twister55 said:

my them school in 1970 was american woman-the guess who

Click to expand...

buckeyeintn said:

Ah, the bias of the media, and then cherry picking from the article to try to validate the highly questionable conclusion.

"The broadcaster also cited state laws restricting transgender people’s bathroom access, limits on local anti-discrimination ordinances and Governor Bill Lee’s designation of June 2026 as "Nuclear Family Month." June is widely recognized as Pride Month across the United States."
Some would consider not allowing boys in girls bathrooms and boys in girls sports as a positive, not a negative. Some would also consider the nuclear family having more importance than knowing a person's sexual orientation.

Tennessee’s population grew to more than 7.3 million last year, an uptick of 63,785, according to U.S. Census estimates. The 0.9 percent population growth in the state outpaced the national population, which grew by just 0.5 percent.

The author of the study is correct. People are leaving in droves. (Where is that sarcasm font when I need it?)

A recent study found cities in Tennessee, including Nashville and Knoxville, were among the top destinations that Americans are moving to.

Affordability has increasingly been driving migration decisions and fueling population growth to states in the Southeast and Southwest, with experts noting that factors driving more people to move to Tennessee include the lower living costs and the lack of a state income tax.

Sure seems like a terrible place to live.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I would encourage others to read the Newsweek article (I didn't click on the other 2 links). Picking out one quote which the rest of the article obliterates is cherry picking at its best. And I would recommend your post (and those quoting it like mine) be moved out of the recruiting forum and into the political forum.

Click to expand...

Bestbuck36 said:

Top 6 or 4 for those fantastical playoffs?

Click to expand...

Captain Buckeye said:

It’s ridiculous because there aren’t contracts so schools are forced into a position of competing for every kid on their roster every year.

Click to expand...

Captain Buckeye said:

If there were 1 year deals signed then hey have at it. But the lack of contacts is wild,

Could you imagine pro sports if every off season everyone was a free agent? Thats nuts.

Click to expand...

Captain Buckeye said:

My point was that’d be a way to prevent the constant moving anyhow.

Click to expand...

Erling Haaland's best World Cup souvenir? A dead raccoon from Texas​

Rickie the Whiskey Raccoon is set to live a beautiful life.​

brodybuck21 said:

Sitting in 5th...hmmm

Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:

The question I started with was that about Tuberville and others trying to impose restrictions on the movement of players without the players in any way getting a say in it.

That somehow pivoted to "contracts" which just didn't make any sense to me.

A company does an NIL deal with an athlete they can put damn near anything they want in a contract, player leaves early they claw back money etc etc BUT all this stuff you read from fans about ways to punish the player for leaving cuts both ways. The more restrictive the agreement, the more unappealing to the athlete. Your position in the market place is a huge factor in compensation strategy.

As far as contract with the school-if I am an employee and a union member then whatever rights non union people have can be bargained "away" presumably in return for something else. Again though, practical reality-why on Woody's green earth would a player join a union right now? They have all the leverage and are 1 year free agents. It's heaven for them.

Lastly before anyone gets all old man shaking their fist at a cloud on these damn kids and their leverage-for the vast majority of CFB history the schools had a 1 year renewable contract on the "student" athlete. They could revoke a scholarship if they really wanted to and in some places (SEC) you had that type of roster manipulation well into the 21st century. So again, abuse leads to restrictions and nobody was on message boards crying about how ridiculously unfair that was to the players. No one had their vag clenched about ruining the game, integrity of the sport and all that bullshit.

Fans, coaches and most especially administrators LOVED the old indentured servitude model and just want that back so it looks like the "game they grew up with" yadda, yadda, yadda. It's just a lot of talk. It's gone. You can't restrict wages or movement of workers by collusion. Players are workers just like you and me (and especially @Thump mom) This was settled over a hundred years ago. SCOTUS ruled on it. It wasn't particularly vague.

Click to expand...