Sam Keller sues the NCAA

[sd'sker]

as for your second example, i do think students should be compensated for televised games, but they do benefit more from that because the school is paid, which in return funds scholarships and the athletic department. the nexus (shout-out) between student athletes and ea sports is much weaker.

Uh, you do realize the schools receive money from EA, right? The difference is that because the revenue generated from the games pales in comparison to TV contracts, the amount disseminated to the universities is negligible.

yes, and that is why i said the nexus is much weaker. ea sports is the most egregious because they benefit the most from it and the student athletes benefit the least.

Um, what? The "benefits" you are describing are something circumstantial that can't be quantified. However, tangible benefits like money do matter. Unless you think millions are more than billions.

i do not think we are on the same page anymore, it is may fault, i was struggling to convey my thoughts. i just see ea sports as a third party. it is like when you are at the concert and people are selling unlicensed t-shirts. the band does not care about the licensed t-shirts because they consented. the players consent to being on tv and such much more than to being on a video game, and i know that the game is licensed, but how much say do the students have in that. it can be assumed they would be much more willing to forfeit their rights to television contracts, and important part of college football, than for a video game where a game developer makes a ton of money by using their image and they get little to no compensation. how much do you think ea pays each school? or does the money just go to the ncaa who sold off the rights?

They have the same amount of say in both. When they choose to take a scholarship to play football, they've made their decision.

i know. i am arguing from principle, you are arguing from practicability/functionalism. no right answer really.

[knapplc]

That's the problem. I don't agree with the NCAA profit sharing, but most people don't realize how big this is. This will completely change the way that we as fans view college football. We will bear the increased costs, not the companies involved. And in the end, players may see $5 if they're lucky.

 

That's a fair assessment. I guess I'd rather see the kids get a better percentage (beyond scholarship benefits) than a third-party purveyor like the video game industry.

[RedDenver]

saunders,

 

You may have knowledge of this debate, but you're not a legal expert. And even if you were an expert, this case is breaking new ground and you'd only have an opinion, not the definitive answer. Also, a federal judge has heard the NCAA and EA Sports arguments to throw out the case and has rejected them, so that's pretty strong evidence that the claim has some merit.

 

As for your expanding circle argument that the EA case is somehow affected by or effects the TV rights money, the other part of the suit brought by O'Bannon contends that the NCAA owes money from players' likenesses to the players regardless of source (i.e. not just the EA money but also TV broadcast, merchandise, etc.).

I never said I was a legal expert, only that I dealt in these type of situations quite a bit. Does that make me an "expert" on the subject, no. Call me crazy, but I generally trust someone who has real world working knowledge in a related subject over someone who just google searched something.

I'm arguing against your assertions early that the case has no merit based on your knowledge. So do you agree that the case has merit, or is it baseless as you previously stated?

 

As for:

I know about the O'Bannon part as well. That's why this lawsuit is so dangerous. It's not going to just affect some video games, because the players may see $5 if they're lucky. EA will just make the rosters even more generic, and the fans will continue to tweak them, just like always. The issue will be that we, the fans, are going to bear the brunt of any lawsuit damages. It may not happen overnight, but the cost will be passed down to us.

I'll use your own argument that this is just like corporate America. Of course the fans are ultimately paying for it - the fans are already paying for it now. The difference will be who the fans are paying.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I'm with the players on this one. Colleges and the NCAA are out of control with their money and need to be sued. Overall, the NCAA needs to be dismantled.

What was the report I read a couple years back, a man audited 2% of UNL's spending and found that there was a 98% fraudulent spending? Wow! Take that into the entire 100% budget! and they have the tenacity to raise tuition? Someone needs to step in and put the PUBLIC back into PUBLIC universities.

there is no Accountability.

 

So then what? Stop making the games, maybe pay the players, hmm would like to see the outcome of that. Was it Rose who wanted a percent of the money from the sales of "his" jerseys to go into a fund that would be paid out once he graduated, good thing they were paying him on the side, pour thing must of almost starved to death.

 

Also what does the Athletic Department have to do with tuition? Last I checked the athletic department was independent from the rest of the college.

 

I would think many of these kids find it neat to have some "likeness" of theirs in a video game. This is there flash in the pan moment, before going on to a job outside the lime light.

