Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

BA is Mistaken That Paying Players is Good Policy



  • MarkBoknechtMarkBoknecht Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited October 2019

    I assume BA is Brandon Adams.

    Collusive and Monopolistic? They're students. Thus the crux of the issue. Using your argument that any student engaged in unpaid labor is unfair and they should paid just like any other job. And wages to be determined through collective bargaining.

    "So tell us future boy", how does your view of unpaid students work in other cases? What about the band members and cheerleaders? Well, they have no expectation of income once they graduate you would say. So they don't get paid. How's that going to fly?

    And what about other "unpaid emplyees?" The LaCrosse players? Tennis players? Gymnasts? Don't forget the golfers. Is there college ping pong?

    And then there's the HS athletes. By your definition, any unpaid student is worthy of emplyee status and collective bargaining. Where does it end?

  • donmdonm Posts: 10,241 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Good points. There is also college bowling to consider as well as field hockey.

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 26 ✭✭ Sophomore

    Indeed BA is Brandon Adams. And its surprising that anyone on this forum is unfamiliar with the host of the Dawgnation Daily podcast and several other podcasts on this web site. He has made a point of insisting on being called BA. He figures that anyone that calls him Brandon does not watch him. If you will check out my picture, he is the young guy I am standing next to.

  • DawginSCDawginSC Posts: 651 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    As to how it works... all you have to look at is how every other form of amateur athletics works outside of the NCAA.

    Mark Spitz was paid to be on the Wheaties box while still an amateur (but after he was done competing at Indiana). How did that work? Because every other form of amateurism outside of the NCAA defines it as not being paid to compete at your sport... but allows you to make money from the fame you get from your sport.

    ONLY the NCAA holds the idea that you can't be paid for fame generated from being an athlete to remain an amateur. The rest of amateur athletics outside of the NCAA seems to exist without issues.

  • DawginSCDawginSC Posts: 651 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Either they're an employee... in which case any agreement between colleges to restrict their salaries is a violation of anti-trust law... or they're not in which case restricting their ability to work contractually is a violation of contract law.

    I cannot think of a contract other than an employment agreement (which would make them an employee) that has been allowed to restrict a person's ability to earn income on penalty of voiding the contract. I've asked others to suggest one and nobody had been able to come up with anything that does that aside from a NCAA athletic scholarship.

    If anyone can think of an example where someone is restricted from certain legal forms of employment due to a non-employment contract, I'd love to know about it.

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 26 ✭✭ Sophomore

    Federal court decisions have given the NCAA exemptions from anti-trust laws. I believe the following link reflects the latest court decision.


  • swilkerson73swilkerson73 Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Senior
    edited October 2019


    And what about other "unpaid emplyees?" The LaCrosse players? Tennis players? Gymnasts? Don't forget the golfers. Is there college ping pong?

    How much revenue do those sports generate? None you say

    Well there is your answer.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 17,293 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    A right is not policy by the way. It's a right. The NCAA and educational institutions have gotten away with some very un-American things for a long long time. As with other rights once a sea change happens we never go back though. I think it's just a matter of time, changes are coming.

  • bnadawgbnadawg Posts: 26 ✭✭ Sophomore


    I think it all started in sports with "everyone gets a trophy."

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 17,293 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Kirby's trophy is 6 million a year. Venders, media, contractors, everybody gets market value ''trophies'' except the people everybody pays to see.

  • oldon42oldon42 Posts: 1,921 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I think there is some missing the point. As I understand it the law is not about any college paying any players. It is about preventing the College from controlling outside work. If you sell your computer okay. If you sell your football jersey not okay. If the college sells a football jersey with your name and number Okay. If you sign a fan's program okay. If the Fan gives you money not okay. This is not about just football I think someone like Matthew Boling is in the same position. After North Carolina having classes that you did not even need to attend and the NCAA saying it was okay. The NCAA lost what little credibility it had with me. Maybe their need to be rules but the NCAA's haphazard way of enforcing them is not the way. Fields transfer okay. Ford transfer not okay.

