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

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

No, it's more like 5-10%. It's a little over 2% in any given year.

Fair enough.

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

As far as "altering the entire landscape of college athletics" is concerned, please, spare us the senseless exaggerations. Allowing student athletes to make money on their own likeness would hardly change anything, and the biggest change we have now is a stop to EA/CLC/NCAA profiting from their unauthorized use of intellectual property.

"Senseless exaggerations"?

Would you not agree that providing a method by which the boosters of the big programs can funnel cash directly to players with no fear of any sort of repercussions would serve to tilt the (already unlevel) playing field overwhelmingly in favor of the "haves"? If that's not "altering the landscape", what would you call it?

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

The NCAA is (was) exploiting them. The NCAA was illegally using their IP (and that of many others not involved in the suit) for years. The terms of the EA/CLC settlement are irrelevant here.

I was under the impression that this has yet to be determined? It's my understanding that the NCAA has stated they will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. Given the SCOTUS's history of reversing a very high % of 9th Circuit decisions, any victory by the plaintiffs may well be short lived. We'll see.

[jwilphl]

Dammit, NCAA!



I blame them more than anything. Their little sham organization has gone from exploiting athletes to now crushing consumerism. They refuse to amend their rules and simply raise licensing costs. I admit the lawsuit itself hasn't solved anything considering it has settled out of court. O'Bannon only wanted a cash grab (ironically he'll be lucky to get $250), but he did have an underlying point.

The NCAA needs to let players market themselves however they wish and dismantle the "amateurism" sham that has only existed so the NCAA can go on not paying players. I don't think allowing the NCAA to directly pay players is any type of answer - you run into a whole slew of problems. But if Guy X sells his autograph for some dollars, let him. Don't turn around and say because he did so, he can no longer play college athletics. It makes no sense.

Let the market itself handle how much college players are worth. For those of you familiar with former Colorado football player Jeremy Bloom, the NCAA wanted to disavow his football eligibility because he was receiving sponsorship money from his time as a professional skier and model. It's nonsense.

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

Fair enough. "Senseless exaggerations"? Would you not agree that providing a method by which the boosters of the big programs can funnel cash directly to players with no fear of any sort of repercussions would serve to tilt the (already unlevel) playing field overwhelmingly in favor of the "haves"? If that's not "altering the landscape", what would you call it?

I'd call it exactly what's already happening. How do you think the "haves" got that way in the first place? What do you think Phil Knight's doing with the $300 million he's given to Oregon? Letting boosters come out from behind the shadows isn't going to change where the recruits are going.

If anything, it might give the lesser programs a chance to become competitive more quickly.

Quote:

I was under the impression that this has yet to be determined? It's my understanding that the NCAA has stated they will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. Given the SCOTUS's history of reversing a very high % of 9th Circuit decisions, any victory by the plaintiffs may well be short lived. We'll see.

EA's actions over the past week make it pretty clear how they expect it to be decided, assuming the NCAA doesn't also settle.

[GoDevils95]

Quote: Originally Posted by JohnDoe8865

I clearly stated next-gen. EA had said that for example, if you owned PS3 NCAA 14 and bought PS4 M25, you could import draft classes across into the NG version. Then they retracted that.

Thank you !!

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

I'd call it exactly what's already happening. How do you think the "haves" got that way in the first place? What do you think Phil Knight's doing with the $300 million he's given to Oregon? Letting boosters come out from behind the shadows isn't going to change where the recruits are going.

You seem to be implying that the imbalance between the "haves and have nots" can't possibly get any worse. I strongly disagree. The current situation has come about while the big programs are (at least theoretically) constrained by NCAA rules. If the big programs and their boosters can dominate the sport with one hand tied behind their backs, what do suppose will happen if those folks were suddenly free to spend without limit?

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

If anything, it might give the lesser programs a chance to become competitive more quickly.

You can't be serious. The smaller programs simply don't have the resources to compete for players in a totally unfettered marketplace.

It's far more likely that we would see something similar to the situation that existed prior to the imposition of scholarship limits in the early 70's. In those days the big schools routinely fielded teams of 100+ players because they were giving full ride scholarships to players simply to keep those kids from playing for someone else. Freeing boosters to pay players would allow the big schools to return to that sordid practice.

