NCAA not off the hook yet

[Cash]

This probably won't affect anything about the game. The only differences you'll see next year is that all NCAA logos/references will be removed from the game, and it'll be called College football '15 instead of NCAA '15.

 

Individual schools handle their own licensing deals, and i can't imagine a single D I-A school not wanting to miss out on royalities from the game.

 

Most likely. However, the interesting implication is that EA Sports is legally claiming that they shouldn't be involved in Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit, because their hands are forced by the NCAA. If they directly negotiate licensing with the schools or conferences, then that argument goes away, and their exposure is greater. More importantly, the NCAA has been a shield of sorts for the individual schools in cases like this. If Alabama (or the SEC) starts directly selling rights to player likenesses to EA, they have huge exposure to legal action. And that's true whether they sell those rights at what they're worth, or do what the NCAA did and artificially price-fix those rights at $0.

 

I'm very intrigued to see what happens next. EA has announced that their plan is to just negotiate with conferences and/or individual schools and retain all the rights they've had in the past (except the NCAA name and logo, which no one cares about). They're already used to paying extra for player likenesses in the Madden franchise, so legal losses are a lot less scary for them. For the schools, whose business model is built around free labor, those potential legal losses are a lot scarier. But I have to think that guaranteed short-term money from EA, combined with confidence in their legal teams, will lead to everyone signing up.

[Mr. WEO]

You know it! NCAA was on my mind again after the EA announcement.

 

Regarding the bolded, what's your source on that? I'd heard some time ago that the NCAA tournament TV deal was the primary source of income for the NCAA, and that they kept most of the money, but I confess that I don't remember where. It always made sense to me, though, because the recent conference re-alignments have been all about football (except the Catholic 7 splitting from Conference USA The Big East).

 

Anyway, I did a quick bit of googling, and I can't find a direct corroboration of your 96% figure. Closest I've got is this, which says that "96 percent of [all] NCAA revenue benefits the membership through distributions or services".

 

One thing I definitely need to concede, though, is that in the short term, there'll be no changes. I didn't realize how much of the money did go back to the schools/conferences. And in the short term, the NCAA does provide a very valuable service: it keeps costs way down by ensuring free labor. I no longer think the superconference movement alone is enough to kill the NCAA. It'll take legal victories or the NCAA totally passing the buck to schools/conferences on the legal front. Once schools get to the point where they have to compensate players, the NCAA starts to lose its value. Maybe the NCAA will be smart enough to adapt and survive, or maybe the major conferences will be afraid enough of change that they'll continue to cut the NCAA in, but I hope not.

 

I got the 96% from the same place as you found it and it is a quote from the NCAA. But there is a difference between all NCAA TV rebenue and that of the tournament specifically. The NCAA is saying that they give back 96% of the tourney money but this works out to 60% of all yearly revenue.

 

 

This probably won't affect anything about the game. The only differences you'll see next year is that all NCAA logos/references will be removed from the game, and it'll be called College football '15 instead of NCAA '15.

 

Individual schools handle their own licensing deals, and i can't imagine a single D I-A school not wanting to miss out on royalities from the game.

 

See below.

 

Most likely. However, the interesting implication is that EA Sports is legally claiming that they shouldn't be involved in Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit, because their hands are forced by the NCAA. If they directly negotiate licensing with the schools or conferences, then that argument goes away, and their exposure is greater. More importantly, the NCAA has been a shield of sorts for the individual schools in cases like this. If Alabama (or the SEC) starts directly selling rights to player likenesses to EA, they have huge exposure to legal action. And that's true whether they sell those rights at what they're worth, or do what the NCAA did and artificially price-fix those rights at $0.

 

I'm very intrigued to see what happens next. EA has announced that their plan is to just negotiate with conferences and/or individual schools and retain all the rights they've had in the past (except the NCAA name and logo, which no one cares about). They're already used to paying extra for player likenesses in the Madden franchise, so legal losses are a lot less scary for them. For the schools, whose business model is built around free labor, those potential legal losses are a lot scarier. But I have to think that guaranteed short-term money from EA, combined with confidence in their legal teams, will lead to everyone signing up.

 

As cash points out, why on earth would any conference want to be named in the same exact player lawsuit that the NCAA is about to possibly lose? Makes no sense, unless you think the conferences are going to allow players to get royalty payments for their likenesses.

