is valuable. The athletes are extremely replaceable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob
#79,010
#79,010
drylo said:
That’s not what I said. But all that matters is the relative quality of the product — i.e. nobody will come watch a team that loses all its games, but if they are competitive, people will come, even if it’s a slightly lower level football.

You’re telling me you didn’t go to a single game during the Dooley era?

But seriously, it wouldn’t be a “high school team” if they were wearing Tennessee jerseys. And you would go. If, hypothetically, all the 4-stars every year went to some other league, and SEC football was just 3-stars, it would still be good football to watch, and you would go sing Rocky Top and boo Alabama like you always have.

“Profit”… you know this money is mostly all funneled into other athletic programs. At a literal handful of schools, maybe the athletic programs as a whole are able to contribute a little money to other departments, but mostly not. The schools do benefit in terms of enrollment, general merch sales, etc., from their athletic programs, but so what?
Click to expand...
See the bold. That's one of the major issues of the system, and why it is so vulnerable to anti-trust laws.

The only way the non-paying schools could stay competitive would be to create a system that prevented others from paying players for their work. As SOON as that happens, they are in breach of anti-trust laws.

What system does the NCAA have? A system that prevents schools from paying athletes, investigates suspicions that they are, and punishes those that try.

If the Supreme Court didn't tear that apart when given the chance, Bill Gates would sue the federal gov't.

To the second bolded:

I sit on a non-profit board, and we answer to state and federal law per finances. We also fall under antitrust laws.

Just because an institution is non-profit doesn't mean that it's not in a competitive business. See the private universities in the NCAA that are in competition with public universities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner, WangoTango and jave36
#79,019
#79,019
drylo said:
No, I’m arguing this isn’t a “market” in the sense you are talking about it. This is schools wanting to offer a football team, as basically every school in this country has done for 100 years. And they can absolutely establish a governing body and rules that they will all abide by. This idea that schools can’t do this unless they pay kids to play on the team is ridiculous and, i think you would admit, only a topic of discussion because of how popular these sports have become. But I don’t agree that a lot of people wanting to watch the games means that the schools shouldn’t be allowed to have football teams, etc., unless they pay kids to play on them. That creates a whole lot of other problems, for one thing. But fundamentally, it also misunderstands the dynamics here —namely, that the school brands are what is valuable. The athletes are extremely replaceable.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. I'm sorry. But you're just wrong. Just because a system of profiting from unpaid workers may have existed for a long time doesn't mean that it's right or even legal. Ther's one not-exact example of this in US history.

NCAA football is in clear breach of Antitrust law. Period. That doesn't mean that a university HAS to pay athletes. It just means that it's illegal for NCAA univiersiTIES to conspire to wage-set the system. As SOON as that happens, it's a clear breach of federal antitrust law.

The recent Supreme Court opinion on NIL basically told the NCAA that, and warned them that if their business depends on unpaid athletes, they will rue the day the come back in front of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17 and jave36
#79,023
#79,023
Orange_Crush said:
See the bold. That's one of the major issues of the system, and why it is so vulnerable to anti-trust laws.

The only way the non-paying schools could stay competitive would be to create a system that prevented others from paying players for their work. As SOON as that happens, they are in breach of anti-trust laws.

What system does the NCAA have? A system that prevents schools from paying athletes, investigates suspicions that they are, and punishes those that try.

If the Supreme Court didn't tear that apart when given the chance, Bill Gates would sue the federal gov't.

To the second bolded:

I sit on a non-profit board, and we answer to state and federal law per finances. We also fall under antitrust laws.

Just because an institution is non-profit doesn't mean that it's not in a competitive business. See the private universities in the NCAA that are in competition with public universities.
Click to expand...
It’s a school sport. The legal argument you just made above would make any restrictions on compensating athletes illegal in every sports league in the country, including high school sports, middle school sports, etc.

And the moral argument you’re making (that the athletes “deserve” to be paid, etc.) would mean the same for high school athletes presumably too. After all, high school coaches and ADs get paid — why shouldn’t the players?

And I’m not quite sure, but you may even be going further and making a legal argument that it is illegal for schools not to pay athletes… in which case, this would also apply to high schools as well — and probably cheerleaders, marching band members, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob
#79,024
#79,024
Jack Burton said:
Neyland doesn’t get packed with 100k without the players. Without the players there’s no product to sell the networks. They are an integral part just like the NFL. College Football is more like the NFL than High School football at this point.
Click to expand...
If you removed the current 85, and replaced them with walkons - people would still go watch “Tennessee” in Neyland.

If our 85 walkons were trouncing other team’s 85 walkons - people would fill the stadium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, SmokinBob, InVOLuntary and 2 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top