Jump to content


Null



Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

 

I compared Cam Newton to that because the poster referenced his billion dollar company who I responding too. Again, if you are going to jump into a conversation know the context. Those people got fired in that company because the senior level executives realized the input that the middle level staff bought didn’t significantly affect the output of the company. Hence, they became dispensable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites




  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

10 rules for paying college football players     Great read.

Words like "Free " and "Given" are used because of all of the talk about getting "Nothing".  All of this arguing is silly.  This is a simple problem in the greatest country in the world.  If you don't

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. 

Posted Images

7 minutes ago, DAG said:

I compared Cam Newton to that because the poster referenced his billion dollar company who I responding too. Again, if you are going to jump into a conversation know the context. Those people got fired in that company because the senior level executives realized the input that the middle level staff bought didn’t significantly affect the output of the company. Hence, they became dispensable. 

I did read that.  I actually re-read it to make sure I wasn't making a fool out of myself.  But I did not see Cam Newton mentioned by Texan, which if he did would have made sense in your post.  Where you should have made the comparison was like I did on that 2010 team.  Cam Newton was not dispensable, just like those executives making the decision to cut jobs.  If you made the example of the RB's behind Dyer like Fannin or Smith as being those employees where they still perform an important task, but they can still lose their job.

It is all in perspective.  And like I said, I was in agreement with you which is why I only spoke up today just to tweak your response to Texan, not flat out say your message was wrong like you may have thought I was trying to do.

Edited by abw0004
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, abw0004 said:

I did read that.  I actually re-read it to make sure I wasn't making a fool out of myself.  But I did not see Cam Newton mentioned by Texan.  Where you should have made the comparison was like I did on that 2010 team.  Cam Newton was not dispensable, just like those executives making the decision to cut jobs.  If you made the example of the RB's behind Dyer like Fannin or Smith as being those employees where they still perform an important task, but they can still lose their job.

It is all in perspective.  And like I said, I was in agreement with you which is why I only spoke up today just to tweak your response to Texan, not flat out say your message was wrong like you may have thought I was trying to do.

Yeah you don’t get it, even if you think you do. I am done wasting my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 9:29 PM, DAG said:

My movie avatar? You would be wrong. If it was up to me, We wouldn’t have avatars at all. I personally rather see the faces of the people making these arguments. 

So, my question should the 'celebrities' we use in our avatars be making money off our use of their images and likenesses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DAG said:

Yeah you don’t get it, even if you think you do. I am done wasting my time.

No I do, you just are not going at this with an open mind or even being cordial in conversing.  I understand what you were trying to get at, but the execution was wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

So, my question should the 'celebrities' we use in our avatars be making money off our use of their images and likenesses?

They sure as heck can try . I wouldn’t fault them for it. Like I said if it was up to me we wouldn’t even use avatars 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oracle79 said:

Can this be moved to the SJW forum? It's gone way past AU football.

👍👍👍I don't mind a little politics coming up now & again, but this is getting very ugly.

Edited by AUsince72
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

👍👍👍I don't mind a little politics coming up now & again, but this is getting very ugly.

 

gif.gif

Lpdg1m.gif

  • Haha 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

So, my question should the 'celebrities' we use in our avatars be making money off our use of their images and likenesses?

Michael B. Jordan gets residuals on Black Panther. Which means that when that movie makes money, he makes money. So free advertising for that movie, such as @DAG's avatar, probably isn't going to upset Mr. Jordan or the other stakeholders in the movie very much at all. In fact, people identifying with the movie's characters in that way is exactly what Marvel and everyone else involved were going for.

What's funny, though, is that isn't even remotely the main point. The main point is that DAG is not making money off it. 

Edited by McLoofus
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Michael B. Jordan gets residuals on Black Panther. Which means that when that movie makes money, he makes money. So free advertising for that movie, such as @DAG's avatar, probably isn't going to upset Mr. Jordan or the other stakeholders in the movie very much at all. In fact, people identifying with the movie's characters in that way is exactly what Marvel and everyone else involved were going for.

