Meet the bag man

[CodeRocket 410]

Speaking of bag-men, I can't believe that nobody has mentioned that infamous name, "Eric Ramsey".

I suspect what he did then, "clandestine audio recording" might not pass a legality sniff test today.

It cost Pat Dye his job has head coach ("loss of institutional control").

I wonder if it was worth it to him (ER)?

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

18 hours ago, AUght2win said:

Lmao. Y'all act like this is some glamourless grind for an unpaid internship (of which I have had more than a few). There is a reason kids do it instead of heading straight to the CFL.

I think most of us here, and most anyone who has ever suited up on the high school level, would do almost anything to play D1 ball. 

I am fine discussing and hearing any ideas as it pertains to compensating athletes. But let's not be disingenuous. Let's look at the actual cost/reward dynamic for a D1 college football player. 

Cost: Intense training. Long practice hours. Balancing classwork. Very little free time. Maintaining grades. 

Reward: College education in field of choice. Instant fame. Girls. National TV appearances. Social media verification. Girls. Direct pipeline to NFL. Girls. Room. Board. Food. Girls. Eternal credibility in sports (opening door to jobs as analyst, coach, broadcaster, book deals, etc.). And simply getting to do what you love.

Oh and girls also. 

It sounds like you're the one who's envious here......

You just gave yourself away.

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

On 2/14/2020 at 3:18 PM, AUght2win said:

This bottom line is this is about envy. College football players are compensated more today than they ever have been. By a LOT. They get bowl packages, stipends, access to world class facilities, their housing is nicer than ever, and tuition costs more than ever (even adjusting for inflation), so these kids are quantitatively getting much more than college players did in the 1940s, 60s, 80s, whenever. 

But there was no outcry then. You know why?

Because the true motive behind the current cries of pay-for-play is envy. People see how much the schools and coaches make, and they think it's unfair. It's not that the kids don't have enough. It's that other people have TOO much. And I can't get behind that kind of reasoning. It's a slippery slope.

Now do I think college coaches are paid too much? Yes. I also believe the NCAA could give an equal pension to all players, depending on how many years they play at the college level. The key is whether or not that's feasible to the current system. And whether you could give legitimate ideas on how to make this work.

In order to pay kids "fairly", you may have to cut ALL lower level athletics - nearly all women's sports, and I would imagine even major sports like baseball at most schools, as these don't turn a profit and depend entirely on the teat of college football to survive. You'd also likely have to cut back on the number of players on a roster. It'd be very hard to pay 120 kids, let's say, $50,000 a year. And also cover their education. And also cover their food. And also cover their housing. 

And we haven't even scratched the surface of small-market schools versus bluebloods. Is it fair for the backup kicker at Ball State to be paid the same as the Heisman winning QB at Texas? Probably not. So how will you solve that problem? And if teams' revenue gives a larger budget, wouldn't that make competition extremely unfair? How would a school like Tulsa or Boise State ever hope to be competitive, when their payrolls are 10000 times smaller than a major conference team's?

Not to get political, but this is my beef with the current far-left ideology. Sure, free college and healthcare and reparations seem like a great idea. But tell me how it would work. 

In a word.....you did get political.....and you are completely wrong to start that crap here. Such a closed mind with thinking that's based on a false narrative. 

[Auburn2Eugene 2,317]

I dont think we should outright pay players. Thats nonsense.

But there is 0 reason why they shouldnt be able to make money off their likeness. College baseball, college basketball, college football, college hockey, even college track and field players should be able to get a check from video game companies for their likeness in video games. People like the ones listed above and softball players, gymnasts, golfers, equestrian riders should be able to have posters with their images to offer lessons from their sports. 

We dont have to give them a salary. There is no way to make that equal. Like someone else said the backup kicker at Boise State shouldnt make as much as a heisman winninh qb at Texas... 

But profit from likeness is an entirely different story.

[AUght2win 6,832]

On 2/15/2020 at 2:41 PM, Tigerbelle said:

In a word.....you did get political.....and you are completely wrong to start that crap here. Such a closed mind with thinking that's based on a false narrative. 

