Started By
Message
re: Mykel Williams
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:19 am to WG_Dawg
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:19 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
quote:
The NCAA violated the Sherman Act by restricting compensation of athletes.
It's not a right for athletes to get compensated to a particular degree. Let's ignore the face that they're alrady compensated to the tune of free tuition, free housing, free food, free clothes, free medical care, free tutoring, free books, etc. Plus a stipend.
And here's a few quick snippets of the Sherman Anti-trust act (which was signed before UGA had even fielded its first ever football team btw):
quote:
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the first Federal act that outlawed monopolistic business practices.
The Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts.
quote:
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act authorized the federal government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them. Any combination "in the form of trust or otherwise that was in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations" was declared illegal.
quote:
The Sherman Antitrust Act is a federal statute that prohibits activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace.[26] The Sherman Act prohibits undue “restraint[s] of trade.
None of that should have shite to do with with CFB, but furthermore a federal judge shouldn't have anything to do with CFB whatsoever, period.
I can sum up your mistake very succinctly.
NIL has nothing to do with football. It has everything to do with autonomy of brand. And the brand is the self. The individual. This should be plain for every republican, Democrat, libertarian, Christian, and Jew to see.
Therefore, the NCAA does not have the purview to restrict NIL.
Therefore, everyone bitching about it is fricked. Go ahead and take your sedatives.
1
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:21 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
The people clamoring to treat them as employees and run it like a businses aren't going to like what comes of that. Jsut wait until a kid gets "fired" after dropping a pass. They could terminate his employment before he gets back to the sideline. "Good luck kid but you're no longer being paid and you don't work here anymore". Yeah that sounds like exactly what CFB should be.
Employment would destroy college football.
It would no longer be a bunch of 18-22 year olds competing against 18-22 year olds.
You would have 30 year old Stetson Bennett trying to escape the pocket from 27 year old Chaz Chambliss.
It would be the Not Good Enough For NFL league.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:33 am to meansonny
College players are not guaranteed tuition until graduation. It’s been a 1 year renewable scheme for a long time. One of the things that lead to where we are now.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:35 am to meansonny
quote:
NIL has nothing to do with football.
uh, yeah it does. If Brock bowers didn't play for UGA football he wouldn't get NIL money.
quote:
It has everything to do with autonomy of brand. And the brand is the self. The individual. This should be plain for every republican, Democrat, libertarian, Christian, and Jew to see.
why do you think these individuals have a brand in the first place? Do you think powerade would pay malaki starks if he was captain of the chess team? Do you think livvy dunne would be a millionaire several times over just because she's a hot girl on a college campus, and not a world class athlete? "NIL" was just a flimsy excuse to be able to legally pay players (and recruits) whatever you want with no repercussions.
quote:
Therefore, the NCAA does not have the purview to restrict NIL.
They are the "ncational collegiate athletic asosciation". Their existence is related to the activities of "collegiate athletes". They absolutely do (well, they don't..but hey SHOULD) have something to do with players being paid or not.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:36 am to Peter Buck
quote:
College players are not guaranteed tuition until graduation
can you elaborate on how this works?
This post was edited on 12/29/23 at 8:37 am
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:40 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
quote:
NIL has nothing to do with football.
uh, yeah it does. If Brock bowers didn't play for UGA football he wouldn't get NIL money.
By that logic, give UGA half of his first NFL contract. Am I right?
UGA does not own Brock Bowers. Never has. The archaic notion that everything Brock Bowers was and ever will be is attributed to UGA is asinine. He was a diamond and he would have shined at any university.
quote:
why do you think these individuals have a brand in the first place? Do you think powerade would pay malaki starks if he was captain of the chess team?
Yawn
quote:
Do you think livvy dunne would be a millionaire several times over just because she's a hot girl on a college campus, and not a world class athlete?
You don't know the nature of men and women, do you? Lol
I hear Paris Hilton threw a great screwball and the Kardashians were physical in the paint.
quote:
They are the "ncational collegiate athletic asosciation". Their existence is related to the activities of "collegiate athletes". They absolutely do (well, they don't..but hey SHOULD) have something to do with players being paid or not.
