This photo, or one similar to it, likely adorns a wall in the house of every Texas booster on the planet. Minutes after Young danced into the end zone to secure one of the greatest championship game finishes in the sport, copy editors everywhere scurried for a quick, witty headline.

In-Vince-Able worked well. (According to court documents, that was one of his nicknames at UT. He’s like Apollo Creed – a man with many nicknames!)

The word was splashed everywhere, and the day after the Rose Bowl, three enterprising fellows in Texas trademarked Invinceable. They nabbed VY, too.

Nearly three years later, and Young is suing the trio (one is a former Houston Astro), claiming he’s prevented from using both words in advertising – which the guy could probably use since he’s not hitting any performance bonuses this year.

So for the three clowns who Young is suing – good business model, or jerks? Probably a little bit of both. (We’d lean more to the jerk side; fully, actually. But we can see how it’s not a bad business model.)

When you read stories like this, you almost wonder if athletes have fully grasped the internet age. Take Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The day before their baby is born, they have purchased virtually every URL permutation of the kid’s name. Vince Young’s been a star since high school, and by college, you think he – or somebody in his circle – would have advised him to trademark “VY” or at least grab Vinceyoung.com. He missed both.

Here are a couple that may surprise you: Stephen Curry doesn’t own www.stephencurry.com. Doesn’t appear as if Hansbrough owns his name, either. Ditto for Colt McCoy.

What are the chances some enterprising reader is going to look up the best young football and basketball players in America after reading this, and buy up a whole bunch of URLs on the chance that down the road, they could be worth a few thousand bucks?