What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

[TarHeelPhenom]

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-working-group-examine-name-image-and-likeness

[lvl]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Likely zilch.

[PhillyPhanatic14]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Likely zilch.

lol this is literally the ONLY thing standing in the way of them making an NCAA game... EA has said they want to make the game. ESPN said they want an NCAA game during the draft this year. Fans clearly want the game with how much people pay for the last NCAA game. And the only reason the series got shut down was because players couldn't get paid for their likenesses.

[illwill10]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Hopefully it means something. Player Likeness was the main hurdle. EA wanted to(still does) make College Football. But they had to sign teams individually since they could just use the NCAA to get all teams. Most teams didn't want to risk anything. So now this could be the step that allows them to sign back with NCAA to get all D1 teams. This could allow them to use real player names and likenesses. Not sure if it would allow them to use current players on the cover though.


I'm trying to be optimistic. Since NCAA is looking at this route themselves, then Im optimistic it could happen. If this was just a random sports article that this could be a alternative to paying college athletes, then I wouldn't think much of it.

[Junior Moe]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

If it comes to and the NCAA does modernize and allow current athletes to profit off their names and likeness then this could be big.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[kehlis]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Hate to be pessimistic but it doesn't sound like there is any proposal to actually pay any of the student athletes.

The suit that ended the NCAA series was because EA was profiting and the players weren't getting any of that profit.

Reading a few articles, it sounds like the benefits being proposed are more on the educational side rather than any sort of actual monetary (in your pocket) benefit.

[kehlis]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

If it comes to and the NCAA does modernize and allow current athletes to profit off their names and likeness then this could be big.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

They aren't considering any payment directly to athletes:

According to the board, the group will not consider any concepts that could be construed as payment for participation in college sports. The NCAA’s mission to provide opportunity for students to compete against other students prohibits any contemplation of pay-for-play.

And this quote below from a different ESPN article originally posted by PhillyPhantic14 in a separate thread:

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26747489/ncaa-explores-compensation-names-likeness

"While the formation of this group is an important step to confirming what we believe as an association, the group's work will not result in paying students as employees,'' Smith said. "That structure is contrary to the NCAA's educational mission and will not be a part of this discussion.''

[goillini03]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Hey Kehlis, maybe I am reading wrong, but the player’s likeness could be compensated. It just cannot be linked to pay for playing the sport. Wouldn’t that leave the door open for random players to say, hey EA, you can use my likeness in a video game if you like. This, they would not be paid for playing for the university?

[kehlis]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Hey Kehlis, maybe I am reading wrong, but the player’s likeness could be compensated. It just cannot be linked to pay for playing the sport. Wouldn’t that leave the door open for random players to say, hey EA, you can use my likeness in a video game if you like. This, they would not be paid for playing for the university?

Certainly could. Truly, I don't think the language of the actual proposal is known at this point.

I'm not saying there is no reason to not be hopeful. I just tend to look at the other side of things (with everything) and pointing out some things that could potentially stand in the way.

[goillini03]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Certainly could. Truly, I don't think the language of the actual proposal is known at this point.



I'm not saying there is no reason to not be hopeful. I just tend to look at the other side of things (with everything) and pointing out some things that could potentially stand in the way.

Lol, can you tell that I am like a fiend waiting for the next installment?

[PhillyPhanatic14]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

Hate to be pessimistic but it doesn't sound like there is any proposal to actually pay any of the student athletes.

The suit that ended the NCAA series was because EA was profiting and the players weren't getting any of that profit.

Reading a few articles, it sounds like the benefits being proposed are more on the educational side rather than any sort of actual monetary (in your pocket) benefit.

I don't think that necessarily presents an issue. If the players are compensated by EA for their likeness and the NCAA is compensated for their involvement (branding, teams, etc) then everyone wins. The schools get their money from the NCAA and the players get their money from EA.


The hard thing would be figuring out how to compensate the athletes as a whole when their is no union like the NFLPA that represents all of them. It may end up being similar to Tennis, Golf, Surfing, and Skateboarding games where the devs have to approach players individually. Maybe there's a way around that where they could just pay every player in the game x amount of money and the cover athlete gets some extra dough.

[Junior Moe]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

They aren't considering any payment directly to athletes:





And this quote below from a different ESPN article originally posted by PhillyPhantic14 in a separate thread:

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/s...names-likeness

I understand that. And personally, I agree with neither the schools or NCAA directly paying players. I think a scholarship and all that comes with big time D1 sports is enough. Let these players profit off their names and likenesses too, though. The schools are.

