9th Circuit Upholds NCAA Can't Restrict Athletes

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedHawk24

Why not just take the PES approach to not having the licenses for the schools? Call the schools something generic (think "Columbus College" for Ohio State, etc) and then allow players to import school imagery, uniforms, and change the names? Just call the game "College Football 2017" and avoid any mention of the NCAA.

Because not a lot of people will buy it ala. All-Pro Football by 2K.

[RedHawk24]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

Because not a lot of people will buy it ala. All-Pro Football by 2K.

That's not a fair comparison. All-Pro was competing with Madden, so people just stuck with the known brand which had the licenses. Given the amount of work that people already are willing to do for a great college game with roster shares/edits, I'm confident there would be a market for this style of college football game, especially since right now, it would be the only one on the market. 2K needs to get back in the football game anyway, so why not have them come back with "All-American Football 2K17"?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Beefmaster]

At the moment, there is parody in college football. If the NCAA allowed players to be paid for their likeness/image/autographs, that would go away. As soon as a player can get paid, a booster from Texas/Alabama/Ohio State would have $250k for some player(s) on the team. Then it would be "Who has the best team money can buy?" I believe this is part of what the NCAA is trying to avoid. The other part being the loss of their cash cow.

On a side note, do any of you donate to The Goodwill Store? That is a business as well. But, the owner sells products he never has to pay for. Sound familiar?

[Junior Moe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Beefmaster

At the moment, there is parody in college football. If the NCAA allowed players to be paid for their likeness/image/autographs, that would go away. As soon as a player can get paid, a booster from Texas/Alabama/Ohio State would have $250k for some player(s) on the team. Then it would be "Who has the best team money can buy?" I believe this is part of what the NCAA is trying to avoid. The other part being the loss of their cash cow. On a side note, do any of you donate to The Goodwill Store? That is a business as well. But, the owner sells products he never has to pay for. Sound familiar?

True. But I think boosters paying player should continue to be strictly prohibited for the reasons you just said. Ohio State, Texas and Alabama would never lose...

The issue, as I see it, is the NCAA getting in the way of the players' free market value.

The NCAA is profiting off the players, and I think that's fair considering what they are offered in return like a free education, stage to show off talent, and chance to change their lives. Remember, about 1% actually go pro and an even smaller number those few get the "set for life money". So they, and the rest benefit tremendously from the education and connections they make in college.

The NCAA prohibits players from doing exactly what they are doing, though. And I think that's wrong. Now I get schools/NCAA not paying players; Title IX, most schools not being as profitable as they seem, how much, etc... But to frown on a Johnny Football getting a few hundred dollars for his autograph just strikes me as greedy. Of the thousands of scholarship athletes there's only a few players who could make decent money off themselves. Most of them are going pro anyway. Just let them if they can. That's all.

[BizDevConglomerate]

One question for the everyone against paying players, have you ever played at the high school or college level? In high school, was your school a big time program?

If not, that's why you're complaining. If your life is ruined because people want what's actually due to them for what they bring in, you're touch of reality is gone. SAM KELLER may not jlhave made it to.the league, but he went D1. And ASU was pretty good then.

Pay the players is what I say.

For the developer's, the real bull is with them. The same way 2k won't make a football game because Madden has the license, we'll there's no excuse for College. Can't name the players anyway
This time they would have made a gazillion dollars. The amount of custom edits they allow, the game would've have been crazy. As far as any other, just look at the games back in the day. FSU was Tallahassee, FLA, Note Dame was South Dend, IN. That's cool. The game came with roster cards with each teams attributes. It show's that they are greedy and we are spoiled brats. Why we haven't protested these companies? Beats me, they put out unfinished games that need to.be patched and we still buy them. But they can't put out a college game.that everyone is aching for? And just patch it too?

Please miss me with that BS

[real1]

College Hoops & Football 2K17 otw!!

[scooterterp05]

Quote: Originally Posted by GLO

Fair point. To counter, then let them take the money they get paid from their image and use that to pay for their education. (just like the rest of us that had to work full or part time jobs to get through college). I understand it's a fine line argument either way, the thing that bothers me is how often this discussion is framed in the (false) context of these student-athletes not having any money for food or other things. I am also an educator and have known plenty of student athletes that are doing more than fine with all the "extras" that come along with being a high profile college athlete. As it stands right now the education is "payment" in the form of a scholarship. If they want to make the millions that a coach or college executive make then let them work hard and earn it over time just like those adults did. There is nowhere in the work force where 18, 19 or 20 year old kids can come into an organization and demand to be paid as much as the CEO or top execs, no matter how "famous" they are. (other than Hollywood and I doubt anyone would argue that Hollywood is the structure we should follow for work-force compensation?) I'm fine with the change to pay the players, but if that happens then remove the scholarships and give them to kids who can't make millions from endorsement deals. If an 18 year old kid gets a 2 million dollar contract from Nike, the $25k tuition shouldn't be a problem. By arguing that they need to get paid and also keep the scholarships you are de-value-ing the education that the scholarship is paying for. There's no way around it. Truth is there probably isn't a neat and clean answer for this....

You're missing the point, sadly.

Sent from my SM-N915T using Tapatalk

[jvalverde88]

Quote: Originally Posted by lbrown531

All I have to say is Thank You Sam keller and the other so called players who think they resemble video game characters. I hope everything was worth ruining people's lives.

Quite the hyperbole there.