Sam Keller to Get Paid

BigRedBuster said:
No.

The player actually joining a team, going to practice, going out on the field of play knowing the TV cameras are there to show it....is TOTALLY different than someone randomly using their likeness to make money.

You can argue all you want, the courts agree with me.
Click to expand...
It's essentially the same thing. The players sign off their "likeness use" to allow the schools to market the team, which in turn sells their media rights to the NCAA/CLC. That same governing ruleset was used to license the schools for the EA game. What was argued in court was the direct sale of a product. But your TV subscription is the same thing.

You can argue that it's different, but the same rules are governing both.  People smarter than me have been following it since the O'Bannon case first became a thing, and have repeatedly said that this is the gateway to players getting paid. There's a lawsuit in the works against the TV networks. It's going to happen, they're going to win, and the players are gonna get paid.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
They’re somewhat similar. I don’t know what 100% similar means but they’re not that. 

The schools are making a lot of $ from the broadcast and using some of that $ to provide the scholarship players with free school and all the others with free food and an exercise program. They aren’t making sh** from a video game.

There would also never be a video game if not for the TV broadcast of the actual players playing the game. In fact, the players would get absolutely nothing without the broadcast. They’d be no different than an intramural team.
Click to expand...
That is not exactly true. The schools are getting paid (CLC/NCAA Media rights fund), it's just not nearly the same amount of money. Whether or not there would be a team or not without TV doesn't really matter. The players likeness is being used to sell and market a product.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saunders said:
That is not exactly true. The schools are getting paid (CLC/NCAA Media rights fund), it's just not nearly the same amount of money. Whether or not there would be a team or not without TV doesn't really matter. The players likeness is being used to sell and market a product.
Click to expand...




It does matter, because it makes the 2 things dissimilar in ways that I think are relevant. 

 
Moiraine said:
What’s the confusion? Players get a s#!t ton more from the games being televised than they do from a video game that would not even exist without the games being televised. 
Click to expand...
They do, but it doesn't really matter when it comes to the argument of likeness use and player compensation. It's either allowed, or it's not. You can also argue that they are being taken advantage of way more by the TV networks than a game. The NCAA makes more via a single March Madness tournament than the entirety of the NCAA franchise game ever made.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saunders said:
They do, but it doesn't really matter when it comes to the argument of likeness use and player compensation. It's either allowed, or it's not.
Click to expand...




Player compensation doesn’t matter when it comes to player compensation? I’m talking about what the players get out of it. We could argue they don’t get enough but they are getting something from the broadcasts, and they’re the only reason they’re getting something. 

 
Moiraine said:
Player compensation doesn’t matter when it comes to player compensation? I’m talking about what the players get out of it. We could argue they don’t get enough but they are getting something from the broadcasts, and they’re the only reason they’re getting something. 
Click to expand...
The amount of compensation they receive is the same they got from the game, nothing. Scholarships, room and board, etc... those existed long before billion dollar TV contracts. Now, if you wanna argue about slides, game rooms, and all the extra fluff, sure, you can say that comes from TV money. But that doesn't really change the core argument of the use of likeness.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Ha. Never thought about that. I haven't played it in 4-5 years because my PS3 went to s#!t. Always meant to buy a used one at a Pawn shop or something, but never have done so.
Click to expand...
I've been tempted to get a 360 for cheap, just so my son can play it. He does madden, but doesn't like the NFL as much.

I might also try to win like 14 straight Natty's.

 
Cdog923 said:
This is the worst take in the history of this message board. Congrats to Scotty for finally being off the hook, where ever he is. 
Click to expand...
So $60 yearly for a game made by a company that yearly gets voted the worst company that had rather lackluster additions to the game, half of which had been on Madden for a year or two, is a good game to you?

EA knew what was going to happen to the franchise and cut spending on it. People whine and complain about FIFA/Madden/NBA Live but act like the NCAA franchise was any different. If it was still around today it would just be ultimate team and loot crates.

I’m not saying you couldn’t have fun playing it, but without a doubt it was a bad game.

 
DrunkOffPunch said:
So $60 yearly for a game made by a company that yearly gets voted the worst company that had rather lackluster additions to the game, half of which had been on Madden for a year or two, is a good game to you?

EA knew what was going to happen to the franchise and cut spending on it. People whine and complain about FIFA/Madden/NBA Live but act like the NCAA franchise was any different. If it was still around today it would just be ultimate team and loot crates.

I’m not saying you couldn’t have fun playing it, but without a doubt it was a bad game.
Click to expand...


Being that it was the only shot to see Nebraska win a National Title for the last 14 years of it's existence = Great game. :lol:

I get your point. It was always my favorite game, but that probably had more to do with it being the only college football game available most of the time.

 
Back
Top