It just looks like there may be some movement on allowing the players to profit off their likeness without penalty. I understand that we're still a very long way off, but theoretically I can see a path. Mark Emertt and the NCAA have been burying their heads in the sand so long I'm surprised they got to this point. Collegiate sports needs it. I hate how the entire sport has been bastardized because of these scandals with money.

Say the NCAA does change the rules to where players can profit off their likenesses and such. Do they unionize like the NFLPA for licensing purposes? Or is it individually like signing Brett Farve?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[kehlis]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

I don't think that necessarily presents an issue. If the players are compensated by EA for their likeness and the NCAA is compensated for their involvement (branding, teams, etc) then everyone wins. The schools get their money from the NCAA and the players get their money from EA.


The hard thing would be figuring out how to compensate the athletes as a whole when their is no union like the NFLPA that represents all of them. It may end up being similar to Tennis, Golf, Surfing, and Skateboarding games where the devs have to approach players individually. Maybe there's a way around that where they could just pay every player in the game x amount of money and the cover athlete gets some extra dough.

I posted several links above showing there is no intention to allow the players to directly be compensated.

The way I've read it, the intention is for no one to be compensated differently than anyone else. I doubt individually negotiating with players will now be allowed.

It seems like they are going for an even amount of money that will be evenly distributed amongst the players by some sort of means of education which is great.


But I'm not sure that will eliminate them from potential litigation.

Remember, that's what it's all about.

If they are going to now be given the green light to directly compensate players, then I 100% agree with you.

That's just not how I read either article.

I understand that. And personally, I agree with neither the schools or NCAA directly paying players. I think a scholarship and all that comes with big time D1 sports is enough. Let these players profit off their names and likenesses too, though. The schools are.

It just looks like there may be some movement on allowing the players to profit off their likeness without penalty. I understand that we're still a very long way off, but theoretically I can see a path. Mark Emertt and the NCAA have been burying their heads in the sand so long I'm surprised they got to this point. Collegiate sports needs it. I hate how the entire sport has been bastardized because of these scandals with money.

Say the NCAA does change the rules to where players can profit off their likenesses and such. Do they unionize like the NFLPA for licensing purposes? Or is it individually like signing Brett Farve?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

I agree with everything you say here.

I'm just pointing out reasons I'm skeptical and please don't take it to mean I don't think the athletes deserve to profit off their likeness because they absolutely should.

[illwill10]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

I understand that. And personally, I agree with neither the schools or NCAA directly paying players. I think a scholarship and all that comes with big time D1 sports is enough. Let these players profit off their names and likenesses too, though. The schools are.

It just looks like there may be some movement on allowing the players to profit off their likeness without penalty. I understand that we're still a very long way off, but theoretically I can see a path. Mark Emertt and the NCAA have been burying their heads in the sand so long I'm surprised they got to this point. Collegiate sports needs it. I hate how the entire sport has been bastardized because of these scandals with money.

Say the NCAA does change the rules to where players can profit off their likenesses and such. Do they unionize like the NFLPA for licensing purposes? Or is it individually like signing Brett Farve?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

I agree. Thats a question I have as well. Will EA just be able to use the likenesses freely or do they have to go to each individual player in D1? If the latter, I can see key players refusing to allow their likeness due to wanting more compensation or personal reasons.

I do think NCAA is exploring this route just because they probably feel this is the only route they will be willing to compromise in. I do think players should be able to least get compensated for use of the name and likeness.

If this is what is holding game companies from making college games, then I hope it pulls through. Because this would not only mean the possible return of college Football, but other college sports in general. But honestly, only college football and basketball is marketable enough for companies to make a game. But college basketball games wasn't selling like that even before the lawsuits happened.

[kehlis]

Re: What Might This Mean For A New NCAA Football Game?

I just want to give a summation of my thoughts since I've come of really pessimistic and that wasn't my point or intention.

Please understand a few things first and foremost.

I 100% agree that today's news is extremely encouraging. It's far and away better than any news we've received in a while. I very much want another NCAA game.

I also do not disagree with anything anyone has said yet. I don't want my contrarian nature to misconstrue my intention with my responses.

I DO think that what we know thus far to come to any conclusion one way or the other is very lacking. The intent of the Discover Group or whatever is far too vague and statements they've given don't give us much to go on more than just making assumptions.


I've reached very much with my interpretations of what I've read today, I certainly admit that. I just wanted to point out reasons I'm not yet that optimistic. I would like to wait and see how this plays out before I get too optimistic.