Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I've mentioned this before, but I guess I will keep pointing it out - it's really weird how the media continues to insinuate that there is something inappropriate going on with booster driven NIL. They never fucking covered it when it was a bag game and explicitly forbidden. Someone would bring it up on a fan call-in or something of that ilk and then the talking heads would mock it as absurd or imply that is was minor and everyone did it.

Now that a bunch of rich, mostly white dudes want to transfer some of their wealth, overtly, to a bunch of young, often lower middle class trending towards poor, mostly minority people, well, something sinister is happening. It's damned near a fucking constant when NIL comes up that there are bad things being done with it. 

They enjoy painting Texas as the bad guy in their narrative.  I'd like to finally live up to the expectations.  I hope we create a machine that does nothing but create a constant state of butthurt for all of our SEC "brethren".  Fuck 'em all.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
54 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I've mentioned this before, but I guess I will keep pointing it out - it's really weird how the media continues to insinuate that there is something inappropriate going on with booster driven NIL. They never fucking covered it when it was a bag game and explicitly forbidden. Someone would bring it up on a fan call-in or something of that ilk and then the talking heads would mock it as absurd or imply that is was minor and everyone did it.

Now that a bunch of rich, mostly white dudes want to transfer some of their wealth, overtly, to a bunch of young, often lower middle class trending towards poor, mostly minority people, well, something sinister is happening. It's damned near a fucking constant when NIL comes up that there are bad things being done with it. 

I think it stems from an antiquated notion that CFB should be an even playing field - unlike those dirty, capitalist professional leagues and their gross imbalances of power - despite the sport never having an even playing field to begin with. You saw it with the hand-wringing over the LHN (despite the vast majority of the Big XII voting for unequal revenue sharing. Suddenly, the University of Texas is being castigated for participating in the free market with the explicit blessings of their conference mates. The Yankees make around $150m annually off of the YES network. I don't think I've ever heard a single peep about how unfair it is for the rest of the league. Meanwhile, UT's deal has ruined CFB.

Personally, I don't give a fuck, and quite enjoy the hypocritical salt coming from the lessers.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted

I think there are very simple reasons for the contrast in reactions.

The under the table payments have been going on since the beginning of college football. At the turn of the 20th century early college programs would bring in ringers - players that didn't even attend the school, sometimes players who were much older - to gain a competitive advantage. After WWII this started up on a more industrial scale, led by people in the state of Oklahoma to gain some kind of relevancy for their state and to combat the derogatory image of "Okies" from the dustbowl and books/movies like The Grapes of Wrath. OU football and the WWII veterans paid to play for the program help lift a different narrative for the state. This had a widespread adoption and led to the investigative/enforcement arm of the NCAA being formed, with headquarters in Kansas City under the leadership of Walter Byers. It also led to the Ivy League schools opting out of the business of college football. 

There was another spike in compensation in the 70s and 80s led by Switzer at OU, followed by Jimmy Johnson and Pat Jones, followed by nearly the entire Southwest Conference, most notably SMU and A&M. Jimmy Johnson took that formula to Miami, where it helped lead to 20 years of dominance under 4 different head coaches. 

There was another phase led by Saban at Alabama, who was the first to figure out a system to exploit the new third parties infiltrating the high school ranks the way it had long been done in basketball. The schools in the SEC were the best at bringing in players under this new system, with Alabama at their head. But also Clemson and Swinney got their own bag game going on.

But all of this felt like business as usual. The rules breaking simply felt like the price of doing business. It's like the Greeks cheating on their taxes. At some point you're considered a sucker if you do pay your taxes. The cultural acceptance of it on such a wide scale led to a collective shrugging of shoulders. 

The allowance of NIL has been massively disruptive. People do not deal well with disruption. At least until disruption becomes the new normal. I have always felt there's a poor understanding of what letting the genie out of the bottle really meant. I've felt that way since the early 2000s when I first started entering conversations with folks about NIL and its ramifications. Because people didn't have realistic expectations, they were blind sided by the actual manifestation of NIL. 

I think a big part of the dismay are what the actual numbers look like. Folks are not ready for 17 and 18 year olds to suddenly be making millions of dollars a year for playing college football. It shakes up their image of what college football should really be about. It's not just a media thing. It's regular fans, too. I think a lot of Texas fans feel this way, especially more casual fans who don't follow the sport the way many of us do. But even on this board I've seen some difficulties in accepting that this is the market rate for top notch players, and you either pay the rate or you stop competing. 

