I would ditch class to play the 02 and 03 versions but 04 is my favourite. Clarett, Eli Manning, Rothlisberger, Chris Perry, KW2.....dat roster.
herb.burdette When we've talked about this in the OSU thread you typically comment on it. What are your thoughts on possibly getting a game next year?
I wouldn't read too much into the stay, despite the NY Times article and the citation of Hausfield's comments. In 2013, the trial court held that the NCAA and schools violated the players intellectual property rights to the players own image and likenesses. Essentially, EA Sports has agreed with that ruling ever since and wants to get on with life and profits. EA Sports and the Collegiate Licensing Corporation put together a deal in July of 2013 that would have resulted in a 2013 version of the game. The Plaintiffs/Players also wanted to see that happen because it is an additional source of revenue/royalties. The NCAA withdrew its name. The CLC had about 150 schools lined up to endorse a new game using the schools' trademarks/uniforms/colors but the conferences then came out against it and that stopped things in their tracks. The O'Bannon ruling discussed in Sutree's article is the antitrust case. The trial judge held that the NCAA violated antitrust law with its amateurism restrictions in an August 1, 2014 ruling. That ruling would have gone into effect tomorrow without a stay. The decision was over 100 pages longs, with a really dense set of issues. The appeal was briefed and argued in March, but the court of appeals is not ready to issue its decision. That's why we have a stay. EA Sports cut a settlement with the Plaintiffs on the likenesses issue. After the 8/1/14 antitrust ruling, the NCAA cut its own settlement. Both settlements created a $60 million trust which players from 2003-2013 could submit claims to collect. A final hearing on the settlement occurred last month, so that aspect of things is done. There won't be a game in 2015, but there may be a game in 2016. It's going to depend upon how the 9th Circuit rules on the antitrust issues and whether either side takes appeal to the US Supreme Court or is forced to re-litigate issues at the trial level. The 8/1/14 existing ruling, if it is affirmed, allowed for an escrow of money earned while an amateur. This is precisely what EA Sports, CLC, and the Plaintiffs proposed in 2013 for the game. It will be up to the individual schools as to whether they license a new game. Each school owns its own trademarks, name, colors, etc. Everyone is waiting on the appeal of the antitrust ruling before they do anything.
I would be, would rather not have to buy an Xbox Live subscription and the game to play in the 360 one.
So it stands to reason that if they can come to an agreement on post eligibility compensation we may get named rosters and roster updates in a new game, yes?
It's a 73 page opinion by a three judge panel which both affirms and reverses the 8/1/14 decision by the trial court last year. It's complicated. Cliffs: (1) NCAA amateurism violates antitrust law, affirmed 3-0; (2) full cost of attendance, affirmed 3-0; (3) $5,000 deferred compensation, reversed 2-1. On antitrust, the appellate court held that NCAA compensation rules are a restraint on trade that affect commerce within the terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court rejected the NCAA argument that the rules are really just eligibility requirements and held "There is real money at issue here." The court held that the players demonstrated injury from the compensation rule. On EA Sports, the court held that absent the NCAA rules, the video game makers would directly negotiate with players to use their likenesses. The court also held that NCAA rules have pro-competitive effects because the concept of amateurism promotes the brand of sports offered by NCAA programs. The court, after making these findings, looked at the alternatives to the existing compensation rules. In this part of the ruling, it upheld the requirement that schools must pay the full cost of attendance. This changes nothing because the NCAA already adopted this position (as did the Big Ten). In essence, a player can submit additional expenses and have them approved. The court split 2-1 on the $5,000 deferred compensation issue. The trial court allowed $5,000 in deferred compensation. The appellate court threw that out for a lack of evidence that paying small sums does anything to remedy the antitrust violation. The court held that once a school crosses the line and pays athletes, there is no defined stopping point that would be anything except arbitrary. As a result, the NCAA is not required to pay athletes anything more than the cost of attendance.
The NCAA is not allowed to restrict the video game market. Players can be paid full cost to attend college. Schools are not required to pay them anything more.
Doubtful, but it depends upon how willing the NCAA is to deal. The NCAA cut a $20 million settlement on the past players claims, creating a fund that players can apply to be paid if their likenesses were used during the 2000's. They were willing to deal on that.
It can be, but its complicated. I have not thoroughly read the entire opinion, but I did not see the appeal address who owns the player likenesses. The trial court held that the players own the IP rights to their own likenesses. The fact that the NCAA does not have to pay them anything more than the cost of attendance does not necessarily mean that the NCAA can use the likenesses without player consent.
Yeah sounds like as long as future games don't design specific players/likenesses then they won't have to pay players and the game can be made again using generic players. I have no idea legal implications of using school names but logically shouldn't be an issue
The schools own their own rights to names, colors, trademarks, etc. If they make a future game that is generic, no one will buy it. If they make a game that uses player likenesses, someone will challenge it. If they make a generic game that allows the owner to adjust the rosters to mimic player likenesses, the game maker is still open to a challenge that they are allowing the individual buyers to violate the likeness rule. You can't profit from a game franchise that is set up to allow others to violate IP rights.
My mistake, you're talking from the school side. Probably not worth it or their school was licensed in a bundle with the bigger schools by someone like IMG
I'm not sure that EA Sports has gotten around IP rights yet. The O'Bannon Plaintiffs want to see a game franchise continue so that they can collect royalties. I'm not sure that they have challenged a game franchise on the basis that it allows the third party users to violate IP rights. The O'Bannon plaintiffs have no interest to see the franchise killed. They collect zero percent of zero if that happens.
Will the game continue to suck and be rife with glitches. I wish 2k would pick up the title or EA would devote half of the efforts they give to Madden to NCAA
Te content of the game was so rich when it was on Xbox. When it moved to 360 its like they said fuck the content lets have a simulated pregame booth with Kirk and Chris.
i'm still playing 2014 every now and then on dynasty mode. then it gets to the end of conference championships and i'm all goddamnit
Cliffs: You transfer the file to a computer program and manipulate the bowl schedule to create 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Play or simulate the games, don't save the file. Go back and then edit it again to have the winners play and put the losers in another bowl game. The stats don't record from the first games.
Back in the PS1 days they had concurrent FBS & FCS dynasty mode and the option for a playoff. In NCAA 98 after Peyton Manning graduated Tee Martin was an absolute freak for Tennessee.