[Ramius]

The difference is this: Did the NCAA (and now the individual conferences/schools) actually sell rights to player likenesses? Or just rights to school logos and such? And what exactly constitutes a likeness?

 

In Madden, they actually transpose player images into video game characters. Do they do this in NCAA? I've played both games and the players in NCAA do not resemble their actual picture likeness nearly as good as in Madden. What EA does do is closely mimic an individual players measurable attributes. For example, take EJ Manuel. In the old NCAA games, he's listed as QB #3 for FSU. His height and weight match, but thats public information. They then create his attributes based on what they believe is the most accurate representation of his on-the-field skills, ie running speed, passing strength and accuracy, etc. Its something you and I could do if we wanted to spend the time. Everyone knows who those players are, but EA can hide behind the argument that they are making "random" players for each team.

 

The new game will probably follow the same philosophy. Teams wont sell player images to EA, just team logos. Then EA can create whatever "random" players they want. Its similar to how colleges sell player jerseys. You can't sell a jersey with a collegiate players name on it, just a number. Yet, magically every year, the most popular players are the jerseys numbers available for purchase.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Ramius

[Mr. WEO]

The difference is this: Did the NCAA (and now the individual conferences/schools) actually sell rights to player likenesses? Or just rights to school logos and such? And what exactly constitutes a likeness?

 

In Madden, they actually transpose player images into video game characters. Do they do this in NCAA? I've played both games and the players in NCAA do not resemble their actual picture likeness nearly as good as in Madden. What EA does do is closely mimic an individual players measurable attributes. For example, take EJ Manuel. In the old NCAA games, he's listed as QB #3 for FSU. His height and weight match, but thats public information. They then create his attributes based on what they believe is the most accurate representation of his on-the-field skills, ie running speed, passing strength and accuracy, etc. Its something you and I could do if we wanted to spend the time. Everyone knows who those players are, but EA can hide behind the argument that they are making "random" players for each team.

 

The new game will probably follow the same philosophy. Teams wont sell player images to EA, just team logos. Then EA can create whatever "random" players they want. Its similar to how colleges sell player jerseys. You can't sell a jersey with a collegiate players name on it, just a number. Yet, magically every year, the most popular players are the jerseys numbers available for purchase.

 

The EA NCAA football game doesn't have players names on their jerseys? If they do--that is using their likeness without the player's consent. If not, there is no issue with the players.

[Ramius]

The EA NCAA football game doesn't have players names on their jerseys? If they do--that is using their likeness without the player's consent. If not, there is no issue with the players.

 

There are no names in NCAA games (both football and basketball). You'll get a complete roster, and the numbers will be accurate, but as i said, There's no EJ Manuel on FSU. There's "QB #3" with EJ's height and weight, and his physical attributes reflecting his on the field ability. When you actually play the game, on the field you'll see "QB #3" as the jersey nameplate. Every roster is the same in that manner, the position and the number. In this years game, South Carolina doesn't have Jadeveon Clowney. They have "DE #7."

 

Now, the rosters are editable, so you as an individual can easily change the names of all the players to their real names, but that's after market, and not something EA is involved in.

[May Day 10]

There is a group of people who go through the rosters upon release and adjust every detail down to equipment to create a nearly authentic ncaa package. Also all coaches and coordinators are created.

 

The rosters are made public and anyone can download it in 5 seconds.

 

It is wonderful. Ncaa 14 is the best sports video game I have ever played. Im hoping it isnt the last.

 

 

There is a chance it could make future releases better as they can add suspensions and such the ncaa wont let them touch.

As long ad they keep a reasonable degree of customization and sharing, folks will put in the work to make the game authentic. Im thinking nobody is going to want to dive in with the lawsuit out yherr

Edited July 20, 2013 by May Day 10

[Cash]

I got the 96% from the same place as you found it and it is a quote from the NCAA. But there is a difference between all NCAA TV rebenue and that of the tournament specifically. The NCAA is saying that they give back 96% of the tourney money but this works out to 60% of all yearly revenue.

 

Sorry, that's not correct. The 96% figure is for a combination of direct disbursement, scholarship programs (which together make up the 60% figure), the cost of putting on championships (13%), and "programs and national office services" & "other services (such as the eligibility center)" (23% together). For the BCS schools, most of those programs and services aren't benefiting them. Especially the eligibility center -- all that can do for them is prevent their recruits from being able to play. Even if we take the NCAA at face value, which is very generous given who we're talking about, the BCS schools can reasonable say that only something like 75% of the money gets back to them. (60% disbursement + scholarships, and with no NCAA, that 13% for putting on championships has to come from BCS schools instead.) Check the NCAA's Finances page for details.