I am not envious because envy means a desire to take a possession from someone else. I don't want to take anything from these kids. I love college football. I am thrilled kids get to enjoy something so special. I am less than thrilled people make it sound like these kids are doing slave labor. Just be honest. 

And if you want to go toe to toe, what's the false narrative I am working from? Be specific. People are extremely envious these days and want to tear others down. It's the common denominator behind #cancelculture and entitlement and identity politics and race baiting and victim cards. 

If you don't believe so, that is your right, but try turning on a TV or logging onto twitter. People are bitter right now. Because in some form or another, they have been led to believe that the world owes them something.

[AUght2win 6,832]

On 2/15/2020 at 4:33 PM, Auburn2Eugene said:

I dont think we should outright pay players. Thats nonsense.

But there is 0 reason why they shouldnt be able to make money off their likeness. College baseball, college basketball, college football, college hockey, even college track and field players should be able to get a check from video game companies for their likeness in video games. People like the ones listed above and softball players, gymnasts, golfers, equestrian riders should be able to have posters with their images to offer lessons from their sports. 

We dont have to give them a salary. There is no way to make that equal. Like someone else said the backup kicker at Boise State shouldnt make as much as a heisman winninh qb at Texas... 

But profit from likeness is an entirely different story.

I like the likeness profiting. Here is my crazy tweak on it - all the likeness based money should be put into a pot and distributed evenly to all D1 players. Here is why I think so:

If the NCAA greenlights directly profiting off  individual likeness, the big schools will be unstoppable. A booster from Bama can legally guarantee to any recruit: "Hey, come to Bama and we'll hold autograph sessions with our booster club once a year. We'll auction a signed football from you and you'll get 100k."

Big schools will dominate on a whole other level. It'll be Bear Bryant's unlimited scholarship rosters all over again - in the 70s he used to recruit kids just so other schools couldn't have them. 

For instance: Let's say a 4 star QB has offers from Bama, Ole Miss, and Okie State. The kid wants to play early and wants to air it out. He can play immediately at OM or OSU, but he'd be buried in depth chart at Bama. But if Bama can offer this kid unparalled likeness-money, then he'll gladly go be a professional benchwarmer in T-Town for 3 years, before maybe getting a shot senior year. It is literally a business decision, instead of a football decision. 

Also, you have to factor in non-skill players. An All-American Right Guard might be the main reason a running back's jerseys are selling. But nobody is going to buy merch of a right guard. Is it fair to neglect the guy doing the dirty work? 

Again, my answer would be take allllllllll the royalty money generated in a year from likeness sales - video games, t shirts, bobble heads, autographs, commercials, etc. Then combine it together, and divide it up evenly to all players. Like a pension. I think it's the cleanest way and makes it harder to abuse the system. 

[Auburn2Eugene 2,317]

6 hours ago, AUght2win said:

I like the likeness profiting. Here is my crazy tweak on it - all the likeness based money should be put into a pot and distributed evenly to all D1 players. Here is why I think so:

If the NCAA greenlights directly profiting off  individual likeness, the big schools will be unstoppable. A booster from Bama can legally guarantee to any recruit: "Hey, come to Bama and we'll hold autograph sessions with our booster club once a year. We'll auction a signed football from you and you'll get 100k."

Big schools will dominate on a whole other level. It'll be Bear Bryant's unlimited scholarship rosters all over again - in the 70s he used to recruit kids just so other schools couldn't have them. 

For instance: Let's say a 4 star QB has offers from Bama, Ole Miss, and Okie State. The kid wants to play early and wants to air it out. He can play immediately at OM or OSU, but he'd be buried in depth chart at Bama. But if Bama can offer this kid unparalled likeness-money, then he'll gladly go be a professional benchwarmer in T-Town for 3 years, before maybe getting a shot senior year. It is literally a business decision, instead of a football decision. 

Also, you have to factor in non-skill players. An All-American Right Guard might be the main reason a running back's jerseys are selling. But nobody is going to buy merch of a right guard. Is it fair to neglect the guy doing the dirty work? 

Again, my answer would be take allllllllll the royalty money generated in a year from likeness sales - video games, t shirts, bobble heads, autographs, commercials, etc. Then combine it together, and divide it up evenly to all players. Like a pension. I think it's the cleanest way and makes it harder to abuse the system. 

