Sam Ehlinger

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

On 3/8/2019 at 9:05 AM, Johnny Sack said:

Only a small percentage of players have a lot of value in their likeness, and even then much of that is attributable to the name on the front of the jersey. 

Sam Ehlinger as an AAF or minor league QB couldn't give his autograph away or sell a jersey.  But he sure could as the University of Texas QB.

And this is a huge part of the value the school brings to the athlete that Sam completely ignores. 

Sam as a football player was worth zero dollars after high school graduation. After four years of training at UT he will have a chance to sign a million dollar contract in his chosen field. That’s a tremendous value that the school brings to the 1% of the team that actually makes it to the professional level. The other 95+% who’s careers will end in college get the exact same investment.

could Sam have hired a coach after high school and skip college and make it to the Pros? No.  The game of football at a high leveL requires a massive logistical team to produce the product.  This isn’t tennis.  He has made a personal choice  to persue a career in football, which is one of the most limited employment opportunities in the country.  His choice 

The high level sports training and massive media exposure provided by the schools are just as powerful as on the field play. 

As for the school making money off of the interns, how is this different than a research student, grad student or medical student that contributed to a break- through invention, patent or medical device the university can make millions on?  Why are athletes special?  They are already invested in massively more by the university than other students  

And the biggest problem with his rant?  No one forces you to play football. It is not a god given right. 

That said, let them make money on their likeness. If it screws with college football and recruiting so what.  If individuals want to pay them for whatever reason so be it.  Be transparent and tax it  

Also, put the blame of pay where it belongs. The NFL collective baraging agreement preventing them from monetizing their skills as an adult (18). 

Edited March 10, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[UcancallmeSurly 451]

8 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

And this is a huge part of the value the school brings to the athlete that Sam completely ignores. 

Sam as a football player was worth zero dollars after high school graduation. After four years of training at UT he will have a chance to sign a million dollar contract in his chosen field. That’s a tremendous value that the school brings to the 1% of the team that actually makes it to the professional level. The other 95+% who’s careers will end in college get the exact same investment.

The high level sports training and massive media exposure provided by the schools are just as powerful as on the field play. 

As for the school making money off of the interns, how is this different than a research student, grad student or medical student that contributed to a break- through invention, patent or medical device the university can make millions on?  Why are athletes special?  They are already invested in massively more by the university than other students  

And the biggest problem with his rant?  No one forces you to play football. It is not a god given right. 

That said, let them make money on their likeness. If it screws with college football and recruiting so what.  If individuals want to pay them for whatever reason so be it.  Be transparent and tax it  

Also, put the blame of pay where it belongs. The NFL collective baraging agreement preventing them from monetizing their skills as an adult (18). 

These "student athletes" have the same rights as an employee whose skill sets are earning their employers far more than their current salary.  

Those rights?  Quit and join another company with a better deal or invest your own money and build your own brand/co. and reap all of the benefits.  If in that latter case you succeed..  congrats, if not you just paid to work for free.  Have fun and tell us all about it.

 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Sam as a football player was worth zero dollars after high school graduation.

You're making a circular argument. The only reason he's "worth zero" is because players aren't allowed to receive compensation.

If it were a true free market, good players coming out of high school would have plenty of value. 

You're saying that the schools/NCAA should get credit for creating market value for players when the only reason they don't have market value to begin with is because of rules created by the very same schools and the NCAA. That's nonsense.

Edited March 11, 2019 by BradInATX

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

12 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You're making a circular argument. The only reason he's "worth zero" is because players aren't allowed to receive compensation.

If it were a true free market, good players coming out of high school would have plenty of value. 

You're saying that the schools/NCAA should get credit for creating market value for players when the only reason they don't have market value to begin with is because of rules created by the very same schools and the NCAA. That's nonsense.

Exactly. This is the main thing that could help with player compensation. Just let it be the fucking Wild West in recruiting and let boosters or whoever pay players. It’s already happening behind closed doors, and the punishments are just ridiculous. Plus, we would definitely have an even bigger advantage in recruiting with this format. 

It’ll never happen, but why not?

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

57 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

You're making a circular argument. The only reason he's "worth zero" is because players aren't allowed to receive compensation.

If it were a true free market, good players coming out of high school would have plenty of value. 

You're saying that the schools/NCAA should get credit for creating market value for players when the only reason they don't have market value to begin with is because of rules created by the very same schools and the NCAA. That's nonsense.

