lsufball19

quote:

---

Kind of ramdom date range.

---

How is 20 years a random date range? If I had said "in the last 13 years," yeah that would be pretty random.

Florida has won 6 times in the last 20 years

In recent history, Florida has not fared well against LSU, so it was an oddly timed post for you to make. Which is why I responded the way I did. If you enjoy beating LSU when they have high expectations, you haven't experienced that feeling very often lately.

quote:

---

but prior to that UF was 11-1 under Spurrier.

---

and LSU had high expectations very rarely during that entire time span. They were outright terrible during most of that time span

If you want to pick a date range when LSU started to actually have high expectations going into the season (around 2002), then Florida has only won 8 time out of 24 opportunities, so what is your point supposed to be here. That every once in awhile this century Florida wins and you enjoy it? Cool

quote:

---

He used to work for my brother a few years ago, and was limping around. Could barely walk

---

Not surprising. This was him trying to come back after his accident 14 years ago. Guy could barely move then. Sad story

Based on the lawsuit itself, the buyout terms were one-sided.

LINK

To qualify for payments, tt required the players to:
- remain enrolled at Ole Miss
- remain in good standing with the team (whatever that broad term means)
- have an active Athletic Financial Aid Agreement (assume this means an athletic scholarship)

If the players terminated the agreement within the first 90 days, it required a lump sum buyout of $550,000 which, according to Ole Miss, represented the financial harm caused to the university by the player's departure.

There is nothing mentioned as to what Ole Miss would owe the player if they chose to terminate the agreement and/or pulled the player's scholarship, or determined that the player didn't "remain in good standing" with the team.

Ole Miss also alleges that the terms of the contract are confidential, so none of the other details of the contract are disclosed in the lawsuit filed.

I don't think this lawsuit is as black and white as a lot of people on here think it is. You have a lot of issues at play here
- how one-sided the contract is
- pay for play being a pre-requisite to the contract. Mississippi law still does not provide for compensation conditioned on remaining enrolled at school and/or on the team. They do allow for revenue sharing, but that only pertains to a school being able to compensate a player for their publicity rights through revenue sharing. State law does not permit schools to demand enrollment at the school as a condition

The Mississippi Intercollegiate Athletics Compensation and Publicity Rights Act explicitly deals with a schools ability to compensate players for publicity rights. NCAA bylaws still restrict NIL agreements and revenue sharing deals from being contingent to enrolling in school and/or participating in athletics. That's why these state laws pertaining to revenue sharing are framed how they are. They are tied to publicity rights, not enrollment at the school. If the lawsuit is accurate that it required these players to remain enrolled at Ole Miss, there are certainly going to be some issues Ole Miss faces. And then you have the unconscionable terms that only protect one side if the agreement is terminated. If you want to compare them to coaching contracts, the termination clauses cut both ways. They're also employment contracts, and revenue sharing deals are not.

quote:

---

You keep saying this as if this is a gotcha. You think in 2 years some player offered by Ole Miss is going to say to themselves, "This was a great offer, but those 2 players I don't even remember got sued by OM for skipping out. I'm going to have to pass"?

---

I do think it will possibly affect how revenue deals are negotiated moving forward and how agents advise players

LSU nor Woodside have publicly announced the exact monetary terms but some have speculated it's in the 6 million/year range which, outside of Notre Dame's deal with Sofi, is about what most teams are getting for their "jersey patch" deals

quote:

---

Yesterday I birdied par 4 #7 then triple bogeyed par 3 #8 right after . The game of golf is weird.

---

PBFU, a tale as old as time

quote:

---

Sucks for Curiel he had all the leverage he needed and caved to an organization who is as cheap as they come.

---

A lot of 1st round picks signed considerably below slot value. The #6 overall from Louisville signed 2 million under slot as well. This isn’t the Pirates being cheap. They’re just allocating their pool money elsewhere in the draft

Here is a link to what 1st round guys signed for
LINK

quote:

---

And a gun safe is the smartest thing in the world as a gun owner. And kids should not leave this life as kids. Ever.

---

Literally the first thing I did when my first kid was old enough to become mobile. Just not worth the risk if you want to own firearms with children in the home. As a parent, these stories really bother me so much more now. I don't think this makes Moss a bad guy but damn you have to be smarter than this. Kids get into everything at that age.

quote:

---

Leveon Moss 2 year old son shot himself with gun Moss had under his pillow while sleeping.

---

saw a news story the other day, same basic circumstances, 2 year old kid, gun carelessly "stored," except the kid shot himself and died. Parents were charged with child abuse and negligent homicide. As a parent of two young children, if you want to own guns, get a mother fricking gun safe. They're not expensive. There is also no justifiable reason to need to sleep with a gun under your fricking pillow. And if there is actually a good reason, then there probably is an equally big reason this child doesn't need to be at your house if you feel so unsafe that you literally need to sleep with your firearm. there are a multitude of alternatives to avoid this. Thank the Lord his kid didn't die and honestly, he could have shot himself in the head in his sleep if he's sleeping with a gun under his pillow. Just so irresponsible. I pray this is a massive wake up call for him.

I don't know why you keep calling them a super team. They signed one super player. And they still went 11-5 in the regular season and earned a wild card bid to the playoffs. The only thing that made them super was Brady, but he would make any team really good. This is just a bad argument. Those players didn't turn down long-term contracts for a short-term contract in Tampa Bay. No one was beating down Fournette's or Brown's doors to sign them. It sounds like you're just salty that a division rival of the Saints were able to fall into signing Brady, not that you really think they signed a super team full of mercenaries, because that wasn't the case at all. A big part of team building in the NFL is free agent signings. No one has a team full of only players they drafted and developed. That's just not reality

quote:

---

Screw that Bucs Super Bowl team. Was literally an NFL NIL super team with a bunch of 1-2 year mercenaries.

---

do you think it's weird an NFL team signed free agents in the off-season?

Some of those guys had been cut, so why wouldn't they sign them and what's wrong with them doing that? Fournette and Antonio Brown had both been cut by their previous teams.

Brady didn't want to resign with New England. They traded for Rob Gronkowski (New England still had rights to him since he retired for a year).

In total, they signed 5 free agents in the offseason:
Brady
Fournette (didn't do much until the playoffs)
Brown (missed half the season)
McCoy (had 10 carries all season)
Joe Haeg (started 3 games)

So who were all these mercenaries they signed to "literally have an NFL super team." They signed Tom Brady who was looking to get out of New England. He made them good immediately. A lot of NFL teams are a great QB away from being awesome.