I have always laughed in different settings when people say something is "not worth that much." Guess what? You don't get to decide. You don't get to decide if a painting is worth that much. If a house is worth that much. If a quarter ounce of pot is worth that much. If a cup of coffee at Starbucks is worth that much. If a barrel of oil is worth that much. You get to decide if you're going to pay that much or not, but if someone else is willing to, your decision doesn't mean anything. And if everyone else decides it's not worth that much, then the price goes down. 

Right now, college players are still being underpaid, even in this latest cycle, because there are very wealthy people who are willing to pay more for their program to win at the highest levels. And it doesn't take hundreds of people to set a market. Someone like Ojo is a bit of an outlier, but it's outliers who set markets. Unless something drastic happens at a federal level, 5 years from now Ojo's contract is going to seem quaint. There's a good chance it won't take 5 years. The growth in payments is on a massive growth spike. Sure, it could cause the market to collapse suddenly, but I for one don't think we're even close to that. Rich people are going to complain about how much it's costing to build competitive rosters, but it's still important enough in all kinds of ways that they're going to keep doing it, simply to see their alma mater be able to win championships. Eventually the market will collapse, and that's always ugly, but I think the first fallout won't be football compensation. It will be the dropping of other sports across the board, possibly including football. A talented football player is not a commodity. There is a huge difference in value in a Vince Young type versus another player. Or a NiJaree Canady. Or a Caitlin Clark type. And they're the ones who will continue to set the market, and then everyone else's value will be determined from that. 

As long as the numbers keep jumping up so much from year to year - and they're going to - I think we'll continue to see shocked reactions from media types. 

I also think that shocked reactions deliver views and interest. Calmly explaining this is market forces at work is really boring and isn't good content delivery. But that's what this all is. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

The Yankees make around $150m annually off of the YES network. I don't think I've ever heard a single peep about how unfair it is for the rest of the league.

What? I hear how unfair it is in Major League Baseball for the Yankees and Dodgers on a regular basis. 

What I also hear about is how many baseball teams simply don't even try to be competitive any more. If you can't compete against the Dodgers and Yankees just slash the payroll to a minimum and make your overhead as limited as possible. Even the owner of the least competitive baseball team in the league is still the owner of a baseball team. And the investment tends to be about growth in value more than income anyway. 

The NFL is often lauded for having the most fair system in professional sports. I'd argue it's held up as an example of not having imbalances of power. I don't agree with some of the basic points you're trying to make here. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SL Xpress said:

What? I hear how unfair it is in Major League Baseball for the Yankees and Dodgers on a regular basis. 

What I also hear about is how many baseball teams simply don't even try to be competitive any more. If you can't compete against the Dodgers and Yankees just slash the payroll to a minimum and make your overhead as limited as possible. Even the owner of the least competitive baseball team in the league is still the owner of a baseball team. And the investment tends to be about growth in value more than income anyway. 

The NFL is often lauded for having the most fair system in professional sports. I'd argue it's held up as an example of not having imbalances of power. I don't agree with some of the basic points you're trying to make here. 

Sure, people discuss the competitive imbalance - they don't accuse the Yankees of destroying the sport as we know it. And maybe I don't spend enough time on baseball message boards, but I can't recall vitriol directed towards YES, like we've seen with the LHN. Like it or not, baseball has long relished the idea of the Evil Empire in the Bronx.

 

Posted
Just now, Foosters said:

Sure, people discuss the competitive imbalance - they don't accuse the Yankees of destroying the sport as we know it. And maybe I don't spend enough time on baseball message boards, but I can't recall vitriol directed towards YES, like we've seen with the LHN. Like it or not, baseball has long relished the idea of the Evil Empire in the Bronx.

 

Not to make this about baseball, but some of the imbalances were ameliorated with the way cable contracts worked, and the fact that many regional baseball teams could make a mint off of cable subscriptions regardless of the demand for the programming. Now that the entire market has collapsed, the advantage the Yankees and Dodgers have over everyone else is further exaggerated. It's also been going on so long there's a certain acceptance among small market fans that there's no realistic chance their rosters will ever compete for the playoffs, and that's their lot in life. But that doesn't mean they like it. 