Autograph sessions, events and such are a whole different ballgame from what im talking about. I am specifically talking about things like video games and posters advertising services offered of oneself. 

What you are proposing directly conflicts with the non money making sports players advertising themselves on posters for like lessons. Because say a swimmer, gymnast, rugby player have their poster advertising lessons... Im a parent of course I'd jump at the opportunity to have my child trained by a collegiate player in their chosen sport. Ok so i respond to the poster and hire said gymnast.

What you are proposing would make that athlete turn in the money they make from the lessons... If you expect that every athlete would just hand over the cash they made training little johnny, i dont know what to tell you. 

 

Sure your system works great for the big money making sports who would be looking at MILLIONS. But the other guys are getting bent over by that proposal 

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

II. Discover Crootsylvania, the Pay-Me State.

Each state has vastly different cultural, economic, and physical territories, but every state with a school in a conference like the SEC contains consistent features:

• The university housing your team.
• A capital city. Your school likely has some concentration of lawyers or elected officials.
• The metro (sometimes also the capital).
• A community closest to your state’s border with another conference state.
• Enemy territory. Just as your team has boosters active in other states, so too are enemy agents inside your borders. In many cases they’re concentrated in a single area, like an in-state rival’s town, a town close to the border, or an area with a concentration of sidewalk fans.

From these areas, borders are drawn and districts are created, but specific territories are shaped by the bag men in them. It’s a somewhat fluid map over long amounts of time.

Regardless of the state, a school’s bag men gravitate toward two centers of power: the university and the state’s metro area, the former because of power, the latter because of football talent. Regardless of where top-dollar shadow boosters and bag men might live, the university town serves as the primary center of operations. After all, that’s where the coaches and players are.

 

Lolz.

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

III. Even shadow governments have staff meetings.

 

 

Another LOLz.

[RHN1975 302]

7 hours ago, AUght2win said:

I like the likeness profiting. Here is my crazy tweak on it - all the likeness based money should be put into a pot and distributed evenly to all D1 players. Here is why I think so:

If the NCAA greenlights directly profiting off  individual likeness, the big schools will be unstoppable. A booster from Bama can legally guarantee to any recruit: "Hey, come to Bama and we'll hold autograph sessions with our booster club once a year. We'll auction a signed football from you and you'll get 100k."

Big schools will dominate on a whole other level. It'll be Bear Bryant's unlimited scholarship rosters all over again - in the 70s he used to recruit kids just so other schools couldn't have them. 

For instance: Let's say a 4 star QB has offers from Bama, Ole Miss, and Okie State. The kid wants to play early and wants to air it out. He can play immediately at OM or OSU, but he'd be buried in depth chart at Bama. But if Bama can offer this kid unparalled likeness-money, then he'll gladly go be a professional benchwarmer in T-Town for 3 years, before maybe getting a shot senior year. It is literally a business decision, instead of a football decision. 

Also, you have to factor in non-skill players. An All-American Right Guard might be the main reason a running back's jerseys are selling. But nobody is going to buy merch of a right guard. Is it fair to neglect the guy doing the dirty work? 

Again, my answer would be take allllllllll the royalty money generated in a year from likeness sales - video games, t shirts, bobble heads, autographs, commercials, etc. Then combine it together, and divide it up evenly to all players. Like a pension. I think it's the cleanest way and makes it harder to abuse the system. 

I agree with this. It should be one pot and split. The NCAA should be kicking in addtional money from their TV deals along with the conferences. I also do not think it should be in the thousands of dollars but a stipend everymonth to help meet their needs and have some spendig money. I was always one that thought they get a free education but at the same time getting that free education takes away any time they possibly could have for a PT job. I worked as a referee for intramural sports in college to have spending money. It wasn't much but there is no way an athlete could do that. 

 

Athletes getting paid is part of NCAA sports. It always has been and always will be. I worked with two guys who played in college in the early 2000's. One was a DII basketball player and another was a DI-AA football player. The basketball player said they would walk into the locker room and find fountain drink cups in their locker. Just carry it out like a drink and pull the cash out later. The football player played at WKU before they moved up and he said they never paid for a meal. He said there were times when 4 or 5 of them went out for pizza and when they paid their $40 bill with 2 twenties they would get $200 in change back to split. 

