June 24, 2014 · 1:11 PM

Now that you’ve brought it to our attention…

The most Georgia thing ever would be for the NCAA to announce an immediate investigation of this.

20 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, The NCAA

20 responses to “Now that you’ve brought it to our attention…”

  1. Joe Dash (@Dashlok)
    June 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM

    High School programs have advertisements in them. My senior year the seniors were in posters plastered all over the school with chick-fil-a and local business ads on them. Yet somehow, no one considered me a professional because of that. Granted, one kid (A star like Murray) vs a group is different. I get the legal argument, but this is going to suck the fun out of everything for these kids.

    Like

    • GaskillDawg
      June 24, 2014 at 3:52 PM

      Of course the Glascock County players are not professionals just because Railey’s Restaurant buys ads in the football program. The difference is that the Glascock kids are regular students participating in an extra-curricular activity and the money the school generates fro football and basketball dies not even cover the expenses.

      A central issue in the O’Bannon trial is whether FBS football is like Glascock football but with bigger kids or whether FBS football programs are commercial activities making profits. If the Glascock kids are required to spend more time on football than on academics, if GHSA Region 7 sold broadcasting rights to the games for millions of dollars, if the Glascock football program showed a $20,000,000 profit, and if the Glascock coaching staff got paid millions of dollars then someone may question whether Glascock football was more like a professional program or more like the math team,

      Like

      • Joe Dash (@Dashlok)
        June 24, 2014 at 7:20 PM

        Like I said, I get the legal argument on the plaintiff side… and I realize one (HS) is not like the other (College). My only point was for some kids, being on their college’s schedule poster is probably a very cool thing – and by no means should be a sign that he is a professional. But because Delta sponsored the poster, from now one we will have “Generic UGA player #44” on the schedule instead of kids like AM who have done things the right way. It’s just overkill IMO. The “G” logo and all the eyeballs it attracts is what Delta is paying the most for. I suppose group shots are less egregious than having the star quarterback up there.

        Like

        • 79dawg
          June 24, 2014 at 9:05 PM

          Do you think Delta will pay as much to have Generic #44 on the poster instead of Aaron? The University/conferences/NCAA are not selling “generic, nameless, shapeless uniforms”, they are specifically selling the stars – that’s what spawned the entire O’Bannon suit!
          And the desire/preference of the vast majority of the public for the stars to be on the poster (or video game or whatever) instead of “generic man” indicates that the stars have value. Why should the University/conference/NCAA be allowed to capture ALL of that value, and in fact, retain the right to punish the kid if he even tries to capture some of that value? That is a perfect example of the immorality of this entire charade…

          Like

          • Joe Dash (@Dashlok)
            June 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM

            Yes, I think they will. Aaron Murray is now a professional and I don’t see Delta banging down his door to put him on billboards. Would they prefer someone like Aaron Murray over a generic #44? Of Course! But you’re joking if you think the UGA brand isn’t good enough for corporate sponsors like Delta to pay to be on a schedule poster.

            Like

  2. Thatguy
    June 24, 2014 at 1:31 PM

    I’ll take a stab that it has to do with Delta being an ‘official corporate partner’ of the UGAA. But, yeah, waiting for the entirety of Murray’s career to be wiped away by the NCAA, and UGA to get the death penalty, because of PosterGate…

    Like

  3. John Denver is full of shit...
    June 24, 2014 at 2:02 PM

    This isn’t even funny, because it could have legs, which would be the worst.

    Like

  4. 202dawg
    June 24, 2014 at 2:23 PM

    This would be fine by me, as i’d like to wipe the 2013 season from my memory anyway. (except the LSU game; it can stay…)

    Like

  5. georgiajeepn
    June 24, 2014 at 2:24 PM

    Kerb Jerkstreet says you can’t do that Richt and get away with it. Plus Georgia did not even win its own conference. Oops sorry I regressed back to 2007…

    Like

  6. Bulldog Joe
    June 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM

    The most Georgia thing ever would be for our Athletic Director to self-report this to the NCAA as a violation, assess itself a ten-scholarship reduction, kick the scholarship holders off the team, and add the budgeted scholarship money to its $30M-plus “investment” in the UGA Foundation.

    Another win for The Reserve®.

    Like

  7. Voice of Reason 1776
    June 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM

    The schools are going to have to sell jerseys with numbers that aren’t being used and quit using any players photo or likeness in any promotional materials, just use pictures of stadiums, campus shots, fans tailgating, etc. You people who think this is a great idea are going to regret the way this impacts the sport and team for whom you love to root. Obviously the NCAA leadership is a bunch of brain-dead knuckleheads and there are several common sense steps that should be taken immediately; i.e. full cost-of-attendance, continuing medical coverage for injuries sustained while playing or practicing their sport, etc. but the players do not deserve to be paid for playing their sport beyond these types of things. It is going to change the whole relationship between the players and the fans. Title 9 is going to become a major Catch 22, with universities obligated to give the resources generated from a sport to the players who play that sport and required to have even scholarship opportunities for women’s sports almost none of which pull their own weight financially. I’ll stop there. This is way too long already. Sorry for being so verbose.

    Like

    • GaskillDawg
      June 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM

      Voice of Reason 1776 you wrote, “The schools are going to have to sell jerseys with numbers that aren’t being used and quit using any players photo or likeness in any promotional materials, just use pictures of stadiums, campus shots, fans tailgating, etc.”

      No, the schools will not have to cut back to such stuff. The value to the advertisers is the player’s image. Advertisers would not pay as much for an image of Ben Hill Griffin Stadium as they would for Tim Tebow’s picture. The schools will be better off giving the players a cut of the more lucrative images than they would be keeping 100% of the images of the campus.

      The conferences and schools will be fine. The amounts the schools receive on sales of items with the player’s images is not that much money. Believe it or not UGA’s cut of sales of Number 3 jerseys is just several thousand dollars (the Desmond Howard rants about the schools making millions of dollars off of the sale jerseys is factually incorrect). Giving the players a percentage of what amounts to several thousand dollars is not going to change the way UGA runs it football program nor is it going to exploit any player.

      Like

      • Joe Dash (@Dashlok)
        June 24, 2014 at 7:28 PM

        You can’t use someone like Tim Tebow as an example. Someone like Tebow or Manziel are the rare .001% of college athlete where that statement is true. Delta wouldn’t be consider a photo of Jay Rome or Hutson Mason more valuable than the “G” logo plastered across their chest.

        Like

        • Gaskilldawg
          June 24, 2014 at 11:56 PM

          Of course I can use the examples of Tebow and Manziel. This guys are exactly who the advertisers want. As for whether advertisers find that Huron Mason’s picture is any more valuable than a picture of a Georgia G, I dosagree. Currently advertisers get the G at the same price as the player picture and they choose the Mason picture. They choose the player picture not because it is cheaper (it isn’t) but because they find it more desirable.

          Like

          • Cosmic Dawg
            June 25, 2014 at 1:57 AM

            In fairness, the question is “how much more valuable” – is it partly being whoever is starting at QB for Georgia? Is Mason appreciably more valuable for that brand than Cox, or is it truly association with the program in most cases and the QB is often the face of the program?

            Don’t get me wrong, I think they need to break up the NFL – NBA – NCAA price fixing ring and let the players find out exactly what their talents and images are worth in a free market and quit pretending all these kids are UGA students who happen to play a little ball.

            Like

  8. Marc
    June 24, 2014 at 6:50 PM

    I heard the NCAA lawyer accidentally said Auburn won this years championship. I wonder if they will try to claim it?

    Like