Recruiting Football Talk VIII

#40,526
#40,526
Pridedad said:
It made the play dead instead of it being free play with a shot at the endzone.
Click to expand...

Yep, a guaranteed 5 yards instead of 5 yards OR result of the play! But not sure if he did it on purpose or just reacted to the movement by Pearce. Pretty quick action after the jump when I watched on replay. Result is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volunteer821, UTJoe, TN-POSSUM and 4 others
#40,531
#40,531
drylo said:
I would like to hear you to go on the same rant about high school athletics.

And middle school. Is that breaking child labor laws too?
Click to expand...
If I did, would it change the facts about the NCAA that you still haven't successfully disputed? I mean, it's a hard sell that corporate antitrust practices aren't "at the expense" of the athletes.

Let's change it up a bit.

All the grocery stores in the US meet quarterly to set minimum prices for food. People need to buy food so have to accept the prices at every grocery store, so they shop knowing the prices when they walk in. That's illegal, and it's literally at the expense of the customers.

Every company that has cybersecurity teams think, "You know what? These folks are expensive and we'd make a lot more profit if we didn't have to pay them as much money. Let's just all agree not to pay more than, say, $15/hr. That's illegal, and it's at the expense of the employees, even if they know that they only be making $15/hr going to work there.

All the credit card companies worry about salary competition among their data analysts, so they all agree not to try to recruit employees from each other. That is illegal and are corporate practices at the expense of the employees.

*Note that these are three examples from the corporate Antitrust training that I have to take every year because the huge corporation that I work for will get brutalized if their people participate in any of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17
#40,532
#40,532
GUNTERSVOL said:
Yep, a guaranteed 5 yards instead of 5 yards OR result of the play! But not sure if he did it on purpose or just reacted to the movement by Pearce. Pretty quick action after the jump when I watched on replay. Result is the same.
Click to expand...
You could be right. May have been quick reactions
 
#40,533
#40,533
PlanetVolunteer said:
Great point!

Kinda feel like they win though. For some reason I don't think Bama is that great at all. I just don't get the Milroe hype.
Click to expand...
He's not great, but neither is Beck. Both are serviceable, but Milroe can use his legs better. I think Bama gets it done and hopefully UGA loses to Texas too. Get them nice and deflated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enki_Amenra and hjeagle1vol
#40,535
#40,535
Enki_Amenra said:
They are making so much money from media & corporate sponsors that the tickets could be free and they'd barely notice. I would hope at some point they have to start rewarding the fans. . . or do something to at least make the fans feel like they are getting some part of all the $ being brought it.

I have a plan, now I just need to get everyone in charge at UT to listen. . . or find a way to blackmail them into submission.
Click to expand...

100,000 seats times $80 average ticket (low estimate) times 7 games is $56 million. That is roughly 25% of the revenue brought in last year. That’s definitely noticeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volunteer821, crazyguy, Orange. and 1 other person
#40,536
#40,536
Aesius said:
I dunno. I think this year the DL vs OL mismatch will just be insurmountable for them. We've seen it go against us the other way many times, especially vs the Gators.

We come into the game looking okay and like we'll be competitive, and their DL just forces 3 and out, 3 and out, 3 and out. Basically like what we did to Oklahoma. We'd still feel like we had a chance until late in the third and then they would start running all over our tired DL. They'd get a 2 TD lead and milk the clock and that was it.

I think Heupel will be more aggressive and try to absolutely bury them, but I'm sort of wary of that because flukey, weird things always happen vs them. And a pick six or strip sack for a short field or TD could turn that game into another "here we go again" affair. I also doubt we erase turnovers like we did vs OU if they happen.

It will be interesting to see the game plan for the Gators. A conservative approach wins easily because we will grind them down, but it won't be fun to watch because it will be close for a while, and that will send everyone's anxiety into overdrive.
Click to expand...
I believe this team will be thinking about paybacks against Florida this year. And I so long for a streak against the Gators, my least favorite opponent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, Volunteer821 and Orange_Crush
#40,537
#40,537
Orange_Crush said:
You mean where he prefaced it with not being a lawyer, or knowing whether Reggie has a case (i.e. right to the lawsuit), and admits to building his opinion on whether Bush's actions will have a severely negative effect on the NCAA?

To answer his "I'm not a lawyer" comment, the state and federal courts--all the way up to the SCOTUS--have literally taken the stance that the old way was illegal based on Antitrust law, and has been business at the expense of the student athletes. The NCAA has literally been a collection of University Presidents illegally conspiring to set player salaries to zero while they sell television rights to the product for massive profits. I'm not sure how referencing that discussion chanhes that.

Not sure how 6-8 minutes of two boneheads calling Reggie Bush names changes that fact.

I have to say that the irony in that pod was like quicksand. The entire logic is: "Reggie Bush is SO DAMN SELFISH for doing this! Doesn't he know how this may effect that thing I selfishly love?! I'm not concerned with whether the system he played in was legal/ethical. I'm just worried about how it affects how I watch football."

That podcast calling Reggie a "piece of ****", the US Court system a "piece of ****", and I guess our fair business antitrust laws a "piece of ****"... Giving them the voice to argue your point is probably a huge mistake. (Direct quote: "I don't care about the law of the land...")
Click to expand...


You're right. And the legal logic is right.

But change is hard and the way this is evolving just sort of
... sucks, if you are a traditional college football fan.
 
#40,539
#40,539
InVOLuntary said:
Because the Heisman has really never been about the best player in college football. It's a popularity award.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volunteer821
#40,540
#40,540
lawgator1 said:
You're right. And the legal logic is right.