[AUght2win 6,832]

7 hours ago, Auburn2Eugene said:

Autograph sessions, events and such are a whole different ballgame from what im talking about. I am specifically talking about things like video games and posters advertising services offered of oneself. 

What you are proposing directly conflicts with the non money making sports players advertising themselves on posters for like lessons. Because say a swimmer, gymnast, rugby player have their poster advertising lessons... Im a parent of course I'd jump at the opportunity to have my child trained by a collegiate player in their chosen sport. Ok so i respond to the poster and hire said gymnast.

What you are proposing would make that athlete turn in the money they make from the lessons... If you expect that every athlete would just hand over the cash they made training little johnny, i dont know what to tell you. 

 

Sure your system works great for the big money making sports who would be looking at MILLIONS. But the other guys are getting bent over by that proposal 

But just limiting likeness profiting to sports lessons and video games is not realistic. It's arbitrary and nobody will go for that. Once this box is opened, it's opened, and I am okay with it, but we have to be realistic about the consequences. 

Once this becomes legal, nobody will be satisfied until players have the freedom to fully market themselves like pro athletes do. So autograph sessions, jersey sales, commercials will all be on the table. 

[WarTim 3,456]

45 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

But just limiting likeness profiting to sports lessons and video games is not realistic. It's arbitrary and nobody will go for that. Once this box is opened, it's opened, and I am okay with it, but we have to be realistic about the consequences. 

Once this becomes legal, nobody will be satisfied until players have the freedom to fully market themselves like pro athletes do. So autograph sessions, jersey sales, commercials will all be on the table. 

This would signal the end of college football. JMHO 

[AUght2win 6,832]

Just now, WarTim said:

This would signal the end of college football. JMHO 

It ended when Texas and Texas A&M decided to stop playing over money. When a game like that isn't played, it shows all people care about is money. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

2 hours ago, AUght2win said:

It ended when Texas and Texas A&M decided to stop playing over money. When a game like that isn't played, it shows all people care about is money. 

I lost all emotional investment in MLB after they actually called off The World Series because multi-millionaires weren't making enough multis of millions.  Naturally my Atlanta Braves finally won the (least watched ever) WS the next year......and I just couldn't make myself care even after being a HUGE Braves fan since the '70's and FINALLY getting to see them almost win a few WS in the '90's.  That's when there was 100% no doubt anymore, in my mind, that pro-athletes are truly nothing more than paid mercenaries with very little emotional attachment to the teams, cities....fans.  If they don't care, I just can't make myself care either.

Unfortunately, as much as I've loved Auburn, and college football in general, my passion for the game is naturally waning as it's becoming more and more "pro-like" and with coaches leaving $4 million jobs for $5 million jobs, schools foregoing traditional rivalries (ie: Nebraska-Oklahoma or TX-TX A&M) to change conferences, ridiculous school/conference marriages (seriously.... MISSOURI & TEXAS A&M in the SOUTHEASTERN Conference???  C'MON!!!), grad-transfers, transfer portals and now state government efforts to turn college football into a semi-pro league?

I just hope Auburn can win at least 1 more football SEC Championship before I lose my emotional interest.....or meet my Maker.

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

pro-athletes are truly nothing more than paid mercenaries with very little emotional attachment to the teams, cities....fans

Respectfully, that's inaccurate. I mean, it's true of some of them, sure. It has also been true of a lot of college athletes going back decades. But many, many pro athletes have very real, deep emotional connections with the teams, cities, and fans where they play. In a business where you're probably going to get let go the moment you stop performing at a very high level, it's probably a miracle that they're not a lot more cynical on average. 

If this Utopian world of true amateurism and "for the love of the game" in college sports ever truly existed, it hasn't been for a very long time.

13 hours ago, WarTim said:

This would signal the end of college football. JMHO 

Y'all are cracking me up. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Respectfully, that's inaccurate. I mean, it's true of some of them, sure. It has also been true of a lot of college athletes going back decades. But many, many pro athletes have very real, deep emotional connections with the teams, cities, and fans where they play. In a business where you're probably going to get let go the moment you stop performing at a very high level, it's probably a miracle that they're not a lot more cynical on average. 

