EA Sports Will Not Publish College Football Game Next Year, Future Plans in Doubt

[lord_mike]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

So I'm clear: you're advocating junking the current structure of college athletics for a system that will only benefit the top 1-2% of players? No offense, but that's ridiculous. Either every player needs to receive some form of compensation or none should.

You mean even the ones who not only don't make money for the schools, but lost money for them, too? Are you saying that the cross country runner should make money on top of their scholarship, even though they don't make a dime for the school and the school sacrifices to let them play?

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by lord_mike

You mean even the ones who not only don't make money for the schools, but lost money for them, too? Are you saying that the cross country runner should make money on top of their scholarship, even though they don't make a dime for the school and the school sacrifices to let them play?

That is the way it will have to go down. Or at least that lady cross country runner. See Title IX.

[lord_mike]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

I agree, if it could be controlled. The problem is once you start allowing kids to accept money they become open to outside influences. That's a major concern imo. Also how do the schools and the programs protect their IP's in the process as well? Who regulates this? I am not opposed to this in theory, but the logistics and the possible repercussions of outside influences would make me nervous. Also with the added complexity and where NCAA games fall in the profit tier, I doubt EA would even think it worth the added effort that would come with an added complexity of individual player licensing.

There would have to be a "players union" of sorts that would negotiate collectively for something like that to happen. I think a players union for Divison I college athletics would be a good idea to stem some of the abuses of the system by implementing work rules, but that raises a whole other set of issues--are college students employees?

As for your other concerns, they are more than valid. The whole reason why the NCAA limits outside payments to athletes is to avoid the inevitable corruption and even possible crime that goes with it and the schools they associate with. It's bad enough as it is right now with all of the stuff going on under the table. Can you imagine how bad the money thing would be if billionaires could essentially buy college athletic programs and players on a whim? Look at what unlimited money has done to politics. It has destroyed the political system at the expense of the citizens. The university system is already corrupted by too much money. It would only get much, much worse if there were no more restrictions.

I think it's irrelevant. The university presidents are pretty much onboard with the idea that no player should get paid. If they courts force them to pay players, then they will shut athletics down if they have to. Part of this might be out of spite, but a lot of it is the recognition that professionalization of college athletics would be so disruptive and potentially destructive to the university's academic mission, that it wouldn't be worth keeping. The big 10 commissioner said as much the other day, and I don't think they are bluffing. the reason why athletics bring in so much money is that it costs a lot of money to do athletics. If they shut it down or scale it back, the universities don't lose anything, and gain more control against corrupt outside influences. Yeah, it might hurt to have Ohio State go Division III with no scholarships, but I wouldn't count on the Big 10 not to do something like that, sinc ethey do really believe that academics do come first.

[lord_mike]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

That is the way it will have to go down. Or at least that lady cross country runner. See Title IX.

So, the non-student athlete who has no scholarship, and is already paying an activity fee to subsidize the athletic program, will now have to pay more to subsidize those players more...

who's being exploited now? It sure isn't the college athlete.

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

So I'm clear: you're advocating junking the current structure of college athletics for a system that will only benefit the top 1-2% of players? No offense, but that's ridiculous. Either every player needs to receive some form of compensation or none should.

Junking the structure of college athletics? What? No. All the NCAA has to do is allow them to earn money.

But not every player has market value. The third string MLB for UMass has little value in terms of merchandising. Johnny Football is worth millions.

If EA wants to make another college football game, they can negotiate licensing agreements with the players on their own. A check goes from EA, to every player who wants in. Surely EA isn't going to pay the same for that third stringer from Amherst as they will for the Clowneys, and Manziels, nor should they.

If Nike or Adidas want to sell jerseys with a player's name & number, they negotiate with that player. Again, UMass players aren't going to command much compared players on a top 25 team.

I'd imagine, with time, a players association of sorts would emerge and handle licensing for every player who opts in. Having a PA would allow the lesser known players to both be represented in things like games, and get compensation for it. You might still see some star players want to negotiate on their own (a la Barry Bonds in MLB), but with the right structure it could easily cover IP licensing/merchandising for all but a handful of players every year.

[ainokmw]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

I agree, if it could be controlled. The problem is once you start allowing kids to accept money they become open to outside influences. That's a major concern imo. Also how do the schools and the programs protect their IP's in the process as well? Who regulates this? I am not opposed to this in theory, but the logistics and the possible repercussions of outside influences would make me nervous. Also with the added complexity and where NCAA games fall in the profit tier, I doubt EA would even think it worth the added effort that would come with an added complexity of individual player licensing.

The more I think about it, the less I think it's even an issue. So some oil baron from Texas wants to drop 10k and a new car on some kid for him to play for UT. So what? Who actually gets hurt by this?

"Amateurism" as a sports concept is a 19th century invention by the upper classes to preclude the poor from competing in sports they cherished. The reason we hold onto it so dearly is because of the sanctity of history and our support for the status quo. In many ways, amateur athletics is antithetical to the American ideals of hard work and profit.

Allow them to make money however they want. Forbid the schools from paying them directly, freeing them from any liability or Title IX issues, and stipulate/reinforce that the students have to report all money gained as income.

If the NCAA suspects shady, unregulated dealings, they can try to get the Feds to come down on the suspects for tax evasion.

Obviously there will be issues, but it's not like NCAA football has been a paragon of virtue for the last 30 years.

As for the game, once the legal hassles are tied up, someone will make a game. They're not just going to leave money on the table. Someone will pick up the license. Quite possibly someone like Sports Interactive who will make a simulation (similar to Football Manager or Out of the Park Baseball).

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

That is the way it will have to go down. Or at least that lady cross country runner. See Title IX.

Enough with the Title IX, it has nothing to do with this.

[nc0ffey]

If you knowingly allow boosters to pay players then the programs with the most money will get the top recruits and it will hurt football as a whole as far as competition is concerned.