Sam Keller sues EA Sports and the NCAA

[Logan]

NCAA removes name-likeness release from student-athlete forms

[digamma]

Still can't believe these clowns and their lawyers ruined video games for generations of Americans like me.

[NobodyHere]

Generations? It's been only one or two years right?

[Kodos]

Who knows how long it will be until they're back?

[digamma]

Since when are message boards opposed to hyperbole?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Who knows how long it will be until they're back?

Personally I'm predicting within 5 years.

Couldn't EA just create random players for every team and let modding communities do the rest?

[Kodos]

I'm hoping next year. NCAA Football is my favorite title by a wide margin right now.

[cartman]

The players are missing NCAA 15

Not in the game: College football players want NCAA video game back - CBSSports.com

[gstelmack]

Of course they want it back - so they can get their cut from the revenues ;-)

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by cartman

The players are missing NCAA 15

Not in the game: College football players want NCAA video game back - CBSSports.com

Why can't they continue to play last year's version. I played Tecmo Super Bowl for five years on my NES.

[Kodos]

I think it would be easier if the last game had appeared on the Next Gen systems.

[SegRat]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think it would be easier if the last game had appeared on the Next Gen systems.

100% yes

[molson]

I can even really comprehend how this perceived right to a certain kind of video game is a relevant talking point here. We could have all kind of fun stuff if we didn't mind illegally exploiting people.

Edit: I mean, I get why people want the game, I don't quite get the argument that the athletes have some moral obligation to forgo their legal rights to provide that for you.

[Eaglesfan27]

Interesting article that makes me hopeful we will have a college football game sooner than later:

Not in the game: College football players want NCAA video game back - CBSSports.com

[NobodyHere]

Of course they want it back - so they can get their cut from the revenues ;-)

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cartman

The players are missing NCAA 15

Not in the game: College football players want NCAA video game back - CBSSports.com

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Interesting article that makes me hopeful we will have a college football game sooner than later:

Not in the game: College football players want NCAA video game back - CBSSports.com

[britrock88]

Gotta keep up with realignment, man.

[Kodos]

You can realign conferences as much as you like in NCAA '14, '13. Maybe '12.

[molson]

Another big loss for the cartel.

A federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA is in violation of the nation's antitrust laws by restricting the compensation that major college football and men's basketball student-athletes can receive for use of their names, images and likenesses.

Judge rules against NCAA in Ed O'Bannon antitrust case - ESPN

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

Another big loss for the cartel.

A federal judge ruled Friday that the NCAA is in violation of the nation's antitrust laws by restricting the compensation that major college football and men's basketball student-athletes can receive for use of their names, images and likenesses.

Judge rules against NCAA in Ed O'Bannon antitrust case - ESPN

[NobodyHere]

Interesting.

So if a university uses a player image in an advertisement, how is it determined how much the player gets?

[JonInMiddleGA]

There is not a deep enough hot enough corner of hell for an ungrateful p.o.s. like O'Bannon.

I don't think he could DIAF enough times to satisfy me at this point.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There is not a deep enough hot enough corner of hell for an ungrateful p.o.s. like O'Bannon.

I don't think he could DIAF enough times to satisfy me at this point.

Bastard. How dare him for wanting the market to dictate his worth instead of a group of universities.

[RainMaker]

Freeloaders sure get pissed when they can't get their handouts anymore. Boohoo we have to pay someone to profit off their likeness like the rest of the fucking world.

[Logan]

Mandel gave a pretty good synopsis.

O'Bannon decision deals decisive end to amateurism in NCAA athletics | FOX Sports

[sterlingice]

Two thoughts:
1) I wonder how Title IX will play into this
2) Of all the things to actually apply antitrust law to, this is the one that actually sticks? Not any number of all the other industries in this country that should have antitrust violations slapped on them.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Bastard. How dare him for wanting the market to dictate his worth instead of a group of universities.

There's a pro market out there to determine his "worth". He's just pissed because that turned out to be "not much". So since he's a flop he'll just scorch the earth. Yep, stand up guy alright.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's a pro market out there to determine his "worth". He's just pissed because that turned out to be "not much". So since he's a flop he'll just scorch the earth. Yep, stand up guy alright.

He's just the name on the lawsuit, not the mastermind. It could have been any of tens of thousands of guys. Obviously the implications are on the future, he's not collecting anything substantial himself.

[molson]

I think there will eventually be a negotiated solution and a change in the way college sports does things, but that it won't be as dramatic as people think. There's so many billions of dollars involved here, the players have just won themselves a small piece of it. But I don't think anyone wants to rock the boat too much. There might be stipends, cuts of licensing deals, guaranteed scholarships, insurance, maybe more freedom to make their own money. It is not the end of college sports. Big time college sports have not been about "amateurism" in a long time. It's a billion dollar industry, the coaches make millions, and the top athletes get paid in all kinds of ways beyond their scholarships.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

2) Of all the things to actually apply antitrust law to, this is the one that actually sticks? Not any number of all the other industries in this country that should have antitrust violations slapped on them.