If this Utopian world of true amateurism and "for the love of the game" in college sports ever truly existed, it hasn't been for a very long time.

Y'all are cracking me up. 

As in any post about a subject of this nature, naturally one cannot lump 100% of everybody together and I'm not trying to do that.  I get that pro-sports rosters include many many exceptions to the rule....in this case "the rule" of my thoughts/post that most are mercenaries.  Unfortunately, the mercenary aspect is always the position of the unions & agents, who are the ones who decided to force the NFL to open one season with scabs & MLB to actually cancel a WS.  I can only imagine that majority rules in those cases..... otherwise those thing wouldn't have happened.  It floored me when, just a few short years later, they threatened to strike AGAIN!  And I don't think one can count on both hands, the number of times the NFL or NBA (which I never cared about the NBA anyway)......heck even the NHL, have threatened strikes because of money.  ....and we're not talking coal miners or auto-workers, etc, seeking safer work conditions or paid sick time...  Like other entertainers in Hollywood or the Music "Business" or certain high-level politicians, they just live in an EXTREME fantasy world with seemingly no realization of how they look to Joe Schmo trying to provide for his family of 4 on $60K per year (or much less) while Joe's having to fork out a week's pay just to go to one game.....while the average player is probably making Joe's YEARLY pay for just that same one game.

Also, I'm just giving my reason that pro-sports have lost me (personally) emotionally. I don't care about the money pro (or "amateur") athletes make....God bless 'em and, frankly, it's none of my business.  I'm a capitalist after all!  However, when unnecessary greed negatively affects the game that I spent my whole life loving, and tradition & loyalty get Officially flushed down the toilet with zero thought toward the fans, who's very absurd spending of said money due to their emotional investment to the city/community/team are the reason these (already) multi-millionaires are so rich, it feels like not only a slap in the face but also leaves you with the realization that, though maybe there ARE many, many players with said emotional connections & loyalty, the LEAGUES in general.... obviously don't agree.

As for the utopian "love of the game" in college sports, no, I'm not that gullible.  However, at least they used to try and hide it to perpetrate that myth.... Now, they simply don't even hide it.  And the fact that's it's so visible now... to the point of affecting player transfers & early exits for the draft.... Again, God bless 'em.  Go get PAID!  After all.... that's the point of college to most folks anyway, is to set themselves up for career/financial success.  I don't begrudge them at all but in taking away the illusion of players playing for the school/community/fans, as it used to be, my emotional investment (like in pro sports) just naturally lessens & lessens as I realize (especially in a case like mine) that there are MUCH MUCH more important things in life than to emotionally support people who couldn't care less about me or what I think.....as long as they can get more of my money.

And I don't judge anyone who disagrees with me or doesn't care about those things.  I'm just venting my opinion.  Is it the "end of the game"? No, of course not.  WAY WAY WAY too much $$$ to be made.  But it IS the end of the game that I grew up with.

[McLoofus 35,182]

43 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

As in any post about a subject of this nature, naturally one cannot lump 100% of everybody together and I'm not trying to do that.  I get that pro-sports rosters include many many exceptions to the rule....in this case "the rule" of my thoughts/post that most are mercenaries.  Unfortunately, the mercenary aspect is always the position of the unions & agents, who are the ones who decided to force the NFL to open one season with scabs & MLB to actually cancel a WS.  I can only imagine that majority rules in those cases..... otherwise those thing wouldn't have happened.  It floored me when, just a few short years later, they threatened to strike AGAIN!  And I don't think one can count on both hands, the number of times the NFL or NBA (which I never cared about the NBA anyway)......heck even the NHL, have threatened strikes because of money.  ....and we're not talking coal miners or auto-workers, etc, seeking safer work conditions or paid sick time...  Like other entertainers in Hollywood or the Music "Business" or certain high-level politicians, they just live in an EXTREME fantasy world with seemingly no realization of how they look to Joe Schmo trying to provide for his family of 4 on $60K per year (or much less) while Joe's having to fork out a week's pay just to go to one game.....while the average player is probably making Joe's YEARLY pay for just that same one game.

