ESP'the end: 1'st Quarter @ HOD Bowl: North Texas 10 Army 0

[PlummMeanGreen]

Looks like the pod people & zombies have infiltrated both Army, North Texas football players & their respective coaching staffs.   What a poor facsimile of Seth Littrell.   He should get a lawyer!  

 

 

[Graddean]

Will those two running backs be eligible next Tuesday?

[UNT 90 Grad]

2 hours ago, PlummMeanGreen said:

Looks like the pod people & zombies have infiltrated both Army, North Texas football players & their respective coaching staffs.   What a poor facsimile of Seth Littrell.   He should get a lawyer!  

 

 

If you want to watch a simulated game, watch this one.  At least they made the effort to use real player names. 

 

[PlummMeanGreen]

4 hours ago, UNT 90 Grad said:

If you want to watch a simulated game, watch this one.  At least they made the effort to use real player names. 

 

Yes much better.  I missed seeing this video or I would have posted it over the other. 

[South Texas Green]

Boy do I miss playing that NCAA Football video game. Silly lawsuits. 

Hoping they bring some form of college football video game back in the future! 

[southsideguy]

7 hours ago, South Texas Green said:

Boy do I miss playing that NCAA Football video game. Silly lawsuits. 

Hoping they bring some form of college football video game back in the future! 

amen

[aztecskin]

someone should bring the game to the tailgate. 

[BeatNavy]

14 hours ago, UNT 90 Grad said:

If you want to watch a simulated game, watch this one.  At least they made the effort to use real player names. 

 

(Clipping by Army on opening KO) + (Broadcaster having no idea how to comment on option play on 1st play from scrimmage) = (A+ Realism grade from first two plays)

[NorthTexan95]

If we get Army throwing as much as they do in that video in the OP then it won't be close.  If we win like that video does with a late drive, whoever the quarterback is will be a Mean Green legend.  Might even get Vito to stop slobbering over another former quarterback. 

[Withers940]

9 hours ago, South Texas Green said:

Boy do I miss playing that NCAA Football video game. Silly lawsuits. 

Hoping they bring some form of college football video game back in the future! 

I have withdraws every July when the game should come out. OH NCAA why have you forsaken me?

[Cerebus]

1 minute ago, Withers940 said:

OH NCAA why have you forsaken me?

The NCAA refuses to indemnify the schools and EA (or any other developer) against lawsuits.  Until that happens no one is going to touch it.  2K had a good college basketball game but they dropped it as soon as the saw the O'Bannon writing on the wall.

2K did make one on one deals with 8 schools to use their logo in the career mode of NBA 2J, but they couldn't use current college players to fill the rosters.   

[Withers940]

5 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

The NCAA refuses to indemnify the schools and EA (or any other developer) against lawsuits.  Until that happens no one is going to touch it.  2K had a good college basketball game but they dropped it as soon as the saw the O'Bannon writing on the wall.

2K did make one on one deals with 8 schools to use their logo in the career mode of NBA 2J, but they couldn't use current college players to fill the rosters.   

I know the story behind it but I just hate that a group of kids ruined the whole thing for everyone. I understand both sides of the argument though. All these college players grow up wanting to someday be on NCAA Football or Madden. 

[Cerebus]

Just now, Withers940 said:

I know the story behind it but I just hate that a group of kids ruined the whole thing for everyone. 

Did they ruin it?  Or did the NCAA, schools and conferences making money off their likeness without compensating them ruin it in the first place?  The problem is that the only way the NCAA would feel comfortable indemnifying the schools and producers would be to collectively bargain an agreement with the student athletes as a whole. 

Unfortunately, they are terrified of allowing the student athletes to band together and do any such thing.  The NCAA (and the P5) would rather just lose out on the licensing money than deal with all the costs and issues that would come out of some sort of  student athlete union.  

[Withers940]

17 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Did they ruin it?  Or did the NCAA, schools and conferences making money off their likeness without compensating them ruin it in the first place?  The problem is that the only way the NCAA would feel comfortable indemnifying the schools and producers would be to collectively bargain an agreement with the student athletes as a whole. 

Unfortunately, they are terrified of allowing the student athletes to band together and do any such thing.  The NCAA (and the P5) would rather just lose out on the licensing money than deal with all the costs and issues that would come out of some sort of  student athlete union.  