There's a ton of anti-trust litigation it just usually doesn't hit the high profile entities. Which makes sense, an entity doesn't reach that kind of profile unless they've succeeded against or dodged those kinds of challenges over the decades.

These are just the anti-trust suits initiated by the government, there's hundreds and hundreds in the last 20 years, and the DOJ has a high success rate in whatever they do in court.

USDOJ: Antitrust Division Antitrust Division Case Filings Index

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

There's so many billions of dollars involved here, the players have just won themselves a small piece of it.

They already had a 'small piece of it', in the form of scholarships that provide many (if not most) with an opportunity that they would have never had without same.

The value is in the name on the front, not the name on the back. And these pampered prima donnas understand that less & less everyday. Fuck 'em.

Fuck 'em all afaic.

[sooner333]

I do find it interesting in this whole deal (and I can't comment for the entire thread because I haven't read it all), that almost nobody mentions that the professional leagues, particularly the NFL due to the lack of other options and the three-year requirement, have effectively made going to college a prerequisite to playing in their league.

I'm not saying that the players shouldn't be able to make money on their likenesses. In fact, the Court's opinion was probably pretty reasonable to balance the interests of all involved--particularly in light of the Power 5 autonomy. But, while the NCAA gets hammered in public opinion, nobody blames the pro leagues for really blocking individuals from making the money in the first place.

[Buccaneer]

I still contend, as I have for many years now, that the P5 (will become P4/16 teams each) should be a minor professional league. Do away with the charade of student/athletes, making them go to classes and gaming the grades system (I have personal experiences with such). They (major sports athletes) are there to play ball, so let them concentrate full time on that, pay them accordingly and have the university sponsor and pay (including medical) their teams in exchange for TV revenues. Leave all of the spaces and scholarships for those going to school for academic reasons (and qualified to do so). If a player wants to get a degree, then they would have to do it in their spare time or off-season but there would be no special eligibility games to play.

[Buccaneer]

Thinking about this some more, I conclude that I love the chance for an athlete to excel - earning money using their talents (as I do for anyone using their talents). I am more partial to baseball's model of developing young players, particularly with the different youth leagues, schools in Latin America and the minor league system. How that can be applied to football and basketball, I am not sure but paying them to play while they develop and grow seems to be a good step.

I also think about the education angle and I admire more those athletes that returned to school when they do not or cannot play any longer and get a degree.

[Solecismic]

I don't see this as the end of the world. But I think O'Bannon would be surprised to find that the value of his likeness in an open market is pretty much zero. EA licensed all of this to shut out competition. Licenses mean a lot to publishers.

When TCY was hot, I had only a handful of customers ask me about the players. They're gone in four years. I think the players themselves cared more about seeing their names in Madden than anyone else.

What I think the judge missed here (and, clearly, her mind was made up before there was any testimony - she wasn't very quiet about her feelings) is the aspect of exclusivity in a license and how the video game business works.

Every once in a while there's a Tim Tebow or a Johnny Manziel who has some real value in a college license. But maybe there's ten players you'd pay for in each sport and no one else. And if you're willing to pay for someone, as a publisher, $5k a year is peanuts. The value is in the branding - the school logos. Add a name editor and customers will handle the rest if they care enough.

I guess I'm not seeing the Title IX implications. What publisher is going to pay Penn State superstar Maggie Lucas $5,000 to put her in a game? For that matter, is there any market at all for a women's college basketball game? Where is the revenue going to come from to fund this decision? All it will do is price licensing for college basketball and football player likenesses out of the market.

As for my feelings about O'Bannon - I get it. You see millions of dollars changing hands over licensing and you start to resent it a little. You had dreams of being a big NBA star, and you weren't quite good enough. If I had 1/1000th of his basketball accomplishments, I'd be happy for a lifetime. But if you really do come close and you have those dreams, yeah, it would be easy for a lawyer to step in and fuel that. O'Bannon isn't the problem - it's the whole hypocrisy of college athletics.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I still contend, as I have for many years now, that the P5 (will become P4/16 teams each) should be a minor professional league. Do away with the charade of student/athletes, making them go to classes and gaming the grades system (I have personal experiences with such). They (major sports athletes) are there to play ball, so let them concentrate full time on that, pay them accordingly and have the university sponsor and pay (including medical) their teams in exchange for TV revenues. Leave all of the spaces and scholarships for those going to school for academic reasons (and qualified to do so). If a player wants to get a degree, then they would have to do it in their spare time or off-season but there would be no special eligibility games to play.

I might support that if it also included making the schools' athletic departments achieve a balanced budget with no money from the general fund.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Do away with the charade of student/athletes, making them go to classes and gaming the grades system (I have personal experiences with such). They (major sports athletes) are there to play ball, so let them concentrate full time on that, pay them accordingly and have the university sponsor and pay (including medical) their teams in exchange for TV revenues. Leave all of the spaces and scholarships for those going to school for academic reasons (and qualified to do so). If a player wants to get a degree, then they would have to do it in their spare time or off-season but there would be no special eligibility games to play.

This model I'm fine with. Let the market decide whether it's willing to pay thousands (or in some cases tens of thousands) for "school teams" that lack even the pretense of being amateurs or students.