At 18 upon graduation who is paying Sam to play football?  Not the NFL. Not the CFL  But that is the NCAAs fault?  

94% of college players won’t play professionally. 

The majority of the big 12 knows they won’t play professionally, yet they choose to play football anyway. 

College football can and will exist without the pro players. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

What is the value of a degree from a good university to a kid who might not deserve to be at any college?

I’d say it’s damn near priceless.

And how team chemistry enhanced if only a couple of players are able to monetize their likeness while the others can’t? Most schools don’t have corporate sponsors lined up around the block Iike at Texas. 

Edited March 11, 2019 by ImissWallyPryor

[BradInATX 9208]

At 18 upon graduation who is paying Sam to play football?  Not the NFL. Not the CFL  But that is the NCAAs fault?  
94% of college players won’t play professionally. 
The majority of the big 12 knows they won’t play professionally, yet they choose to play football anyway. 
College football can and will exist without the pro players. 

None of this addressed the point I made

[Helobious 9477]

9 hours ago, texasstrong12 said:

Maybe I'm a biased homer but seems like Ehlinger should have better odds than several of the players listed here. I don't get why Fields and Martinez are valued where they are. 

Ehlinger is way better than Fields is or ever will be. That kid is massively overrated. I think Ehlinger is currently better than Martinez, but Martinez may end up being the better QB given how talented he seems to be. Regardless, I think Fields, Martinez, Hurts, Tua, and maybe a few other QB's will all put up better stats than Sam. Our offense just isn't really built for QB's to put up the otherwordly stats that the recent heisman winners have put up.

[HtownHorn 14446]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

You're making a circular argument. The only reason he's "worth zero" is because players aren't allowed to receive compensation.

If it were a true free market, good players coming out of high school would have plenty of value. 

You're saying that the schools/NCAA should get credit for creating market value for players when the only reason they don't have market value to begin with is because of rules created by the very same schools and the NCAA. That's nonsense.

That's not at all what he was saying. Sam Ehlinger, Westlake QB, has no value tied to his name or likeness. Just like Sam Ehlinger, West Texas State QB, has no value tied to his name or likeness compared to the investment West Texas State is making in him.

Sam Ehlinger, Texas QB, now has some value, because the name on his front says TEXAS.

Edited March 11, 2019 by HtownHorn

[BradInATX 9208]

That's not at all what he was saying. Sam Ehlinger, Westlake QB, has no value tied to his name or likeness. Just like Sam Ehlinger, West Texas State QB, has no value tied to his name or likeness compared to the investment West Texas State is making in him.

Sam Ehlinger, Texas QB, now has some value, because the name on his front says TEXAS.

 

Yet again a complete failure to address my point. Once again, if players were paid, they would have plenty of value. It's only the rules created by the NCAA and schools that makes the players have no market value out of high school.

 

Do you want to try again?

 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

It's a big, complicated topic. Maybe we should break it down into components. Let's start with the likeness issue. 

Should CFB players be able to profit from their likeness? Why or why not? What limitations would you support, if any, and on what basis? Why do you think they're not permitted to do so already? 

I'll post some thoughts later. One topic that occurred to me over the weekend is that practically none of these guys will have any experience filing income tax returns and that from both an IRS and NCAA compliance perspective, it might make sense for the schools to offer that service as part of the scholarship package. Might. That would be just one more expense for the athletic departments, and I'm not really sure you can make a legally defensible argument that the NCAA/schools have a greater right to auditing an athlete's tax return to ensure there's no improper compensation in it than the athlete does to privacy. 

 

[Llano Estacado 1257]

 
Yet again a complete failure to address my point.

Because y’all are talking about 2 different values.

Value of athlete to school.
Value of name/likeness to athlete.

Garrett Gilbert was all world coming out of high school. Champion from Austin. Gatorade USA Today. Played for the Longhorns. Took snaps during a NCG game. Started for another Texas team in an affluent urban area.

Is anybody in Austin or Dallas running out today to buy Gilbert jerseys, Gilbert sausage links, is he doing local radio or TV ads?

The value of his name and likeness peaked somewhere in Sept/Oct 2010. He could win back to back to back AAF championships and it wouldn’t matter. The value of his name and likeness was greatest only due to the eyeballs on UT athletics.

There are amazing athletes all over the world. Thousands capable of amazing feats I’ll never even know about. The ones that sell me drinks, chapstick, and wrangler jeans are household names, because they were on TV breaking records again and again so often they became household names, not because they had some amazing athletic potential at 18 yo leaving HS.