It helps that neither the Dodgers nor Yankees have been able to string together a series of World Series wins, even with their competitive advantages. 

I'm simply saying this idea there's no pushback regarding the competitive advantages the Yankees and Dodgers enjoy in baseball is not true. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chili dog said:

You’re an insightful poster, and you make a lot of good points. At least I always find myself thinking that after the first two or three hours into reading one of your posts.  

There's a lot of TL;DR in my life.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chili dog said:

You’re an insightful poster, and you make a lot of good points. At least I always find myself thinking that after the first two or three hours into reading one of your posts.  

I can only get thru the first few chapters but very insightful 

Posted

TL;DR - Schools in the SEC now find themselves in a system in which they no longer have a competitive advantage. They would like to go back to the system that allowed them to have an edge in personnel acquisition.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

I think there are very simple reasons for the contrast in reactions.

The under the table payments have been going on since the beginning of college football. At the turn of the 20th century early college programs would bring in ringers - players that didn't even attend the school, sometimes players who were much older - to gain a competitive advantage. After WWII this started up on a more industrial scale, led by people in the state of Oklahoma to gain some kind of relevancy for their state and to combat the derogatory image of "Okies" from the dustbowl and books/movies like The Grapes of Wrath. OU football and the WWII veterans paid to play for the program help lift a different narrative for the state. This had a widespread adoption and led to the investigative/enforcement arm of the NCAA being formed, with headquarters in Kansas City under the leadership of Walter Byers. It also led to the Ivy League schools opting out of the business of college football. 

There was another spike in compensation in the 70s and 80s led by Switzer at OU, followed by Jimmy Johnson and Pat Jones, followed by nearly the entire Southwest Conference, most notably SMU and A&M. Jimmy Johnson took that formula to Miami, where it helped lead to 20 years of dominance under 4 different head coaches. 

There was another phase led by Saban at Alabama, who was the first to figure out a system to exploit the new third parties infiltrating the high school ranks the way it had long been done in basketball. The schools in the SEC were the best at bringing in players under this new system, with Alabama at their head. But also Clemson and Swinney got their own bag game going on.

But all of this felt like business as usual. The rules breaking simply felt like the price of doing business. It's like the Greeks cheating on their taxes. At some point you're considered a sucker if you do pay your taxes. The cultural acceptance of it on such a wide scale led to a collective shrugging of shoulders. 

The allowance of NIL has been massively disruptive. People do not deal well with disruption. At least until disruption becomes the new normal. I have always felt there's a poor understanding of what letting the genie out of the bottle really meant. I've felt that way since the early 2000s when I first started entering conversations with folks about NIL and its ramifications. Because people didn't have realistic expectations, they were blind sided by the actual manifestation of NIL. 

I think a big part of the dismay are what the actual numbers look like. Folks are not ready for 17 and 18 year olds to suddenly be making millions of dollars a year for playing college football. It shakes up their image of what college football should really be about. It's not just a media thing. It's regular fans, too. I think a lot of Texas fans feel this way, especially more casual fans who don't follow the sport the way many of us do. But even on this board I've seen some difficulties in accepting that this is the market rate for top notch players, and you either pay the rate or you stop competing. 

I have always laughed in different settings when people say something is "not worth that much." Guess what? You don't get to decide. You don't get to decide if a painting is worth that much. If a house is worth that much. If a quarter ounce of pot is worth that much. If a cup of coffee at Starbucks is worth that much. If a barrel of oil is worth that much. You get to decide if you're going to pay that much or not, but if someone else is willing to, your decision doesn't mean anything. And if everyone else decides it's not worth that much, then the price goes down. 

Right now, college players are still being underpaid, even in this latest cycle, because there are very wealthy people who are willing to pay more for their program to win at the highest levels. And it doesn't take hundreds of people to set a market. Someone like Ojo is a bit of an outlier, but it's outliers who set markets. Unless something drastic happens at a federal level, 5 years from now Ojo's contract is going to seem quaint. There's a good chance it won't take 5 years. The growth in payments is on a massive growth spike. Sure, it could cause the market to collapse suddenly, but I for one don't think we're even close to that. Rich people are going to complain about how much it's costing to build competitive rosters, but it's still important enough in all kinds of ways that they're going to keep doing it, simply to see their alma mater be able to win championships. Eventually the market will collapse, and that's always ugly, but I think the first fallout won't be football compensation. It will be the dropping of other sports across the board, possibly including football. A talented football player is not a commodity. There is a huge difference in value in a Vince Young type versus another player. Or a NiJaree Canady. Or a Caitlin Clark type. And they're the ones who will continue to set the market, and then everyone else's value will be determined from that. 