 

As to the revenue specifically, you're also mistaken. Again, taking the NCAA at face value (per their Revenue page), "NCAA revenue [for last year] was $871.6 million, most of which came from the rights agreement with Turner/CBS Sports. The total rights payment for 2011-12 was $705 million, or 81 percent of all NCAA revenue. Most of the remaining 18 percent of revenue came from championships (mostly ticket and merchandise sales)."

 

Last year was actually a low year in terms of TV revenue as % of overall revenue -- it's usually around 85/86%, again according to the NCAA. But in any case, nearly all of their total revenue comes from the NCAA tournament -- 80+ percent from the TV rights, and most of the rest from ticket/merch sales. The NCAA does stage other championships besides basketball, but there's very little money in them. In terms of specific numbers, the Turner/CBS payout for the men's basketball TV rights was $705 million last year. If the NCAA was saying that they gave back 96% of that, it would work out to $676.8 million, which is about 78% of the NCAA's total revenue, not 60%. Breaking it down further, $705 million is 80.9% of the total revenue of $871.6 million. The NCAA listed "television and marketing rights fees" as 81% of total revenue. So the combined revenue of the women's basketball tournament, the college world series, the Frozen Four, and all other NCAA championships was probably less than $5 million last year. ($710.354 million total would round to 82%, and taking out the $705 million for the men's basketball tournament leaves us with $5.354 million.)

 

 

As cash points out, why on earth would any conference want to be named in the same exact player lawsuit that the NCAA is about to possibly lose? Makes no sense, unless you think the conferences are going to allow players to get royalty payments for their likenesses.

 

That's exactly what I think. Whether it happens voluntarily or because of a court order, that is going to happen sooner or later. I won't predict when, because I've learned to never underestimate the ability of the wealthy & powerful to entrench themselves against change, but it will happen eventually. It could be delayed significantly if the schools/conferences decide to stop allowing EA to use player likenesses in games, because then if if O'Bannon wins, they wouldn't have to make payouts to active players going forward. And once you start giving money to players for anything, you can no longer use your circular "we can't pay them because they're amateurs" argument.

 

However, in order to really insulate yourself from the threat of player likenesses, you have to:

 

1.) Make sure the in-game player avatars don't look like real players. Not just in terms of faces -- you want to make sure that heights, weights, builds, and skin colors are somewhat randomized compared to actual rosters.

 

2.) Stop using the actual jersey numbers of last year's team.

 

3.) Have at least some disconnect between the ratings of your in-game avatars and the perceived skills of last year's players. This is kind of touchy, because ratings are so subjective/controversial already. You could probably keep the ratings exactly the same and do #1 and #2 above, and many people would scream that the ratings are totally random. On the other hand, you could probably randomize the ratings (within reason: RBs/WRs/CB would still be fast, linemen still strong, etc.) and many other people would scream that the ratings still correspond to the actual players.

 

Anyway, if you do all of those things, or even just the first two, then you run the risk of making a very expensive game that no one wants. I think the college audience is probably less into using specific players than the NFL audience (?), but even if that's true, it's hard to convince anyone to buy a new college football game if the rosters are just randomized every year. So if schools want to protect themselves against the O'Bannon lawsuit, it functionally means that there won't be any more college video games. Might take a year or two of bad sales to make it happen though.

[Mr. WEO]

There are no names in NCAA games (both football and basketball). You'll get a complete roster, and the numbers will be accurate, but as i said, There's no EJ Manuel on FSU. There's "QB #3" with EJ's height and weight, and his physical attributes reflecting his on the field ability. When you actually play the game, on the field you'll see "QB #3" as the jersey nameplate. Every roster is the same in that manner, the position and the number. In this years game, South Carolina doesn't have Jadeveon Clowney. They have "DE #7."

 

Now, the rosters are editable, so you as an individual can easily change the names of all the players to their real names, but that's after market, and not something EA is involved in.

 

I assumed that they were using their names--never played ncaa14. Makes the suit seem more of a stretch then.