They’re related values but different. The athletic ability is definitely worth something to the schools, but the athlete’s name, likeness, and fame is valuable due to the hours of free marketing the school/sport provide to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

[Zavala 1384]

On 3/9/2019 at 6:04 PM, Awlready said:

https://texas.forums.rivals.com/threads/sam-be-very-careful-my-friend.415016/page-2

Be careful winning that locker room and a bunch of future recruits hearts that feel the same way Sam

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

They’re related values but different. The athletic ability is definitely worth something to the schools, but the athlete’s name, likeness, and fame is valuable due to the hours of free marketing the school/sport provide to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

 

Your point is fair enough. I'd refer you back to a point I made earlier in this thread. Pretty much every job in the world, at least any desirable one, increases your personal and market value. That's still not "compensation" by any definition of the word.

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

Your point is fair enough. I'd refer you back to a point I made earlier in this thread. Pretty much every job in the world, at least any desirable one, increases your personal and market value. That's still not "compensation" by any definition of the word.

I would argue 94% of the players are being payed, the non pro players. The amount of this compensation is up for debate, but there is compensation.  

I think the schools should be allowed to provide as many benefits as possible outside of a paycheck (monthly stipend ok). 

Think outside the box...

Guaranteed 4 year schoalarships 

Free family travel and tickets. Let them be sold if income reported  

4 travel vouchers to visit family each year

provide a year of paid health care for each year completed on scholarship. The athlete can choose when to use this at anytime after his college playing career is over (w/age cap)

unlimited merchandise

let them accept free meals, tatoos etc

let them profit from their likeness. It will be uneven for most players but that is life and FMV. 

Free Grad School or higher learning scholarships for anyone who completes four years in the program. 

I agree they are valuable to the University and should be offered more. I just disagree that it should be a paycheck. 

Ultimately, college baseball does it right and should be the adopted method.  

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I would argue 94% of the players are being payed, the non pro players. The amount of this compensation is up for debate, but there is compensation.  

I think the schools should be allowed to provide as many benefits as possible outside of a paycheck (monthly stipend ok). 

Think outside the box...

Guaranteed 4 year schoalarships 

Free family travel and tickets. Let them be sold if income reported  

4 travel vouchers to visit family each year

provide a year of paid health care for each year completed on scholarship. The athlete can choose when to use this at anytime after his college playing career is over (w/age cap)

unlimited merchandise

let them accept free meals, tatoos etc

let them profit from their likeness. It will be uneven for most players but that is life and FMV. 

Free Grad School or higher learning scholarships for anyone who completes four years in the program. 

I agree they are valuable to the University and should be offered more. I just disagree that it should be a paycheck. 

Ultimately, college baseball does it right and should be the adopted method.  

Yeah, I'm not opposed to something like this. Like I said upthread, I'm still on the fence about the whole thing. A true free agency type of market would change CFB in a way that I'm not sure we would end up liking, despite the fact that we'd be one of the "haves". 

[South Austin 52037]

Funny how you never hear OU players complain about college players not getting paid.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Funny how you never hear OU players complain about college players not getting paid.

And to be honest, if they’re paying their players and they aren’t getting caught, they’re doing it the right way. The boosters should be able to transfer $1000 to any recruit they want, whenever they want. It shouldn’t have to be an NCAA thing where all players are getting paid the same. Just don’t regulate like they have been, since something like this is impossible to regulate to begin with. If big money wants to give the next 5 star recruit $100,000 then why should they be stopped (other than the IRS of course).

Edited March 11, 2019 by youdunnf'dup

[fellside 1076]

Dammit.  Ehlinger ruined his own thread.

[Rimbo 25752]

On 3/7/2019 at 4:58 PM, Machinator said:

 

And those of y'all talking about room/board/travel/education are missing the vast disparity between the value of those things and the value he's producing for the university, specifically in terms of things that are using his name and likeness. If you, say, bought a Sam Ehlinger jersey for yourself or someone you know -- Sam got $0 from that sale.

No one's saying he's getting nothing for his efforts. The point is, it's not proportional at all, and regulations that actually prevent him from making money off of his own likeness -- and allow colleges to do so -- are way off-base. Anti-capitalistic. Unamerican.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Rimbo

[HtownHorn 14446]

10 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

And those of y'all talking about room/board/travel/education are missing the vast disparity between the value of those things and the value he's producing for the university, specifically in terms of things that are using his name and likeness. If you, say, bought a Sam Ehlinger jersey for yourself or someone you know -- Sam got $0 from that sale.