I would love to see the lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan against the NCAA for violating any player's individual rights. You know that is a class action that would reach into pockets deeper than the NCAA.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:42 am to Peter Buck
quote:
College players are not guaranteed tuition until graduation. It’s been a 1 year renewable scheme for a long time. One of the things that lead to where we are now.
I agree with your fact.
I disagree with the notion that yearly scholarships has anything to do with the current nature of college football.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:46 am to WG_Dawg
You signed a multi-year commitment to the NCAA and your College. In return, you got a 1 year, renewable scholarship.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 8:47 am to meansonny
quote:
By that logic, give UGA half of his first NFL contract. Am I right?
I don't think you're right but it's hard to follow your point with these weird scenarios you come up with. You said NIL isn't about football, it's about a player's brand. I said they don't have a brand without being football players. Not sure where NFL contracts being paid to UGA comes into play?
quote:
UGA does not own Brock Bowers. Never has. The archaic notion that everything Brock Bowers was and ever will be is attributed to UGA is asinine.
Who has ever insinuted this? Nobody thinks UGA owns brock bowers.
quote:
He was a diamond and he would have shined at any university.
this is correct. What exactly is your point?
quote:
Yawn
that's a pretty big point that you gloss over. If these people were NOT big time athletes, they would have no brand and as such have no NIL opportunities. That's common sense.
quote:
You don't know the nature of men and women, do you? Lol
I hear Paris Hilton threw a great screwball and the Kardashians were physical in the paint.
quote:
are you dumb? Where did anyone say you must be an athlete to have lots of money?
quote:
I would love to see the lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan against the NCAA for violating any player's individual rights.
I don't know why you keep coming up with this imaginary scenario.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:19 am to meansonny
quote:
I agree with your fact.
I disagree with the notion that yearly scholarships has anything to do with the current nature of college football.
From my perspective. It started with that. Players being more committed to the school, than the school was to them. Players having to sue schools, a lot unsuccessfully, to have medical procedures from injuries sustained during play after the school was no longer committed to them. Players being processed and having limited opportunities to go elsewhere. Players being told to take junk majors and minimal hours by “academic advisers “ to stay eligible.
This went on a long time and survived until coaches started getting paid a lot of $$ and being able to move at any time. Schools selling your jerseys with your number. As this started happening the inequality in the deal grew and that’s how we got to where we are now. They kept it bottled up for a long time and when it broke, the NCAA had no legal grounds to really stop it.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:30 am to meansonny
quote:
Why are people throwing around such shitty examples?
We’re doing this to push the situation to the extreme or into something familiar to show the potential problems with this approach.
After reading these posts you don’t see these kids as “employees” which is an argument that has been used tin suits to try and get compensation. I assumed you agreed with this and my examples were how you deal with these issues through employment.
If I’m reading correctly, you look at these players as independent contractors or celebrities based on their performance at UGA….or wherever they go. My point is that under this scenario your whole brand was built on the fact you were recruited, trained and got the support of 85 other guys to become who you are. Anything you get needs to go into that bucket for everyone while you’re a student athlete at UGA.
You can’t be Don Henley with your solo deal without first being part of the Eagles where the whole band, producer and label get paid.
ETA..by doing the above we could eliminate HS recruits that nobody has ever heard of from getting NIL signing deals based on their “brand” that doesn’t exist.
This post was edited on 12/29/23 at 9:35 am
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:33 am to Peter Buck
quote:
You signed a multi-year commitment to the NCAA and your College. In return, you got a 1 year, renewable scholarship.
That’s BS FWIW. I have a good friend that was a pitcher for USCe who blew out his shoulder and wasn’t able to finish college because he couldn’t afford it when he lost his scholly.
There’s no doubt the greed of the colleges, conferences and NCAA created this clusterfrick.
This post was edited on 12/29/23 at 9:46 am
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:35 am to Peter Buck
quote:
It means you still haven’t earned the right to say a player sucks or is trash or garbage
You suck.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:56 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
That’s BS FWIW. I have a good friend that was a pitcher for USCe who blew out his shoulder and wasn’t able to finish college because he couldn’t afford it when he lost his scholly.
There’s no doubt the greed of the colleges, conferences and NCAA created this clusterfrick.
