Saunders

Like the television networks?

Legally, that's all that matters. When image releases are signed (for photo or video work) all it takes is seeing someones face in the photo or video work. If you don't show their face, you owe them nothing. Since you're (incorrectly) hammering EA over this issue, let me ask you something. Do you think it's fair that Nebraska is auctioning off game-worn player jerseys? AJ Green from Georgia was suspended for 4 games for doing this very thing. If you think it's unfair for EA to use generic player models (with close statistics/attributes), then what are your feelings on ESPN/ABC/FSN using actualy photo's and video's of a players likeness to make BILLIONS of dollars. TV money for college sports dwarfs the money EA makes on their video games by a buttload... This is a very slippery slope, with severe consequences. The simple answer to that is "two wrongs don't make a right." The players are still exploited, you're just citing examples of other ways they're being exploited. So, you would be ok with not watching Nebraska football on TV, as long as the athletes weren't being "exploited" in a video game? I appreciate the melodramatic humor, but it's far simpler to allow the players a stipend than to nuke the entire college football system, no? And I completely agree. I'm not arguing for or against whether the players get money, at all. What I'm arguing against is the knee jerk reaction people make in regards to this issue. Reaction: "ZOMG, EA IS PROFITING FROM THE PLAYERS IMAGES!!!!!" My Response: "So what? It pales in comparison to the billions and billions made by the TV networks. If you're going to go after EA, then you have to go after ABC/ESPN/FSN, because they're making waaaaaaaay more money. They're also using actual photo and video footage of players, not generic digital representations." Nobody seems to think that part through.

And legally, what you are suggesting, has zero grounds. It wouldn't hold up in the court of law, at all. In issues of copyright, a few small differences are all that matter. If what I'm arguing wouldn't hold up in the court of law, then the law is written poorly. EA Sports is using the likeness of student athletes, whether their name/picture is there or not. What EA sports is doing in terms of claiming that their rosters aren't subject to copyright issues or whatever in regards to player likenesses, is roughly the music equivalent of taking a song, word for word and note for note, transposing it up a half step, changing the title, and then claiming that it is a different song not subject to copyright lawsuits. It's BS. Welcome to business 101.

And legally, what you are suggesting, has zero grounds. It wouldn't hold up in the court of law, at all. In issues of copyright, a few small differences are all that matter.

Legally, that's all that matters. When image releases are signed (for photo or video work) all it takes is seeing someones face in the photo or video work. If you don't show their face, you owe them nothing. Since you're (incorrectly) hammering EA over this issue, let me ask you something. Do you think it's fair that Nebraska is auctioning off game-worn player jerseys? AJ Green from Georgia was suspended for 4 games for doing this very thing. If you think it's unfair for EA to use generic player models (with close statistics/attributes), then what are your feelings on ESPN/ABC/FSN using actualy photo's and video's of a players likeness to make BILLIONS of dollars. TV money for college sports dwarfs the money EA makes on their video games by a buttload... This is a very slippery slope, with severe consequences. The simple answer to that is "two wrongs don't make a right." The players are still exploited, you're just citing examples of other ways they're being exploited. So, you would be ok with not watching Nebraska football on TV, as long as the athletes weren't being "exploited" in a video game?

AJ Green got suspended for selling his jersey and we are auctioning off game-worn jerseys without the names on them, and they were probably whining about it. They weren't whining about it. They asked if it was hypocritical.

Legally, that's all that matters. When image releases are signed (for photo or video work) all it takes is seeing someones face in the photo or video work. If you don't show their face, you owe them nothing. Since you're (incorrectly) hammering EA over this issue, let me ask you something. Do you think it's fair that Nebraska is auctioning off game-worn player jerseys? AJ Green from Georgia was suspended for 4 games for doing this very thing. If you think it's unfair for EA to use generic player models (with close statistics/attributes), then what are your feelings on ESPN/ABC/FSN using actualy photo's and video's of a players likeness to make BILLIONS of dollars. TV money for college sports dwarfs the money EA makes on their video games by a buttload... This is a very slippery slope, with severe consequences.

BINGO. They (wrong) argument I hear all the time in support of Sam (get a job) Keller, is that these are digital "likeness" representations. The problem is, the people making this argument haven't even played, or seen the game. Sure some of the statistics may be close, but facial features aren't even close, and quite often, they aren't even the correct skin color. Last year, HB #19 (Quentin Castille) was white, and TE #81 (Ben Cotton) was black. The more pertinent question is "Does the game try to match the players actually on the team?" I have and do play the game, and the players are usually the correct listed height, weight, number, and skin color of the actual players. Using a couple examples, which could easily be mistakes by the programmers, does not refute the argument. And arguing the facial features is pretty weak in a game where the players wear helmets and facemasks. You do realize that in getting things like image releases signed (You know, contractions that allow someone to make a profit using your image), the only thing that matters is if you see someones face, right? Facial recognition is the difference in getting sued or not.

BINGO. They (wrong) argument I hear all the time in support of Sam (get a job) Keller, is that these are digital "likeness" representations. The problem is, the people making this argument haven't even played, or seen the game. Sure some of the statistics may be close, but facial features aren't even close, and quite often, they aren't even the correct skin color. Last year, HB #19 (Quentin Castille) was white, and TE #81 (Ben Cotton) was black.

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/46743-blackshirt-sighting/

Will Compton will also receive one when he gets back.

Miami of Ohio hasn't played VT. They played the gaytors in week 1. http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/193/miami-oh-redhawks

Amukamara Gomes Dennard Smith Thenarse Hagg Martin David Meredith Allen Steinkuhler Crick

So he reads HB too?

Heard they got handed out.

Um, Roy also could barely feel the football in his hands. I love Sexy Rexy too, but he's not as fas as Roy. Together, they are deadly.

Mark May used the exact same argument last week when he said FSU would beat OU. That worked out well...

Todd McShay also though Gerald McCoy was better than Suh.

The other huge factor that everyone seems to forget, is that U$C was missing their starting QB... http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recap?gid=200909190065

Opened anywhere from -4.5 to -6.0 and it's down to -3.5. http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/line-movement/nebraska-@-washington.cfm/date/09-18-10/time/1530

Opened anywhere from -4.5 to -6.0 and it's down to -3.5. http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/line-movement/nebraska-@-washington.cfm/date/09-18-10/time/1530

This is all that needs to be said. The onus is on them to prove they belong because they are in a joke of a conference. It is not Nebraska or Texas or Ohio State's duty to unnecessarily help them do so. In Boise's defense there aren't a lot of schools who want to go play them on the smurf turf. Thus putting them at a disadvantage most one game series to have the road team being paid, this weekends game set the huskers back $800,000. What Boise is asking is far from out of the ordinary. It is if they expect a return trip. You don't hand out cash for home and homes. There is absolutely no reason to schedule them with their ridiculous rules. Besides, we had marquee series scheduled until at least 2017.

They don't do it anymore. I got a text last week saying they were discontinuing that service.

I don't know. Don't you think someone would have noticed Spano wasn't ready after coming back from a major knee injury in six months or whatever short time period it was? Legs/knees are kind of essential to what they do. Sure maybe it was a freaky coincidence, but I have heard some not-so-good things about Nebraska's athletic training/rehab staff. You could have a point, if it had been the same knee.

Another merge? Good lord. Why don't we just merge all the threads.