Quote: Originally Posted by RedSoxFox7

EA's actions over the past week make it pretty clear how they expect it to be decided, assuming the NCAA doesn't also settle.

That's one way of looking at it. Imo EA and the CLC determined that the risk of continuing to fight outweighed any possible reward. That doesn't necessarily mean that either party believed they were sure to lose, it just means they weren't sure they would win.

[RedSoxFox7]

Quote: Originally Posted by coogrfan

You seem to be implying that the imbalance between the "haves and have nots" can't possibly get any worse. I strongly disagree. The current situation has come about while the big programs are (at least theoretically) constrained by NCAA rules. If the big programs and their boosters can dominate the sport with one hand tied behind their backs, what do suppose will happen if those folks were suddenly free to spend without limit?

I wasn't implying anything. I said quite directly said nothing would change.

The current "situation," as you put it, is simply the way the world works. There will always be "haves" and "have nots" and that goes well beyond college football.

There is no problem there. There is no way to change that.

The big programs always have and always will dominate, and those big programs have been largely the same programs for the past 50+ years. The only way a smaller program can become consistently competitive is with money. Whether it's money for facilities, or coaches, or TV exposure, or boosters paying athletes, it all comes down to money. It doesn't matter what rules the NCAA changes, this will always be the case. One way or another, it'll always come back to money.

Quote:

You can't be serious. The smaller programs simply don't have the resources to compete for players in a totally unfettered marketplace.

The smaller programs don't have the money to compete for players right now. Opening up the market would allow boosters to supplement the schools and give them a fighting chance.

Obviously the big programs (that have always been the big programs) will continue to be the big programs with the most money, but opening up the marketplace would allow the alumni of lesser programs to help them improve in ways they can't right now.

Quote:

It's far more likely that we would see something similar to the situation that existed prior to the imposition of scholarship limits in the early 70's. In those days the big schools routinely fielded teams of 100+ players because they were giving full ride scholarships to players simply to keep those kids from playing for someone else. Freeing boosters to pay players would allow the big schools to return to that sordid practice.

And given pretty much nothing has changed about which schools are the power schools since then, and you know this, I'm really not sure why you think allowing athletes to earn money would change anything. You've proven my point for me.

Quote:

That's one way of looking at it. Imo EA and the CLC determined that the risk of continuing to fight outweighed any possible reward. That doesn't necessarily mean that either party believed they were sure to lose, it just means they weren't sure they would win.

Given the reward here would be selling NCAA games and other merchandise featuring player likenesses indefinitely (rather than suspending jersey sales like they did recently), I'm gonna go ahead with the only reasonable position that EA and CLC realize they were violating IP for over a decade.

[Cardot]

Quote: Originally Posted by rspencer86

I know I can be a bit of a dreamer, but if EA or another company is bold enough to ever try making a game without a license, there would be some nice benefits: Cost: Licensing all of the teams and bowls is a significant portion of the budget for this game (does anyone know the rough percentage? 10% 25%?). An unlicensed game would be much cheaper to produce, meaning more profit. Less Restrictions: Academic fraud, recruiting violations, player misconduct, late hits, more celebrations could all be represented in the game without being fettered by the NCAA's tight restrictions. Complete Customization: With no official team logos, uniforms or bowl games shipping with the game, complete customization is a must. But with no NCAA restrictions, customization could go even further, being able to tweak the playoff system or even the rules of the game itself. It would be very tough to convince the consumer that an unlicensed game is worth buying. The game would have to feature incredibly strong gameplay, deep game modes, fantastic online functionality, and of course complete customization. And it would have to be smartly marketed, going after the true fanatics of college football. But I still think it is possible, and hopefully one day we will see it happen.

And they wouldn't have to spend a great deal of effort of coming up with ratings for 50+ on 120+ teams.

And maybe the fans can finally tear down the goalposts that we almost had in 2004?

Two questions that I would have is are there enough people who are willing to create/share rosters? I am inclined to say "No", however EA did invest effort into creating and promoting Team Builder. So there must be a certain percentage of gamers who use it?

And secondly, are there any legal precedence for a company creating customizable material which users can then modify and share?

The sad part is that EA already has much of this in place. It would have to be expanded, but there is already customizable conferences, team builder, custom sounds etc.

[ncaa98]

This makes me not even want to play NCAA 14 and just go buy MADDEN and start learning it. This will hurt college football rating to TV as well.