As long as the numbers keep jumping up so much from year to year - and they're going to - I think we'll continue to see shocked reactions from media types. 

I also think that shocked reactions deliver views and interest. Calmly explaining this is market forces at work is really boring and isn't good content delivery. But that's what this all is. 

image.jpeg.36af28007a84519c22aeb2330e580d30.jpeg

  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

I think there are very simple reasons for the contrast in reactions.

The under the table payments have been going on since the beginning of college football. At the turn of the 20th century early college programs would bring in ringers - players that didn't even attend the school, sometimes players who were much older - to gain a competitive advantage. After WWII this started up on a more industrial scale, led by people in the state of Oklahoma to gain some kind of relevancy for their state and to combat the derogatory image of "Okies" from the dustbowl and books/movies like The Grapes of Wrath. OU football and the WWII veterans paid to play for the program help lift a different narrative for the state. This had a widespread adoption and led to the investigative/enforcement arm of the NCAA being formed, with headquarters in Kansas City under the leadership of Walter Byers. It also led to the Ivy League schools opting out of the business of college football. 

There was another spike in compensation in the 70s and 80s led by Switzer at OU, followed by Jimmy Johnson and Pat Jones, followed by nearly the entire Southwest Conference, most notably SMU and A&M. Jimmy Johnson took that formula to Miami, where it helped lead to 20 years of dominance under 4 different head coaches. 

There was another phase led by Saban at Alabama, who was the first to figure out a system to exploit the new third parties infiltrating the high school ranks the way it had long been done in basketball. The schools in the SEC were the best at bringing in players under this new system, with Alabama at their head. But also Clemson and Swinney got their own bag game going on.

But all of this felt like business as usual. The rules breaking simply felt like the price of doing business. It's like the Greeks cheating on their taxes. At some point you're considered a sucker if you do pay your taxes. The cultural acceptance of it on such a wide scale led to a collective shrugging of shoulders. 

The allowance of NIL has been massively disruptive. People do not deal well with disruption. At least until disruption becomes the new normal. I have always felt there's a poor understanding of what letting the genie out of the bottle really meant. I've felt that way since the early 2000s when I first started entering conversations with folks about NIL and its ramifications. Because people didn't have realistic expectations, they were blind sided by the actual manifestation of NIL. 

I think a big part of the dismay are what the actual numbers look like. Folks are not ready for 17 and 18 year olds to suddenly be making millions of dollars a year for playing college football. It shakes up their image of what college football should really be about. It's not just a media thing. It's regular fans, too. I think a lot of Texas fans feel this way, especially more casual fans who don't follow the sport the way many of us do. But even on this board I've seen some difficulties in accepting that this is the market rate for top notch players, and you either pay the rate or you stop competing. 

I have always laughed in different settings when people say something is "not worth that much." Guess what? You don't get to decide. You don't get to decide if a painting is worth that much. If a house is worth that much. If a quarter ounce of pot is worth that much. If a cup of coffee at Starbucks is worth that much. If a barrel of oil is worth that much. You get to decide if you're going to pay that much or not, but if someone else is willing to, your decision doesn't mean anything. And if everyone else decides it's not worth that much, then the price goes down. 

Right now, college players are still being underpaid, even in this latest cycle, because there are very wealthy people who are willing to pay more for their program to win at the highest levels. And it doesn't take hundreds of people to set a market. Someone like Ojo is a bit of an outlier, but it's outliers who set markets. Unless something drastic happens at a federal level, 5 years from now Ojo's contract is going to seem quaint. There's a good chance it won't take 5 years. The growth in payments is on a massive growth spike. Sure, it could cause the market to collapse suddenly, but I for one don't think we're even close to that. Rich people are going to complain about how much it's costing to build competitive rosters, but it's still important enough in all kinds of ways that they're going to keep doing it, simply to see their alma mater be able to win championships. Eventually the market will collapse, and that's always ugly, but I think the first fallout won't be football compensation. It will be the dropping of other sports across the board, possibly including football. A talented football player is not a commodity. There is a huge difference in value in a Vince Young type versus another player. Or a NiJaree Canady. Or a Caitlin Clark type. And they're the ones who will continue to set the market, and then everyone else's value will be determined from that. 