Also, I'm just giving my reason that pro-sports have lost me (personally) emotionally. I don't care about the money pro (or "amateur") athletes make....God bless 'em and, frankly, it's none of my business.  I'm a capitalist after all!  However, when unnecessary greed negatively affects the game that I spent my whole life loving, and tradition & loyalty get Officially flushed down the toilet with zero thought toward the fans, who's very absurd spending of said money due to their emotional investment to the city/community/team are the reason these (already) multi-millionaires are so rich, it feels like not only a slap in the face but also leaves you with the realization that, though maybe there ARE many, many players with said emotional connections & loyalty, the LEAGUES in general.... obviously don't agree.

As for the utopian "love of the game" in college sports, no, I'm not that gullible.  However, at least they used to try and hide it to perpetrate that myth.... Now, they simply don't even hide it.  And the fact that's it's so visible now... to the point of affecting player transfers & early exits for the draft.... Again, God bless 'em.  Go get PAID!  After all.... that's the point of college to most folks anyway, is to set themselves up for career/financial success.  I don't begrudge them at all but in taking away the illusion of players playing for the school/community/fans, as it used to be, my emotional investment (like in pro sports) just naturally lessens & lessens as I realize (especially in a case like mine) that there are MUCH MUCH more important things in life than to emotionally support people who couldn't care less about me or what I think.....as long as they can get more of my money.

And I don't judge anyone who disagrees with me or doesn't care about those things.  I'm just venting my opinion.  Is it the "end of the game"? No, of course not.  WAY WAY WAY too much $$$ to be made.  But it IS the end of the game that I grew up with.

You are creating mutual exclusions that don't exist. One can demand fairness and still have love for what he's doing. 

By the way, why aren't you angry at the owners at all? Were they not complicit in the strikes? They could have easily met the demands of the unions, no? If we're mad at multi-millionaires, why aren't we mad at billionaires?

As for how a player looks to Joe Schmo, that is up to Joe Schmo. Also, I wonder how Joe Schmo looks to some kid in India living on a pile of trash. It's all relative. 

[AUsince72 11,084]

22 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You are creating mutual exclusions that don't exist. One can demand fairness and still have love for what he's doing. 

By the way, why aren't you angry at the owners at all? Were they not complicit in the strikes? They could have easily met the demands of the unions, no? If we're mad at multi-millionaires, why aren't we mad at billionaires?

As for how a player looks to Joe Schmo, that is up to Joe Schmo. Also, I wonder how Joe Schmo looks to some kid in India living on a pile of trash. It's all relative. 

Dude!! This is all silly "first world problems" and I'm not making a political or moral statement.  Not sure why you think that... ...sorta feels unfair my brother.

I'm talking about the entertainment/sports industry in the USA.  We could certainly discuss the American way of life vs the rest of he world, if you'd like, but that's a whole different subject that would need to be in a whole different forum.  

I only bring up Joe Schmo to illustrate the disconnect between the sports themselves and the fans who support them.  Nothing about "real world" disconnects between first world & third world living conditions.

As for the owners vs players.... I'm not angry at any of them "personally"....in the least.  And yes, owners & players alike are complicit.  Totally agree.  But I could not care less about watching Jerry Jones watching the game from his booth munching on popcorn & drinking diet Cokes.  I watch the players play the game.  I know I say things tongue-in-cheek about just wanting to be entertained, but there is truth to that mindset.  I don't feel one way nor the other about what these people make...millionaires or billionaires.  I only care how the things they do affect what I watch & enjoy.  And as money becomes an ever increasing motivating factor in all decisions they make, it changes the game, but worse, it changes the FEEL of the game.

My thoughts are about nothing more than the emotional enjoyment of a superficial pass-time and not a revolutionary desire to change the fabric of our society.  Yes, I'm using WAY too many words (as usual) but you're giving me too much credit for having a deeper philosophical meaning to this.  

I just want my MTV!!!

[I_M4_AU 7,792]

15 hours ago, AUght2win said:

It ended when Texas and Texas A&M decided to stop playing over money. When a game like that isn't played, it shows all people care about is money. 

Believe it or not; the Auburn/Alabama series was ended (for four decades) over per diem ($34) at one point.  We survived. Time will tell.