  • swilkerson73swilkerson73 Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I think it all started in sports with "everyone gets a trophy."

    Couldn't be more incredibly wrong.

  • swilkerson73swilkerson73 Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    Kirby's trophy is 6 million a year. Venders, media, contractors, everybody gets market value ''trophies'' except the people everybody pays to see.

    Exactly right. Everyone is making money. Its in the billions too with a B

    Except the guys actually playing the game and doing lifelong damage to their bodies. They get no share of that money. Nothing more un american than that.

  • swilkerson73swilkerson73 Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I guess the players should just shut up and go back out in the fields and.....I mean back on the field and play ball right?

    While others count the money.

  • TDawgTDawg Posts: 144 ✭✭✭ Junior

    I’m sorry I was a year too late on my viewership stats. It doesn’t change the fact is down and trying to come back.

    Don’t punch unless don’t mind being punched back.

  • swilkerson73swilkerson73 Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭ Senior


    Attendance is down everywhere. Even at SEC football games.

    An effect of everyone having High Def TV's

    This doesn't mean what you think it does.

  • LowcountryDawg21LowcountryDawg21 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited October 2019

    I can’t believe you actually typed this. The interest generated in this sport is because of the players who play it now, and the ones who played before them.

    Not the coaches.

    Not the universities.

    The players.

    Everyone can make an absolute fortune off of this interest except for the players whose play generates the interest. No one’s asking for a “participation trophy,” or an outsized slice of the pie, or anything like that. The universities and coaches bring value to the table, and are compensated handsomely for it. But let Todd Gurley sign an autograph (which, frankly, is his personal property) for $50 bucks, and he’s suspended four games.

    They’re asking for the most basic right of someone to profit on their own image and likeness. The thing they come into this world with that can truly be said to be their own possession.

  • DamnYankeeDawgDamnYankeeDawg Posts: 920 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited October 2019

    Yet the players do not get paid like everybody else does so this bill falls woefully short unless you consider this a first step to something larger. Getting money from autographs and image/likeness benefits only a fraction of the players, not all. But it is something, I guess.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 17,293 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited October 2019

    The solution is the players gaining a place at the table and collective bargaining between management and workers like every other revenue sport. My gut tells me players would be represented by experienced adults and all parties would avoid killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

  • KirbstomperKirbstomper Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited October 2019

    It bugs me some people make the argument that this will only help the guys destined for the nfl anyway, and they don’t need the help. Some arguments I think are way off base.

    1. Maybe at UGA where our star players are legitimately good, but this isn’t the case at most schools. Star players at UT bring tons of value to their school and usually don’t get drafted. I fundamentally believe you should be compensated commensurate to the value you bring.
    2. Since when do you guys think everyone has to make the same amount of money or it isn’t fair. This is contradictory to the forums usual “right” lean. It won’t help everybody proportionally but it wouldn’t hurt any player, so why is it bad?
    3. People acting like this rule would hurt UGA, as if we aren’t a super rich and ravenous fan base. UGA would be fine either way.
    4. The players literally are the foundation of this gigantic business. They get almost no compensation. Sure at schools like Kent State the value of a scholarship is probably fair, but that isn’t the case at the top tier schools. Like how are you gonna tell me someone like Davin Bellamy, a UGA hero who never made it in the nfl, didn’t deserve the right to profit off his likeness.
    5. The Braves need to delegate Nick Markakis to a bench role and upgrade that position in a trade or free agency.
    6. Again, sure this could open up Pandora’s box for boosters promising money for guys to come to their school. But that happens anyway, and seriously who is this hurting? We would probably end up recruiting better anyway if this becomes a thing because again, our players are celebrities because we have such a crazy good fan base.
    7. Some have said this isn’t far enough of a step. Maybe, but progress is usually lots of small steps instead of one giant one.
    8. Why exactly would this ruin college football? The kids would still be amateurs, their team mates would start hating them because one guy makes more than them, etc.. I don’t see how this holds a lot of water but I could be wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.