Tennessee Football: Can the Vols Offensive Line be Great for Nico Iamaleava, Josh Heupel in 2024?

[@rockytoptom]

Great show EC, as always

[@alpacain1075]

I don’t know if my comments are getting deleted or what, but I did say something. And I already addressed saying it’s stupid. I said the rule you’re defending is stupid, because it is. I don’t care about being insulted, I care about you being a hypocrite and discrediting yourself.
You just putting words in people mouth and arguing against that, then screaming “logic and reason” doesn’t mean you won anything. Your argument is still a joke, has no correlation to reality, and will never come to fruition. I guess it was immoral when they fired everyone who worked at the Pony Express too, but the worlds not going back. Whether or not you think you won the comment section, you lost in real life. Nobody that matters agrees with you. Either get over it, or stay mad. Keep telling everyone how it was in 1910, maybe you’ll convince someone eventually

[@rockytoptom]

@@alpacain1075 Okay Karen hahah

[@rockytoptom]

@@alpacain1075 And just to make sure you know,
"saying someone can’t make money off their name, image, or likeness is stupid and illegal"
That's your quote. It's crystal clear, by the meaning of the words which comprise the English language and by our understanding and teaching of sentence composition, that clearly means that my saying what I said, in your opinion, is stupid.
You came in to the topic with piss and vinegar and now are crying that I was mean to you.
Grow up man

[@LouisianaVol]

My question got missed again 😓

[@andersonhutsell8368]

What age groups will be at this camp? 8-13, 14-18. Address dates & times?

[@andersonhutsell8368]

Cost?

[@tennesseeboi_8754]

Did you watch the pod bro lol

[@davidjohns4223]

Eric. The question was not do agents exist for NIL. It was requiring some investigative work. At least check to see if someone else has done some work you can again bring on here and read. The question was “why should or shouldn’t an athlete retain the services of an NIL Agent” ? The pros, the cons?

[@rockytoptom]

Hate to point this out brother, but this question is dependent upon an immoral practice to begin with. They shouldn't be making money at the collegiate level in the first place.

[@alpacain1075]

@@rockytoptomsaying someone can’t make money off their name, image, or likeness is stupid and illegal

[@rockytoptom]

@@alpacain1075 Well, no, it's not stupid, that's your subjective and very emotional opinion. It is only legal for them to make money now because of a false premise which the court bought, that doesn't make it right.
Collegiate athletics were officially made amateur after the formation of the NCAA in 1906 for the express purposes of one, leveling the playing field for all teams, and two, to promote the nature of being a STUDENT athlete, not a professional athlete.
If you want, I can give you a history lesson so you won't sound like an idiot when you engage with people.

[@alpacain1075]

@@rockytoptom How could you possibly know my emotional state on this matter? Other than that being a quick and easy way to try and discredit my argument.
Dude, comparing college football today to 1906 is asinine. They’re barely playing the same sport. In 1906, the SEC, just the SEC, didn’t have a $3 billion TV contract. High level college football is nowhere near amateur, no matter how much you want it to be. The coaches make millions, the colleges make tens of millions, and the conferences make billions. But James Pierce can’t make money in a Nike commercial? Nico can’t sell his autograph? That’s a joke.
Sorry to tell you, but it’s never going back to the way it was. The cats out of the bag, the bag no longer exists, and it’s made illegal to get another bag. You can complain in every comment section on RUclips and you will never get your way

[@rockytoptom]

@@alpacain1075 You're all over the place man.
I can tell you're emotional because of the nature of your comment, and though it does discredit you, I didn't have to do that, you did that yourself. Also, it matters not in which decade, century or era of time you're referencing in any context, principles remain principles and the principle here is that college students were intended to be college students, not professional athletes. That principle demolishes your arguments about coaches, colleges and conferences making however much money, that isn't the issue at hand, that's a whole different issue within the topic of free market capitalism.
Since you're clearly ignorant as to WHY the NCAA was formed in the first place, let's get you educated so you no longer sound like a woman who just got told something she doesn't like.
Collegiate athletics used to just be Ivy League college guys playing polo and stuff like that but football began in the late 1860s and was also a sports club type of thing at Ivy League colleges. Eventually, the sport became so incredibly popular that colleges and high schools across the country started programs and poof, there you have it, a nationwide craze.
Football used to actually be a man's sport back then, people died on a regular basis. And in 1906, there was a string of deaths across the nation within the sport and there was a massive social movement to ban football, naturally, led by the families of those who died playing it. A very large and vocal group of disgruntled people also pointed out that the sport was incredibly unfair due to the elite programs like Harvard or Yale being able to pay big money to buy athletes whereas other programs couldn't pay anything and would be destroyed by the wealthy teams.
President Theodore Roosevelt loved the sport so much and didn't want to see the end of it so he and some state governors got together with heads of certain universities and they sanctioned the creation of a collegiate athletics regulatory body, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the NCAA, which was going to implement reforms not just in football for "safety standards," but also for the regulation of other sports and - here it is - NOT PAYING ATHLETES.
So, back in those days, college players would be bought to play for certain schools or players who had already been bought would graduate and they would continue to play as paid ringers either for their own school from which they just graduated or for teams which would pay them more because the "pro league" in Pennsylvania was so small and the players made hardly any money, there was much more money in the college game because of the established universities and wealthy graduates would give money to the programs to buy athletes. Sometimes, players would start off getting paid to play at Yale or Rutgers and finish the season getting paid more at Harvard. It was really corrupt, cutthroat stuff.
The main reasons for the creation of the NCAA were to create the image for the public that football was "safer," which it somewhat was, not nearly as many people died, but also that there would be regulations on the fairness of collegiate athletics. This also brought up what then became a PRINCIPLE staple of the NCAA that the entire point of COLLEGE was to become EDUCATED, NOT TO PLAY SPORTS and certainly not to be a professional athlete. Young people aren't there to be professional athletes, even more so now in the days of massively commercialized professional leagues in which you stand to make millions of dollars after your college tenure is over.
Your argument itself is emotionally based, not logical, ethical, moral or principled. You lose

[@michaelpalmer8669]

East Carolina- not Eastern Carolina…. Just like East Tennessee State…

[@andersonhutsell8368]

Should be 9-14 & 14-17. 18 too old to go against 14's in the trenches. Some very small 14 year olds.