[Buccaneer]

I very much agree with you, JPhillips. But I would take it a step further in saying that any profits should go back to the university as a return on their investment.

[JPhillips]

I think the kids should make money if they can, but public schools shouldn't spend millions from the general fund to subsidize athletics.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Every once in a while there's a Tim Tebow or a Johnny Manziel who has some real value in a college license. But maybe there's ten players you'd pay for in each sport and no one else. And if you're willing to pay for someone, as a publisher, $5k a year is peanuts. The value is in the branding - the school logos. Add a name editor and customers will handle the rest if they care enough.

The publishers went out of their way to clone college players in their game for a reason. They created historical teams with players that mimic the stars for a reason. People wanted the Texas A&M QB to be really good. It was obviously a selling point or they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of doing it.

[Danny]

Yeah I think it matters to a lot of people. The Clemson fan likely doesn't care who is the qb for Oregon state, but he wants Sammy Watkins and taj boyd

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Danny

Yeah I think it matters to a lot of people. The Clemson fan likely doesn't care who is the qb for Oregon state, but he wants Sammy Watkins and taj boyd

I'd argue that they don't care about Sammy Watkins or Taj Boyd ... they care about players who play like SW or TB. The identity doesn't matter nearly so much as the skill set.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd argue that they don't care about Sammy Watkins or Taj Boyd ... they care about players who play like SW or TB. The identity doesn't matter nearly so much as the skill set.

This argument evaporates when you show the online community freak out about players not having dreads like they do in real life, or a class year being wrong, or numbers being off.

And if EA made an otherwise perfect clone of Sammy Watkins with his skill set, and even had him wearing his number, do you really think people wouldn't go nuts if they made him 5'7" and 175 lbs instead of his 6'2" 210 or whatever?

[sooner333]

I think people, at the very least, want players that play like their real life counterparts and the ability to edit the names in the game to match their real life counterparts. My friends would send off their PS2 memory pack across the country to get the names before downloadable edits. I either did the same or found a way to download content onto my Xbox card. It's important.

I think there is a smaller subset who care about whether the person has the appropriate wrist band, dreadlocks, etc. It's not marginal, but it's smaller. Back when my friends were sending off the memory packs, there were fewer of those things to edit, but they still wanted the names for their seasons.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

This argument evaporates when you show the online community freak out about players not having dreads like they do in real life, or a class year being wrong, or numbers being off.

And if EA made an otherwise perfect clone of Sammy Watkins with his skill set, and even had him wearing his number, do you really think people wouldn't go nuts if they made him 5'7" and 175 lbs instead of his 6'2" 210 or whatever?

Selection bias just bit you. "The online community" is a small fractional part of the consumer base for the game, definitely not the mainstream.

But what I'm trying to get at is that (virtually) nobody gives a shit about Watkins (*not picking on him, pick virtually any college player ever). People care about the Clemson QB, ol' whatshisname. The marketability, the value, exists because of the names on the front not the names on the back. There might be 5 players per decade, possibly less, who are beyond that level.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I do find it interesting in this whole deal (and I can't comment for the entire thread because I haven't read it all), that almost nobody mentions that the professional leagues, particularly the NFL due to the lack of other options and the three-year requirement, have effectively made going to college a prerequisite to playing in their league.

I'm not saying that the players shouldn't be able to make money on their likenesses. In fact, the Court's opinion was probably pretty reasonable to balance the interests of all involved--particularly in light of the Power 5 autonomy. But, while the NCAA gets hammered in public opinion, nobody blames the pro leagues for really blocking individuals from making the money in the first place.

I wonder how much the public opinion is swayed by the fact that the NCAA opposition figurehead (O'Bannon) is so much more sympathetic than the NFL opposition figurehead in that anti-trust case that the NFL won (Clarett). I do remember some people on Clarrett's side, but not as many as this. It's true there are differences. And different judges and circuits involved.

[cartman]

The Power 5 conferences voted 79-1 to cover full cost of attendance. This means players can get a stipend in addition to their scholarship.

Power 5 conferences pass cost-of-attendance measure as NCAA autonomy begins - ESPN

[Kodos]

Sounds like a step in the right direction.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Selection bias just bit you. "The online community" is a small fractional part of the consumer base for the game, definitely not the mainstream.

But what I'm trying to get at is that (virtually) nobody gives a shit about Watkins (*not picking on him, pick virtually any college player ever). People care about the Clemson QB, ol' whatshisname. The marketability, the value, exists because of the names on the front not the names on the back. There might be 5 players per decade, possibly less, who are beyond that level.

I never considered for a minute trying to add real names, weights, dreads, etc., to TCY. The good ones are gone so fast. For every Winston or Manziel, there are 10,000 no one but families and MGOBLOG can remember without looking them up.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Power 5 conferences voted 79-1 to cover full cost of attendance. This means players can get a stipend in addition to their scholarship.

Power 5 conferences pass cost-of-attendance measure as NCAA autonomy begins - ESPN

What's another couple million in subsidies from tuition and fees?