As long as the numbers keep jumping up so much from year to year - and they're going to - I think we'll continue to see shocked reactions from media types. 

I also think that shocked reactions deliver views and interest. Calmly explaining this is market forces at work is really boring and isn't good content delivery. But that's what this all is. 

i ain't reading all that. im happy for you tho, or sorry that happened. :  r/MemeRestoration

Posted
On 7/19/2025 at 4:58 PM, Park Gothic said:

we have joined a conference of fucking crybabies

Brad from Macon wants to suck the dick straight off of Ol Pawwwwwl's pelvis

  • Haha 3
Posted
3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

There's a lot of TL;DR in my life.

don't truncate

sidebar: the ivies were never in the 'business' of football despite their dominance of the first 70ish years of the sport; the league formed in '54 but didn't start play until '56, and for the next 25 years made regular statements of the amateur-ness; then they were kicked out of division 1 in 1981, they didn't choose to go 1-AA on their own

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Chili dog said:
3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I think there are very simple reasons for the contrast in reactions.

The under the table payments have been going on since the beginning of college football. At the turn of the 20th century early college programs would bring in ringers - players that ...

...

You’re an insightful poster, and you make a lot of good points. At least I always find myself thinking that after the first two or three hours into reading one of your posts.  

Sir, that was the Xpress version.

 

Edited by sith_horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

human nature requires the existence of an "out group", an "other" to vilify

this latest rash of aggy/dawg genital ulcers is a feature not a bug (TM brisket)

aggy pioneered anus rash in football in the 19th century

aggy and smu destroyed the swc, but we took the high road, and now 30 years later are somehow blamed by aggy for the demise - and we say nothing

everyone not named corn voted against osborne's partials, but we were vilified while the rest of the league voted with us yet sat silently while we took the fall and still took the high road

i could keep going with the rest of the history from the past 25 years but it's not germane to the point (which has nothing to do with the germans).....

we are BIG EVIL TEXAS no matter what we do, don't do, say, or don't say

we are the 'out group' - we are the 'other'

we've spent the better part of my lifetime taking care of others' interests with equal devotion to our own

it's time to live up to the hate and act in our best interests - embrace the hate

use the fully-armed and operational battle station

destroy the schedule

win in athens

and on 28 november the target is 78 points for, 0 against

fuck 'em all

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

don't truncate

sidebar: the ivies were never in the 'business' of football despite their dominance of the first 70ish years of the sport; the league formed in '54 but didn't start play until '56, and for the next 25 years made regular statements of the amateur-ness; then they were kicked out of division 1 in 1981, they didn't choose to go 1-AA on their own

Yes, that's technically true. But before the Ivy League was formed, the 8 presidents of the Ivy League schools signed the first Ivy Group agreement in 1945 where they all agreed to not offer athletic scholarships or compensate financial expenses for students. I can talk about all kinds of workarounds they found, but in essence they've abided by that agreement even in the face of legal challenges ever since.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

aggy pioneered anus rash in football in the 19th century

Aggiepioneeranalrash.thumb.jpg.0888c4827188d602c1be4ab25eaf6966.jpg

 

2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

we are BIG EVIL TEXAS no matter what we do, don't do, say, or don't say

we are the 'out group' - we are the 'other'

we've spent the better part of my lifetime taking care of others' interests with equal devotion to our own

it's time to live up to the hate and act in our best interests - embrace the hate

use the fully-armed and operational battle station

destroy the schedule - fuck 'em all

 

    Heart Attack Close Call GIF by reactionseditor    spacer.png

 

Edited by sith_horn
Posted
7 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

They enjoy painting Texas as the bad guy in their narrative.  I'd like to finally live up to the expectations.  I hope we create a machine that does nothing but create a constant state of butthurt for all of our SEC "brethren".  Fuck 'em all.

Check This Out GIF

Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2025 at 8:41 PM, William Bludworth said:

Man I wish we could just go independent. 

I don't. I aspire to destroy this conference as secsecsec fans say we will.

Edited by Bevo14
  • Hook 'Em 1

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.



×
×
  • Create New...