 

Sorry, that's not correct. The 96% figure is for a combination of direct disbursement, scholarship programs (which together make up the 60% figure), the cost of putting on championships (13%), and "programs and national office services" & "other services (such as the eligibility center)" (23% together). For the BCS schools, most of those programs and services aren't benefiting them. Especially the eligibility center -- all that can do for them is prevent their recruits from being able to play. Even if we take the NCAA at face value, which is very generous given who we're talking about, the BCS schools can reasonable say that only something like 75% of the money gets back to them. (60% disbursement + scholarships, and with no NCAA, that 13% for putting on championships has to come from BCS schools instead.) Check the NCAA's Finances page for details.

 

As to the revenue specifically, you're also mistaken. Again, taking the NCAA at face value (per their Revenue page), "NCAA revenue [for last year] was $871.6 million, most of which came from the rights agreement with Turner/CBS Sports. The total rights payment for 2011-12 was $705 million, or 81 percent of all NCAA revenue. Most of the remaining 18 percent of revenue came from championships (mostly ticket and merchandise sales)."

 

Last year was actually a low year in terms of TV revenue as % of overall revenue -- it's usually around 85/86%, again according to the NCAA. But in any case, nearly all of their total revenue comes from the NCAA tournament -- 80+ percent from the TV rights, and most of the rest from ticket/merch sales. The NCAA does stage other championships besides basketball, but there's very little money in them. In terms of specific numbers, the Turner/CBS payout for the men's basketball TV rights was $705 million last year. If the NCAA was saying that they gave back 96% of that, it would work out to $676.8 million, which is about 78% of the NCAA's total revenue, not 60%. Breaking it down further, $705 million is 80.9% of the total revenue of $871.6 million. The NCAA listed "television and marketing rights fees" as 81% of total revenue. So the combined revenue of the women's basketball tournament, the college world series, the Frozen Four, and all other NCAA championships was probably less than $5 million last year. ($710.354 million total would round to 82%, and taking out the $705 million for the men's basketball tournament leaves us with $5.354 million.)

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what I think. Whether it happens voluntarily or because of a court order, that is going to happen sooner or later. I won't predict when, because I've learned to never underestimate the ability of the wealthy & powerful to entrench themselves against change, but it will happen eventually. It could be delayed significantly if the schools/conferences decide to stop allowing EA to use player likenesses in games, because then if if O'Bannon wins, they wouldn't have to make payouts to active players going forward. And once you start giving money to players for anything, you can no longer use your circular "we can't pay them because they're amateurs" argument.

 

However, in order to really insulate yourself from the threat of player likenesses, you have to:

 

1.) Make sure the in-game player avatars don't look like real players. Not just in terms of faces -- you want to make sure that heights, weights, builds, and skin colors are somewhat randomized compared to actual rosters.

 

2.) Stop using the actual jersey numbers of last year's team.

 

3.) Have at least some disconnect between the ratings of your in-game avatars and the perceived skills of last year's players. This is kind of touchy, because ratings are so subjective/controversial already. You could probably keep the ratings exactly the same and do #1 and #2 above, and many people would scream that the ratings are totally random. On the other hand, you could probably randomize the ratings (within reason: RBs/WRs/CB would still be fast, linemen still strong, etc.) and many other people would scream that the ratings still correspond to the actual players.

 

Anyway, if you do all of those things, or even just the first two, then you run the risk of making a very expensive game that no one wants. I think the college audience is probably less into using specific players than the NFL audience (?), but even if that's true, it's hard to convince anyone to buy a new college football game if the rosters are just randomized every year. So if schools want to protect themselves against the O'Bannon lawsuit, it functionally means that there won't be any more college video games. Might take a year or two of bad sales to make it happen though.

 

I read that as 96% of the Tourney money (specifically) went out, as opposed to the entire annual revenue of the NCAA (of which 60% total goes out).

 

The only way fro EA to insulate itself agaisnt future lawsuits is to make all player white. Or black.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Mr. WEO

[justnzane]

This comes back to the NCAA owning a kids name and likeness. There are athletes who play gigs and sell albums, but are not allowed to use their legal name because the NCAA owns it. Even at the division 3 level, the NCAA is stingy about stuff. As a D3 track athlete, I won a big screen TV because my brackets were in the top 50 nationwide the year Syracuse won with Melo. I had to forfeit the prize (donate to charity) to retain my eligibility to compete in a sport that I essentially was paying to play (if you look at the fact that I paid for college credit for running track and cross country). The NCAA is a greedy organization that controls young athletes for financial exploitation.