What's funny, though, is that isn't even remotely the main point. The main point is that DAG is not making money off it. 

You went into explanation mode. You are a better man than me.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GwillMac6 said:

 

gif.gif

Lpdg1m.gif

So I get admonished by friends for bringing up a very mild reference to a political reality that is 100% pertinent to the actual subject of scholarships & recruiting but the down & dirty fighting, calling of names, and ugliness of posters who've way past football and 100% into politics are good and I need a piti-party?

Okay. 👍  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

So I get admonished by friends for bringing up a very mild reference to a political reality that is 100% pertinent to the actual subject of scholarships & recruiting but the down & dirty fighting, calling of names, and ugliness of posters who've way past football and 100% into politics are good and I need a piti-party?

Okay. 👍  

Lol broooooodiiiieeeeee whaaaaaat!? You know me better than this 72 fammy!!! I am a simple man!!! I see a Bruuuuuce gif and I immediately want to post them!!!! I just wanted to lighten the mood around here!!! Ok ok ok!!! You caught me!!!! I was just looking for any excuse to show off these 2 new Bruce gifs I found!!! Guuiiiiillllltyy. Hahaha woooooo!!!! We goooooood. That is absolutely what I was going for with muhhhhhh post.

Edited by GwillMac6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GwillMac6 said:

Lol broooooodiiiieeeeee whaaaaaat!? You know me better than this 72 fammy!!! I am a simple man!!! I see a Bruuuuuce gif and I immediately want to post them!!!! I just wanted to lighten the mood around here!!! Ok ok ok!!! You caught me!!!! I was just looking for any excuse to show off these 2 new Bruce gifs I found!!! Guuiiiiillllltyy. Hahaha woooooo!!!! We goooooood. That is absolutely what I was going for with muhhhhhh post.

Hey brother from another mother.

I know man, and I didn't take any real offense.  I just spoke my mind because there's been a few posts by me in these two (related) OP/subjects recently that have been misconstrued, by ones I consider friends, as mixing socio-economic politics when I'm not, yet there's some convos in these threads that have completely left football behind and are nothing more than extensions of today's Right vs Left political garbage.  It's unfortunate that two, in particular (who I normally like) would probably be in fisticuffs if they were in person, and I'm not a Reality Show kinda guy.

BTW, I actually loved the gifs.....hilarious!  Just wasn't sure why they applied to me. ....but it's all good.  :cheers:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DAG said:

Never said majority of the players are Cam Newton. The Cam Newton types will be the main ones driving the market. That is Mcloofus main point. This won't be some free for all that the chicken littles like yourself think it will be. 

Is it fair for Cam to make big bucks in college while his O-Line gets nothing? What about his receivers? What about the practice squad that gets him ready every week?

And if it isn't a free-for-all, explain exactly how this fair system you want to implement will work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Michael B. Jordan gets residuals on Black Panther. Which means that when that movie makes money, he makes money. So free advertising for that movie, such as @DAG's avatar, probably isn't going to upset Mr. Jordan or the other stakeholders in the movie very much at all. In fact, people identifying with the movie's characters in that way is exactly what Marvel and everyone else involved were going for.

What's funny, though, is that isn't even remotely the main point. The main point is that DAG is not making money off it. 

By this logic, college football's exposure will generate free advertising for players. In 2020 and the age of social media, everyone is their own brand. Why do you think every Auburn player gets a blue check mark by their name? Just using your logic. 

The problem is that we can tackle specific examples and do mental gymnastics, but there has to be a solid ethical principle upon which to build a foundation for these arguments. 

My principle as it applies to college football - Amateur sports are not about making money. No one is forced to play them. If you want fast cash, there are tons of professional sports leagues that you can get paid for at an early age (MLB, PGA, Soccer). There are 460,000 college athletes. The college system is built to allow lots of kids to play lots of sports while earning an education. It's. Not. About. Money.

While I am fine with likeness profiting, we also need to figure out a rule there, too. Here's my principle in regards to that - it's not fair for some players to make more off their individual likeness than others. So take all money generated from likeness sales and distribute it equally to all players.