No one's saying he's getting nothing for his efforts. The point is, it's not proportional at all, and regulations that actually prevent him from making money off of his own likeness -- and allow colleges to do so -- are way off-base. Anti-capitalistic. Unamerican.

The NCAA doesn't allow the university to sell Ehlinger's jerseys. So if you bought one with his name on the back Texas only made what it cost the store to purchase a jersey with #11 on it, and since I was a student at Texas, Ehlinger is about the 4th best #11 to play for Texas.

[ChickenSandwich 9797]

Lets look at the discrepancy.....

A Stanford recruit for 4 years...

How much does it cost to go to Stanford University for 4 years?

The annual list price to attend Stanford University on a full time basis for 2017/2018 is $69,109 for all students regardless of their residency. This fee is comprised of $48,987 for tuition, $15,112 room and board, $1,455 for books and supplies and $630 for other fees.

 

over 4 years that comes to $276,436.  This is the number for a regular student and does not include any extra benefits a football player would receive while on scholarship.  The vast majority of Stanford football players will never play professional football.  If this option was not available to them, they would PAY $276,436 on average over 4 years to receive the same education.  Would it be better PR wise to simply hand them a check for 70K (adjust for taxes) each year and let them pay their own way?

 

Is a quarter million dollars to 85 players (aprx 23.5 million over 4 years) for playing amateur football not fair compensation (NFL age limit problem - not the NCAA)?  How does title 9 play into these metrics, and would there have to be exemptions in order to change the compensation structure for revenue producing sports only ( a whole other conversation)?

 

If the option of amateur football was not available to these players aprox. 8800 student athletes (90% of D1) who wont play pro will have student loan debt instead of a degree.

Edited March 11, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Rimbo 25752]

5 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

The NCAA doesn't allow the university to sell Ehlinger's jerseys. So if you bought one with his name on the back Texas only made what it cost the store to purchase a jersey with #11 on it, and since I was a student at Texas, Ehlinger is about the 4th best #11 to play for Texas.

OK, but still meaningful, because there's a market for Ehlinger jerseys, someone is going to make them, someone is going to make money off of them, and that someone should be Sam. But because of this silly rule -- the very one Sam's protesting -- it cannot be.

[HtownHorn 14446]

16 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

OK, but still meaningful, because there's a market for Ehlinger jerseys, someone is going to make them, someone is going to make money off of them, and that someone should be Sam. But because of this silly rule -- the very one Sam's protesting -- it cannot be.

and why is there a market for Ehlinger jerseys? Would this market exist if Ehlinger was the QB at West Texas State? Would this thread even exist if Sam played at West Texas State? Would Sam even have the current platform he does at West Texas State? When the next #11 at Texas comes along, is that market being driven by Ehlinger, Derrick Johnson, Major Applewhite, Ricky Williams, Ramonce Taylor, etc.

[Huckleberry 32685]

and why is there a market for Ehlinger jerseys? Would this market exist if Ehlinger was the QB at West Texas State? Would this thread even exist if Sam played at West Texas State? Would Sam even have the current platform he does at West Texas State? When the next #11 at Texas comes along, is that market being driven by Ehlinger, Derrick Johnson, Major Applewhite, Ricky Williams, Ramonce Taylor, etc.

Who gives a shit?

If football had never been invented would there be a market for Tom Brady jerseys? How does that matter at all when it comes to Brady's right to profit from those sales?

And those of you arguing that players don't create value are incredibly stupid. If Texas and SMU swapped players over the last 25 years, what do you think the change in Texas brand value would be?

[HtownHorn 14446]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Who gives a shit?

If football had never been invented would there be a market for Tom Brady jerseys? How does that matter at all when it comes to Brady's right to profit from those sales?

And those of you arguing that players don't create value are incredibly stupid. If Texas and SMU swapped players over the last 25 years, what do you think the change in Texas brand value would be?

Well, more and more schools have stopped allowing stores to sell specific number jerseys. Ohio State only allows #1, and the current season. So, this will likely become moot soon enough anyway.

As far as branding goes, Texas has been abysmal in athletics for 10 years and is still #1 in college merchandising.