For more than four decades, Alabama and Auburn football fans could only dream about on-the-field competition between the Crimson Tide and the Tigers. The Iron Bowl was dormant from 1907 to 1948 in spite of continuous efforts to revive the intense intrastate rivalry.

The first attempt came only months after the 7-7 tie in 1907. The two schools, which ended the series because of a $34 dispute in the game contract, tried to save the series in 1908. In late September, Auburn agreed to accept a compromise contract as suggested by Alabama, and Alabama agreed to meet Auburn's demands on players and per diem. All that remained was the selection of a date, but as with all decisions involving the Tide and the Tigers, compromise was difficult to achieve.

https://www.al.com/ironbowl/2010/11/iron_bowl_history_the_missing.html

[AUght2win 6,832]

Eventually this conversation will trickle to high school sports. Then things will REALLY get nutty. Anything you can sell a ticket to where the performers don't get paid will become scrutinized. I remember as a senior us taking team pictures at local businesses, as well as one where the entire team held up Pepsi products. The same argument can be made that it's unethical to use high school kids to make money, while not paying them any share. 

[AUght2win 6,832]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Believe it or not; the Auburn/Alabama series was ended (for four decades) over per diem ($34) at one point.  We survived. Time will tell.

For more than four decades, Alabama and Auburn football fans could only dream about on-the-field competition between the Crimson Tide and the Tigers. The Iron Bowl was dormant from 1907 to 1948 in spite of continuous efforts to revive the intense intrastate rivalry.

The first attempt came only months after the 7-7 tie in 1907. The two schools, which ended the series because of a $34 dispute in the game contract, tried to save the series in 1908. In late September, Auburn agreed to accept a compromise contract as suggested by Alabama, and Alabama agreed to meet Auburn's demands on players and per diem. All that remained was the selection of a date, but as with all decisions involving the Tide and the Tigers, compromise was difficult to achieve.

https://www.al.com/ironbowl/2010/11/iron_bowl_history_the_missing.html

The Iron Bowl wasn't the Iron Bowl then. Auburn and Bama had only played like 10 times by 1907. It wasn't like ending some grand tradition. Ending the Texas-Texas A&M, Michigan-Notre Dame, Kansas-Mizzou, and Oklahoma-Nebraska (as well as Auburn-GT) is destroying centuries-old rivalries. It really is a shame. 

[C'viewTiger 242]

On 2/11/2020 at 3:17 AM, gr82be said:

I'm in complete agreement with you but unfortunately the youth of today don't need sports to get this message. Music and television/movies glorify the behavior you mentioned. It's a me world for a lot of people and they don't think there's anything wrong with it because they get away with it and that goes for the payer as well as the payee. 

Glad you mentioned the payee. 

[keesler 5,924]

On 2/14/2020 at 1:46 PM, Tiger said:

Just wanted to make sure that others read this part again because a lot of people who are on the high horse about not paying athletes don't quite *get it*. It's an ignorant point of view, and I mean that without any vitriol or insult intended whatsoever.  Those that oppose athletes getting financial, tangible help in exchange for earning the school millions just don't understand that some families are just not in a position to wave off a quick 6 figures injected into their lives.

And this is not a shot at AUght2win, but it's like Tebow saying he didn't want money while at UF. Well, duh, he comes from a privileged family. Some kids and families don't have the luxury of saying "no thanks" to gobs of cash being offered to them.

This takes me back to the movie Blue Chips in a way. 

The African-American single mom of 4 wanted a house in a safe neighborhood, a 3BR/2BA with a walk-in closet, she would've been the first in her family to actually own a home.  She wanted a job where she could go to work, do a job and in return she could make a decent living and provide for her family so she wouldn't have to struggle to make a living.

 

[DAG 33,973]

On 2/14/2020 at 1:51 PM, WarTim said:

Luxury? What about morals and ethics? Oh, sorry. What was I thinking?...

Very ignorant statement. You definitely need to brush up on the power of Low social economic status and it’s effects on culture. 

[WarTim 3,456]

12 minutes ago, DAG said:

Very ignorant statement. You definitely need to brush up on the power of Low social economic status and it’s effects on culture. 

I stand by my statement. No excuse for lack of morals on the part of any human.