If the outcry for all this is unfairness, and players getting "their piece of the pie", then this is the only way. It wouldn't be fair for a record-setting QB at Hawaii to make less in jersey sales just because of their small fan base, would it? It also wouldn't be fair for a QB to get autograph sessions, while the Left Tackle who makes it all possible gets nothing. How about smaller role players like long-snappers. Without them, the team can't compete and win. If kids want to cash in on their likeness, it should all go into one pot and be doled out evenly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, McLoofus said:

He's gone far beyond that. To include initially saying that the blame for illicit cash inducements as part of college recruiting lies with the recruits themselves. 

You have latched to this and I don't know why. Did you even see the question I was replying to? It was the following:

"You have fair points, but that brings up a question. Is it the bagmen and players that are in the wrong? Or is it the ncaa who enforces this ridiculous rules?"

I said the former, not the NCAA. I didn't say the pay-for-play scheme was ONLY their fault. I just said out of the two, the players/bagmen are in the wrong. It's the NCAA's program and they have the right to make their own rules. Just like an employer. Just like the NFL and its specific policies for players. If you want to play NCAA football, then follow their rules. So yes, the players/bagmen are in the wrong for participating in the NCAA without following its rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AUght2win said:

Is it fair for Cam to make big bucks in college while his O-Line gets nothing? What about his receivers? What about the practice squad that gets him ready every week?

And if it isn't a free-for-all, explain exactly how this fair system you want to implement will work. 

When has life been fair? You make worth your value is. It isn’t a free for all because those linemen you just mention wouldn’t be for a bidding war unless it’s a once in a life time stud lineman like the UGA recruit. The top tier talent will be the ones making most of the money off of their likeness. If people cared that much about Lee Ziemba then he can get his Guap too but unless you are an Auburn fan , you probably wouldn’t know who Lee Ziemba is. So why would he get the same amount of Value as Cam Newton, the heisman winner and face of Auburn football. I don’t even think Lee Ziemba would even argue for that. 
 

You are talking about fair? Cam Newton, who I love, got how many opportunities to play football at the collegiate level because his talent. Most players wouldn’t get multiple opportunities . You are talking about fair? The NCAA contradicted their own rule to allow Cam Newton to play throughout the season because they KNEW her brought eyes to the TVs. If that wasn’t a heisman caliber player, do you really think they would’ve made a ruling in record setting time allow him to remain eligible? When has any of this been about being fair? 

Edited by DAG
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DAG said:

When has life been fair? You make worth your value is. It isn’t a free for all because those linemen you just mention wouldn’t be for a bidding war unless it’s a once in a life time stud lineman like the UGA recruit. The top tier talent will be the ones making most of the money off of their likeness. If people cared that much about Lee Ziemba then he can get his Guap too but unless you are an Auburn fan , you probably wouldn’t know who Lee Ziemba is. So why would he get the same amount of Value as Cam Newton, the heisman winner and face of Auburn football. I don’t even think Lee Ziemba would even argue for that. 

Exactly. Exactly. So the entire virtue signaling argument of "the current system is unfair" is invalid. This movement isn't about fairness, it's about making money. And I personally am not down with it. 

The current system treats everyone more equally than what's being proposed. If we get to unfiltered likeness profiting, schools with large fanbases are basically going to become the Steinbrenner Yankees. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

So I get admonished by friends for bringing up a very mild reference to a political reality that is 100% pertinent to the actual subject of scholarships & recruiting but the down & dirty fighting, calling of names, and ugliness of posters who've way past football and 100% into politics are good and I need a piti-party?

Okay. 👍  

I saw this quote on Facebook the other day and though it is referring to politics and religion I think it has merit to discussions about anything, including Auburn football.  This quote really made me think and I hope it clicks for a few others on here.  It isn’t the subject that should be riling, but how one conducts the conversation.  One could accomplish more with civil discourse and may even learn a thing or two, and I point the finger at myself too.