Edited March 11, 2019 by HtownHorn

[Armybrat 40678]

That’s because We’re Texas, and fuck all the rest.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21780]

OK, but still meaningful, because there's a market for Ehlinger jerseys, someone is going to make them, someone is going to make money off of them, and that someone should be Sam. But because of this silly rule -- the very one Sam's protesting -- it cannot be.

So Sam should be able to profit from selling a UT Jersey? How much is his likeness worth if you remove the UT branding from it?

[Burt Macklin 18988]

6 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Well, more and more schools have stopped allowing stores to sell specific number jerseys. Ohio State only allows #1, and the current season. So, this will likely become moot soon enough anyway.

The irony of you pointing this out is pretty rich.

[HRSchenker 2257]

If Sam benefits from the UT brand then so does Turner Symonds and DeGabriel Floyd. What will those 2 get paid to play an amateur sport on a voluntary basis? Certainly not less than Sam. That wouldn't make sense.

[HtownHorn 14446]

6 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

So Sam should be able to profit from selling a UT Jersey? How much is his likeness worth if you remove the UT branding from it?

Everything, but few will admit it.

[Tex Long 4326]

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Lets look at the discrepancy.....

A Stanford recruit for 4 years...

The annual list price to attend Stanford University on a full time basis for 2017/2018 is $69,109 for all students regardless of their residency. This fee is comprised of $48,987 for tuition, $15,112 room and board, $1,455 for books and supplies and $630 for other fees.

 

Stanfords are innumerate? Or are they cheating students out of about $3grand a year? 

[Rimbo 25752]

45 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

So Sam should be able to profit from selling a UT Jersey?

Yes, if his name is on it. Seems quite straightforward and uncomplicated to me. Licensing fee gets split between the University and Sam. Shit like this happens all the time.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Rimbo

[HtownHorn 14446]

49 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

The irony of you pointing this out is pretty rich.

Probably not as much as the people saying pay him are the same people that wanted him benched until the OU game.

[HtownHorn 14446]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Yes, if his name is on it. Seems quite straightforward and uncomplicated to me. Licensing fee gets split between the University and Sam. Shit like this happens all the time.

So then Sam should start paying for the excellent graphics work that gets down to promote his brand for free, right?

[Rimbo 25752]

12 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

So then Sam should start paying for the excellent graphics work that gets down to promote his brand for free, right?

imgur

I'm going to have to ask you to step away from the keyboard and let motherfuckers who have actually, you know, dealt with rights licensing in the past -- even just on an amateur level -- educate you on this.

"Promote someone's brand for free" is a scam that stupid chumps fall for. If I put a Nike logo on a cheap-ass t-shirt and start selling it, even though I'm doing all the work, the only question that remains is whether I'll have one or two of Nike's lawyers' cocks going up my ass dry. That they'll go up my ass dry is not in doubt. If I try to tell them, "BUT BUT BUT I'm promoting your brand for freeeeeee!" all I'll do is guarantee the double entry. Hell, they might try to squeeze three in there. They might go in with an unvarnished piece of wood for that bit of chutzpah. If I try to point out that I did all the work and had all the costs, as you've done here, that's when "let the blood do the lubricating" becomes the motto.

Fuck You, Pay Me. That's how this works. You use my likeness, you pay. I use your likeness, I pay. It's the law, and it's a good law.

[Rimbo 25752]

why the heck did that entire post turn into a link

[Tex Long 4326]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

why the heck did that entire post turn into a link

Because you touch yourself?

[Rimbo 25752]

38 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Because you touch yourself?

I fail to see how my penchant for self-love has led to the creation of new HTML behaviors.

[BurntOrangeCrush 1004]

You guys have a great debate going on this topic. However, since I am late to the party and don't have a strong opinion either way, my thoughts are different from those i have seen:

If Sam leads us to a Big 12 Championship and a spot in the CFP, I think he should be given $750,000 cash. Add another $250k with a championship. 

And a new pickup. 

[texasstrong12 4668]

 

[Lerka Lerka 1084]

1 hour ago, BurntOrangeCrush said:

You guys have a great debate going on this topic. However, since I am late to the party and don't have a strong opinion either way, my thoughts are different from those i have seen:

If Sam leads us to a Big 12 Championship and a spot in the CFP, I think he should be given $750,000 cash. Add another $250k with a championship. 

And a new pickup. 

A new pick too?  His F250 will hardly be broken in at that point. 