But change is hard and the way this is evolving just sort of
... sucks, if you are a traditional college football fan.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's been a while. Hope you're well.

Yah. I agree, as I said in the post some took issue with. This is messy right now, but I think that it's a mess we need to deal with until the market finds its equilibrium. T

To be honest, I don't like its current state, but geez... I don't see how anyone can argue against the idea that the NCAA's collusion was at the expense of the athletes when considering what a free(er) market would have offered. I mean, all one has to do is look at what the athletes are getting right now, since the NIL rules have been made ineffective. "At the expense of..." is a pretty clear concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17
#40,541
#40,541
Orange_Crush said:
If I did, would it change the facts about the NCAA that you still haven't successfully disputed? I mean, it's a hard sell that corporate antitrust practices aren't "at the expense" of the athletes.

Let's change it up a bit.

All the grocery stores in the US meet quarterly to set minimum prices for food. People need to buy food so have to accept the prices at every grocery store, so they shop knowing the prices when they walk in. That's illegal, and it's literally at the expense of the customers.

Every company that has cybersecurity teams think, "You know what? These folks are expensive and we'd make a lot more profit if we didn't have to pay them as much money. Let's just all agree not to pay more than, say, $15/hr. That's illegal, and it's at the expense of the employees, even if they know that they only be making $15/hr going to work there.

All the credit card companies worry about salary competition among their data analysts, so they all agree not to try to recruit employees from each other. That is illegal and are corporate practices at the expense of the employees.

*Note that these are three examples from the corporate Antitrust training that I have to take every year because the huge corporation that I work for will get brutalized if their people participate in any of this.
Click to expand...
College football is not a grocery store. I’m not sure why that’s a difficult concept.

I don’t need to be lectured about competition law. I understand it, first of all, and secondly, I think it’s beside the point (and, yes, I know some lawyers and judges disagree). Amateur sports are an extracurricular, not a job.

High schools collect gate receipts, games broadcast on TV and streaming sites, etc., too. Not on the same scale, but it’s the same concept in principle as college football, unlike grocery stores. So why don’t you explain to me why middle school athletic departments aren’t violating child labor laws?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, TN-POSSUM, GUNTERSVOL and 2 others
#40,543
#40,543
csprig9 said:
Oklahoma seems to be a bunch of crybabies
Click to expand...
My experience, not only from attending two games in Norman, but also 27 years of interaction with the hordes that live in DFW, is the majority of Sooner fans are friendly and knowledgeable and take things in stride…just like our fanbase. We’re allowing a relatively few windbags poison the well water by association…like other fanbases do for our mutants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, Volunteer821, smokeyhuntsgators and 15 others
#40,544
#40,544
Orange_Crush said:
Hey, it's been a while. Hope you're well.

Yah. I agree, as I said in the post some took issue with. This is messy right now, but I think that it's a mess we need to deal with until the market finds its equilibrium. T

To be honest, I don't like its current state, but geez... I don't see how anyone can argue against the idea that the NCAA's collusion was at the expense of the athletes when considering what a free(er) market would have offered. I mean, all one has to do is look at what the athletes are getting right now, since the NIL rules have been made ineffective. "At the expense of..." is a pretty clear concept.
Click to expand...
“At the expense of” presupposes a certain framing of the issue, though. Of course one could imagine a world in which schools pay people to play on their sports teams (middle schools included), but I don’t see any problem with a system in which they don’t.

If these guys feel like they are being treated unjustly in such a system, then fine… don’t participate. But — and this was Lehman’s point — of course they participated anyway, because they didn’t actually feel like they were treated unjustly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devo182 and SmokinBob
#40,546
#40,546
drylo said:
College football is not a grocery store. I’m not sure why that’s a difficult concept.

I don’t need to be lectured about competition law. I understand it, first of all, and secondly, I think it’s beside the point (and, yes, I know some lawyers and judges disagree). Amateur sports are an extracurricular, not a job.

High schools collect gate receipts, games broadcast on TV and streaming sites, etc., too. Not on the same scale, but it’s the same concept in principle as college football, unlike grocery stores. So why don’t you explain to me why middle school athletic departments aren’t violating child labor laws?
Click to expand...
No. Grocery stores don't sell television rights for billions of dollars. Organizations that collude to force college football as "extracurricular/not a job" while they profit hugely, is the entire point of the antitrust cases.

Why would I follow your red herring when you choose to blatantly ignore the pertinent points that are on the table. (For the record, if high schooler and middle schoolers wanted to sue for % of gate receipts I'd sit back and thoughtfully consider the arguments made, just as I've done with the NCAA. But I think we can both agree that them not getting a cut of the gate is "at their expense" since "zero" is less than "whatever their cuts would be". )
 
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17
#40,547
#40,547
drylo said:
“At the expense of” presupposes a certain framing of the issue, though. Of course one could imagine a world in which schools pay people to play on their sports teams (middle schools included), but I don’t see any problem with a system in which they don’t.

If these guys feel like they are being treated unjustly in such a system, then fine… don’t participate. But — and this was Lehman’s point — of course they participated anyway, because they didn’t actually feel like they were treated unjustly.
Click to expand...
Then you obviously need to be lectured about competition law.

And your personal desires per athlete paychecks does not change the fact that previous NCAA practices cost athletes what they could have made (and ARE making now) in a free market. Zero is less than lots.

The NCAA is established and powerful enough that no one besides the NCAA can be expected to build a comparable market that would pay athletes, so the "they could just not play in the NCAA, or expect to get to the NFL" argument falls flat. That's why the SCOTUS broke Microsoft up. Because they were using their market share at the customers' expense. The "they could choose not to participate" is literally not a thing in antitrust issues.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volsfan_17
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top