 

CDD09179-8BC9-488D-A1CC-1D2FE6C11AA1.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AUght2win said:

Exactly. Exactly. So the entire virtue signaling argument of "the current system is unfair" is invalid. This movement isn't about fairness, it's about making money. And I personally am not down with it. 

The current system treats everyone more equally than what's being proposed. If we get to unfiltered likeness profiting, schools with large fanbases are basically going to become the Steinbrenner Yankees. 

Yes you are 100 percent right. It is about money . That is the hard truth my friend and that’s where it will ultimately go. It’s just a matter of when..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I haven't seen anyone say this. And I've been following this conversation pretty closely for a few years now.

Followed it for decades and I have seen articles, fans, players, radio/TV talking heads discuss it.

How much revenue do you think you guys generated for the university?

I was involved with the discussions regarding the amount of time/work that the athletes put in and monetary compensation from the university itself. No idea what we generated. Do know our football team was going 1-10 while were consistently making the NCAA quarters. We practiced same hours, were used across the city in promotions to represent the university, used as a recruiting tool, our likeness was used. We were more respected at that time than the football program.

If you are arguing from the side of getting likeness pay now I have no issue with that. Don't like the combination of it with free transfers, but hey if I don't like the results my donations will end and I won't watch the sport. That's my choices.

If you want to go from a full revenue perspective and make it about that fine. Then strip all the student fee's and government subsidies and scrap every single sport and athletic program that is unable to pull its weight. So Auburn would have a football team and nothing else (well maybe now it would still have a basketball team). Everything else is gone. A very large number of universities would have no athletic department at all.

He's gone far beyond that. To include initially saying that the blame for illicit cash inducements as part of college recruiting lies with the recruits themselves. 

Fair statement. I heard things about the football program where I started out as an athlete, its not all on them but they aren't innocent. Might of even been a 30 for 30 on it 🤫

The qualifier is acknowledged and appreciated. But please do continue to acknowledge that, as an athlete in a non-revenue sport in a different era, you don't really have perspective on, say, a running back who put up 1,000 yards last season and who has watched Auburn University sell a few thousand of his jerseys at $100+ a pop but he can't sell so much as a single autograph himself.

They sold jerseys back then also, but again I have no issue with the likeness deal by itself. You're right though, I didn't have that perspective cause the football team sucked while we were handling our s*** lol. Jerseys (official) will be a non-factor anyway, most universities are moving away from used numbers or only those associated with past athletes that are financially compensated. But I sure got the perspective on the time, work, and promoting of the university bit.

Now I do believe that every athlete should get tuition, on campus room and board, books/supplies, and meals. That's from Bo Nix down to the back up setter on the women's volleyball team. They all put in the time, the work and the university uses all of them as recruiting tools and ambassadors of the university

How nice for you to have that option. Football players don't really have that option. The NFL and NCAA have done a good job of ensuring that the existing free farm system remain the only legitimate path. 

I didn't have a farm system either! No pipeline/farm to the Premier or Bundesliga. Ya know, despite the lack of scholarship money and the requirements and the injury, I had a damn good time and wouldn't trade my two years of it for anything. I agree there should be a system where they can go play football if they want.

Also, it's a little insane that this notion that all people should just accept their current circumstances "or quit" keeps getting perpetuated by ostensibly intelligent people. Actually, it's completely insane. Y'all need to know that. Y'all really need to think about what you're saying. I need not enumerate the very necessary things that people have now because they did not simply accept their inadequate circumstances or quit. 

Well:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

 

When it comes to compensation, I'm only concerned with NIL. I used to advocate for more from the universities but I've changed my thinking on that.

While I understand the concerns about NIL + transfers, I don't think they supersede what is fair to the players. Nor do I think it will meaningfully alter the sport. 

You're right, the recruits and their families aren't "innocent" when it comes to the recruiting "game", but they're very far down the list of perps and accomplices IMO. We the fans, in fact, are further up the list than they are. An argument could be made that we are at the top of that list. Right up until, as you alluded to, we withdraw our support. 

I should not have used the word "revenue". I meant "profit". 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...