[Huckleberry 32685]

11 minutes ago, texasstrong12 said:

 

Eh, no he wasn't. Deep accuracy is one of the things he can greatly improve. He placed jump balls to Johnson nicely, though. But he missed Duvernay about a half dozen times on long gainers (not even including stuff like the one where Duvernay laid out against Maryland).

He had a great season so finding areas for improvement will be a little nitpicky, but calling him extremely accurate on deep balls is, uh, inaccurate.

[gmr548 16463]

Eh, no he wasn't. Deep accuracy is one of the things he can greatly improve. He placed jump balls to Johnson nicely, though. But he missed Duvernay about a half dozen times on long gainers (not even including stuff like the one where Duvernay laid out against Maryland).
He had a great season so finding areas for improvement will be a little nitpicky, but calling him extremely accurate on deep balls is, uh, inaccurate.

I was gonna say, it'd be more appropriate to say CJ and LJH were extremely good at catching anything in their general area.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[HtownHorn 14446]

28 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Eh, no he wasn't. Deep accuracy is one of the things he can greatly improve. He placed jump balls to Johnson nicely, though. But he missed Duvernay about a half dozen times on long gainers (not even including stuff like the one where Duvernay laid out against Maryland).

He had a great season so finding areas for improvement will be a little nitpicky, but calling him extremely accurate on deep balls is, uh, inaccurate.

Yes, Duvernay could have had at least another 3-4 TDs and another 200+ yards if Sam had been more accurate on the deep balls. What did help him out was that Johnson and Humphrey had elite catch radii and could high point a lot of balls that went down the field. Still, Texas did not have a pass play over 50 yards all season.

Also, how much is Sam going to ask PFF to compensate him for using his likeness in that graphic?

Edited March 11, 2019 by HtownHorn

[texasstrong12 4668]

34 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Eh, no he wasn't. Deep accuracy is one of the things he can greatly improve. He placed jump balls to Johnson nicely, though. But he missed Duvernay about a half dozen times on long gainers (not even including stuff like the one where Duvernay laid out against Maryland).

He had a great season so finding areas for improvement will be a little nitpicky, but calling him extremely accurate on deep balls is, uh, inaccurate.

Ehlinger was inaccurate going deep to Duvernay but what percentage of deep throws did that account for? 

I have no clue but I'm guessing it's a low percentage. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

and why is there a market for Ehlinger jerseys? Would this market exist if Ehlinger was the QB at West Texas State? Would this thread even exist if Sam played at West Texas State? Would Sam even have the current platform he does at West Texas State? When the next #11 at Texas comes along, is that market being driven by Ehlinger, Derrick Johnson, Major Applewhite, Ricky Williams, Ramonce Taylor, etc.

TJ says hello.

[Rimbo 25752]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Eh, no he wasn't. Deep accuracy is one of the things he can greatly improve. He placed jump balls to Johnson nicely, though. But he missed Duvernay about a half dozen times on long gainers (not even including stuff like the one where Duvernay laid out against Maryland).

He had a great season so finding areas for improvement will be a little nitpicky, but calling him extremely accurate on deep balls is, uh, inaccurate.

He had some WRs who made his deep ball accuracy look better than it was. I mean... who wouldn't want to be throwing to the likes of Duvernay, LHJ and CJ?

[ImissWallyPryor 9045]

5 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

 

I'm going to have to ask you to step away from the keyboard and let motherfuckers who have actually, you know, dealt with rights licensing in the past -- even just on an amateur level -- educate you on this.

"Promote someone's brand for free" is a scam that stupid chumps fall for. If I put a Nike logo on a cheap-ass t-shirt and start selling it, even though I'm doing all the work, the only question that remains is whether I'll have one or two of Nike's lawyers' cocks going up my ass dry. That they'll go up my ass dry is not in doubt. If I try to tell them, "BUT BUT BUT I'm promoting your brand for freeeeeee!" all I'll do is guarantee the double entry. Hell, they might try to squeeze three in there. They might go in with an unvarnished piece of wood for that bit of chutzpah. If I try to point out that I did all the work and had all the costs, as you've done here, that's when "let the blood do the lubricating" becomes the motto.

Fuck You, Pay Me. That's how this works. You use my likeness, you pay. I use your likeness, I pay. It's the law, and it's a good law.

So, if Sam uses a Texas jersey to monetize his likeness, ol' Joe should go up his ass dry?

Oh...wait.  Nevermind.

[Machinator 32097]