There are countless examples like this and were the seeds for where we are now.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:05 am to Griffindawg
quote:
You suck.
Like, in general?
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:20 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
. I said they don't have a brand without being football players.
Which is irrelevant because the claim is that UGA is providing the brand.
And if UGA is providing the brand, then they are providing the opportunity to sign with the NFL.
It is less of a leap to say that Brock Bowers owes UGA his first contract with the NFL (actual football) than to say that Brock Bowers owes UGA money from his Morgan and Morgan endorsement (actual money made by Brock because of his marketability/likability).
I hope that explains it.
If not, let me know.
quote:
quote:
UGA does not own Brock Bowers. Never has. The archaic notion that everything Brock Bowers was and ever will be is attributed to UGA is asinine.
Who has ever insinuted this? Nobody thinks UGA owns brock bowers.
You just said
quote:and
I said they don't have a brand without being football players.
quote:
If Brock bowers didn't play for UGA football he wouldn't get NIL money.
Would he not get NIL money at Bama? Ohio State?
quote:
quote:
He was a diamond and he would have shined at any university.
this is correct. What exactly is your point?
See above. If you are still struggling with this, let me know. I'm just riffing off what you and others have said.
quote:
quote:
You don't know the nature of men and women, do you? Lol
I hear Paris Hilton threw a great screwball and the Kardashians were physical in the paint.
quote:
are you dumb? Where did anyone say you must be an athlete to have lots of money
You just said
quote:
Do you think livvy dunne would be a millionaire several times over just because she's a hot girl on a college campus, and not a world class athlete?
Being famous is about a brand. About likability and marketability. You ignore that and jump straight to
quote:and
why do you think these individuals have a brand in the first place?
quote:
If Brock bowers didn't play for UGA football he wouldn't get NIL money
I'm not arguing quantum physics. I'm arguing what the courts have upheld. Maybe you should take a deep breath and try to let "today" catch up with you.
quote:
quote:
I would love to see the lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan against the NCAA for violating any player's individual rights.
I don't know why you keep coming up with this imaginary scenario.
Morgan and Morgan sued big tobacco for $1B. It was the second major lawsuit against big tobacco (meaning that they should have been protected from another lawsuit). Don't frick with them. Or you will find out (they like to sue other lawyers, too).
You are personally attacking the very nature of one of their ad campaigns. Very similar to limp dick imbeciles on the internet who are all bark and no bite. The next person to piss in their cheerios is going to feel like an undersized cornerback head on against Brock Bowers with a running start.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:24 am to Peter Buck
quote:
From my perspective.
Agree to disagree.
You probably don't realize that 99% of college football coaches are on 1 year contracts.
It is easily confusing as that 1% gets the press and notoriety.
Year to year is the norm.
And it has nothing to do with NIL.
It has nothing to do with collectives.
It has nothing to do with transfers.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:28 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
If I’m reading correctly, you look at these players as independent contractors or celebrities based on their performance at UGA….or wherever they go. My point is that under this scenario your whole brand was built on the fact you were recruited, trained and got the support of 85 other guys to become who you are. Anything you get needs to go into that bucket for everyone while you’re a student athlete at UGA.
You are wrong.
Evidence? High schoolers getting NIL.
The preferential treatment is before college.
So college isn't the catalyst.
Based on your logic, the NFL could be argued as the catalyst for the brand (i.e. the players make money in high school because or what they could become in college : players make money in college because of what they could become in the NFL)
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:35 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
You can’t be Don Henley with your solo deal without first being part of the Eagles where the whole band, producer and label get paid.
You ever hear of The James Gang? Linda Rondstadt?
Without them, there would be no Eagles.
Do you want to give Cream credit for making Eric Clapton famous too?
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:58 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
None of that should have shite to do with with CFB
Maybe, but the courts are treating athletes as employees of the universities.
quote:
The Sherman Antitrust Act is a federal statute that prohibits activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace.[26] The Sherman Act prohibits undue “restraint[s] of trade.
That's exactly what college football is. It's a money making enterprise that crosses state lines. Like it or not, athletes fall under the protections of the Sherman Act and the NCAA set their compensation at below fair market rate amounts.
Page 3 of 4
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News