 

98% fraudulent, please post a link.

First- I love how people flip out about these guys case.

yet when the school wants some more money for tickets or tuition, it is just pushed to the side.

Its just for the better cause, right guys?

 

 

Stop making the games in the likeness of the players, yes. Open the market up to other game developers-void any income with the NCAA or the colleges? Yes. Pay the players? I think it is fair. Is it fair to charge 85,000 fans $56 to watch a game vs WKU? If you think that is fair, well then I guess that is your opinion.

The athletic department is a department. See in the name?

You can think all you want, 9 of them do not think it is neat. If you invent something and I invent something in its likeness, am I in the wrong? how is it any different?

Oh and here are your links, these are just 2 of them, I read the actual article in the paper years ago.

http://www.kmtv.com/....asp?s=11410804

http://www.wowt.com/...s/67083857.html

The bottom line- is my hard earned money is being wasted, and these guys think they need to raise tuition? Sorry- people need fired.

 

Yes I understand department is in the name. Do you understand they are self funded, that means they dont take from the general fund, in fact they pay into it, so they help keep tuition down.

 

Did you read the articles you posted? "The state auditor says he isn't making any allegations of fraud or embezzlement. He says the majority of purchases came from employees not realizing they were doing anything wrong. This is why the vice-chancellors say they will re-train their staff." Also it goes on the say how the system of purchase cards they use save millions of dollars a year. So again 98%, please prove that.

 

If we start paying the players where are we going to get the money? You dont like paying $54 to see WKU, well, pay the players, and I am sure they will raise prices, and dump a few lesser attended sports., remember football, and all the things that come with it, pay for woman's softball, golf, cross country, etc. You know, the sports we forget Nebraska even has.

 

I'm sorry, but I think Sam and crew are 100% wrong. If they win the case, fine, shut down the game, or take some realism out of it, but if they want money they can shove it. He was given payment in the form of a scholarship, and the experience of playing for ASU and NU.

 

[Saunders]

saunders,

 

You may have knowledge of this debate, but you're not a legal expert. And even if you were an expert, this case is breaking new ground and you'd only have an opinion, not the definitive answer. Also, a federal judge has heard the NCAA and EA Sports arguments to throw out the case and has rejected them, so that's pretty strong evidence that the claim has some merit.

 

As for your expanding circle argument that the EA case is somehow affected by or effects the TV rights money, the other part of the suit brought by O'Bannon contends that the NCAA owes money from players' likenesses to the players regardless of source (i.e. not just the EA money but also TV broadcast, merchandise, etc.).

I never said I was a legal expert, only that I dealt in these type of situations quite a bit. Does that make me an "expert" on the subject, no. Call me crazy, but I generally trust someone who has real world working knowledge in a related subject over someone who just google searched something.

I'm arguing against your assertions early that the case has no merit based on your knowledge. So do you agree that the case has merit, or is it baseless as you previously stated?

 

As for:

I know about the O'Bannon part as well. That's why this lawsuit is so dangerous. It's not going to just affect some video games, because the players may see $5 if they're lucky. EA will just make the rosters even more generic, and the fans will continue to tweak them, just like always. The issue will be that we, the fans, are going to bear the brunt of any lawsuit damages. It may not happen overnight, but the cost will be passed down to us.

I'll use your own argument that this is just like corporate America. Of course the fans are ultimately paying for it - the fans are already paying for it now. The difference will be who the fans are paying.

 

1st, as I stated in a previous post, I don't think the case has a chance. Whether or not it may or may not relate to the Vanna White case doesn't matter. Why? Because of the "Roster Guard" issue. If Kellers case had any real leg to stand on, why didn't the (arguably) greatest sports superstar of the last 3 decades pursue EA for the exact same thing? I could be totally wrong, but I find it extremely odd that nothing happened in that issue.

 

As for your second post, the fans will still be paying for all of it. The answer is not "to whom" though. It's "how much." Because I highly, highly doubt that the video game companies, and TV networks are going to take a large paycut, and not pass any of the added cost on to us. To believe so is burying your head in the sand.

[HUSKERHAMMER]

Fine, lets compromise: No money for Keller and EA removes him from the game, (first thing I did anyway).