EA Says They Would Jump For the Opportunity, To Get Back in The College-Game Business

[illwill10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cardot

A free game would be a nice gesture by EA, but I don't think they would even have to do that. I would guess that 95% of players would be happy to just be in the game.

I've seen players say that. I seen Saquan and former collegiate players said they missed out on being in NCAA. I'm certain players would do it for free.
I said free game because cash value gets extremely expensive for every individual player.

[illwill10]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...r-pay-play-act
Pretty much sounds like they already made a decision just waiting on that October 29 date to submit. With them saying whatever they recommend what take place until at least late 2020, has me feeling like they came up with some type of compensation model. It's just obvious they are against players getting compensated, their hands are being forced. So I'm curious to see their recommendations
My thing is that the major money will only be available to like 50-100 players. Most of the other players will probably will just get local deals or autographs.

[GlennN]

Quote: Originally Posted by kennylc321

You got a long way to go. I don't think this helps. Even if all 50 states created a similar law, you would have to essentially enter a contract with each student athlete to be in the game. I'm sure the kicker from SW Missouri State wouldn't cost you much, but it adds up. But unless you get "NCAA" to buy in, you will also have to enter a license agreement with each conference or school. Again... it would be pretty expensive. This is kinda the same fate APF 2k8 had... they had to have an individual contract with each school. John Elway and Barry Sanders was much more expensive than Pete Metzellars and Barry Word.

Well said. I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. While others have noted that a majority of players would sign a waiver for free, just to be in the game, my guess is the top 50-100 guys (the guys with a real shot at being picked in the first few rounds of the draft) will want compensation. Same as the trend is to sit out Bowl games to avoid risks, players will want certain money now rather than waiting for money that may never come later. It would be a logistical nightmare to negotiate with the players individually. And, as kenny notes, that doesn't even get to the colleges and conferences. I am just not sure this gets us any closer to an NCAA game.

[Junior Moe]

If player likeness compensation comes to pass, and looks like it will, I imagine that there will be some sort of NCAA players union for the respective sports. That would likely get the vast majority of the players for stuff like games. Now the big name guys like a Zion or Trevor Lawrence would probably have to be negotiated with separately as their likenesses do carry significant value. Its fascinating to see this movement. I see other states are now looking into do something similar, which is exactly what California wanted to spur the NCAA along.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[R1zzo23]

I bet you would be getting cover athletes that are current NCAA players - like Lawrence and Zion - that will cost EA more money but like others said, I feel many players would sign a waiver willingly to get themselves in the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by kennylc321

You got a long way to go. I don't think this helps. Even if all 50 states created a similar law, you would have to essentially enter a contract with each student athlete to be in the game. I'm sure the kicker from SW Missouri State wouldn't cost you much, but it adds up. But unless you get "NCAA" to buy in, you will also have to enter a license agreement with each conference or school. Again... it would be pretty expensive. This is kinda the same fate APF 2k8 had... they had to have an individual contract with each school. John Elway and Barry Sanders was much more expensive than Pete Metzellars and Barry Word.

If this happened I would expect the players would organize and there would be an entity to sign an agreement with. The question is whether the schools will do it. It would likely destroy non-revenue sports at those schools except for the matching womens scholarships and could cause them to operate at a loss depending on how much they pay the athletes. The next question for liberal California is whether they require the schools to pay women the same as men. They must provide equal number of scholarships. That's 85 just to match football. Another dozen to match basketball. If you don't pay women equal to men what does the governor do when the women's soccer team at UCLA goes on strike demanding equal pay? California may have opened a can of worms.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I wouldn't be surprised if the school say no thanks.

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

If this happened I would expect the players would organize and there would be an entity to sign an agreement with. The question is whether the schools will do it. It would likely destroy non-revenue sports at those schools except for the matching womens scholarships and could cause them to operate at a loss depending on how much they pay the athletes. The next question for liberal California is whether they require the schools to pay women the same as men. They must provide equal number of scholarships. That's 85 just to match football. Another dozen to match basketball. If you don't pay women equal to men what does the governor do when the women's soccer team at UCLA goes on strike demanding equal pay? California may have opened a can of worms. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I wouldn't be surprised if the school say no thanks.

I dont think it would affect the non revenue generating sports at all. Those sports would still be getting subsidized by football and basketball like now. The schools would continue to make crazy money and use that support all the sports at the school. It's just that a Zion or Katie Ledecky could make what their market value is. Coke could pay Katie Ledecky to do a commercial. Coke doesn't care about the 13th man on the basketball team. As far as the school goes, everyone gets the same scholarships and everything else from the school, so I dont see any Title 9 issues. It's just the student.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by Junior Moe

I dont think it would affect the non revenue generating sports at all. Those sports would still be getting subsidized by football and basketball like now. The schools would continue to make crazy money and use that support all the sports at the school. It's just that a Zion or Katie Ledecky could make what their market value is. Coke could pay Katie Ledecky to do a commercial. Coke doesn't care about the 13th man on the basketball team. As far as the school goes, everyone gets the same scholarships and everything else from the school, so I dont see any Title 9 issues. It's just the student. Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

I live in Columbia MO. The Missouri athletic department has lost money the last 2 years. The only way they could afford to pay athletes would be to eliminate every mens non-revenue sport and since it is a very liberal institution the issue of equal pay would be big.

My guess is the schools will decline to participate