How do you think the players should be compensated on something like this? Should the players rated at 90 and above make more money than the players rated 70 and below or should it be equal pay for everyone. I do agree they should be compensated but where do you draw the line?

[Cerebus]

Just now, Withers940 said:

How do you think the players should be compensated on something like this? Should the players rated at 90 and above make more money than the players rated 70 and below or should it be equal pay for everyone. I do agree they should be compensated but where do you draw the line?

A flat fee to a players union just like every other sports game you have touched. 

[NorthTexan95]

8 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

A flat fee to a players union just like every other sports game you have touched. 

Or how about a college scholarship, room and board, tutoring, mentoring, health care, etc.  Sounds like the players are already well compensated. 

Quinn Shanbour ... the LEGEND! 

Edited December 23, 2016 by NorthTexan95

[Cerebus]

1 minute ago, NorthTexan95 said:

Or how about a college scholarship, room and board, tutoring, mentoring, health care, etc.  Sounds like the players are already well compensated. 

So Dak and Dez should get room and board and some night classes at SMU?  I see nothing wrong for people asking for fair compensation.    ESPN is paying over a BILLION dollars to the NCAA and the Conferences for TV rights.  See no issues with players getting a few thousand out of it.  

[Withers940]

19 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

A flat fee to a players union just like every other sports game you have touched. 

Flat fee is reasonable. What about a copy of the game and then a small fee?

[NorthTexan95]

31 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

So Dak and Dez should get room and board and some night classes at SMU?  I see nothing wrong for people asking for fair compensation.    ESPN is paying over a BILLION dollars to the NCAA and the Conferences for TV rights.  See no issues with players getting a few thousand out of it.  

What do NFL players have to do with college players being compensated?  

BILLION of dollars ... and most colleges still lose money on athletics. 

[Cerebus]

42 minutes ago, NorthTexan95 said:

What do NFL players have to do with college players being compensated?  

BILLION of dollars ... and most colleges still lose money on athletics. 

The NCAA doesn't lose money.  The NCAA is getting a ton of money, if they are going to license the players themselves to video games, then they need to share some of that money.  That is what the courts already decided.  

[TheTastyGreek]

1 hour ago, NorthTexan95 said:

most colleges still lose money on athletics. 

No, they don't. 

[NorthTexan95]

15 minutes ago, TheTastyGreek said:

No, they don't. 

There's this thing called "Google".  Use it and you'll find article after article stating that the vast majority of college athletic programs lose money. 

[TheTastyGreek]

46 minutes ago, NorthTexan95 said:

There's this thing called "Google".  Use it and you'll find article after article stating that the vast majority of college athletic programs lose money. 

Those articles are wrong. BS predicated on an accounting shell game that doesn't actually reflect profitability. 

I made two huge, long posts about it in the thread a few weeks back talking about how much money Harbaugh and Saban get paid. Here's the link to one and two, and an excerpt of the relevant sections of each. The most relevant sentence, outlining how costs and revenues aren't remotely close to an accurate snapshot of what athletic programs bring in, is enlarged and italicized. 

Quote

"Very few" college programs are profitable when you only look at the accounting shell game they're using to define profitability. College sports teams that are unprofitable (while also not serving as a Title IX bandage to sustain profitable men's programs) GET SHUT DOWN. 

College programs crying poverty are as ridiculous as pro leagues crying unprofitability, then seeing the smallest and least profitable teams sell to multiple bidders for hundreds of millions of dollars. If D1 football and basketball were unprofitable, there wouldn't be 350+ D1 basketball teams and growing, and schools wouldn't have been tripping over their own dicks to get startup football programs established at the D1 level (or lower division teams moved up to full D1 status) over the past 10-15 years for fear of the entry requirements changing and freezing them out. 

Texas A&M can't fake being unprofitable, like some other schools can pretend they are. They were the highest revenue program in college sports last year. When you count income vs. expenses the way they are at the athletics level, they only made $7 million on $193 million in total revenue. But that's counting each and every possible athletics expense, including long term debt and "special projects". And it doesn't factor in school revenue that doesn't flow directly to or through the athletics department. Like, for example, the year they joined the SEC and caught fire with Manziel mania, and the university raised $300 million MORE than they had in any other previous year. Not $300 million, $300 million MORE than their previous best year of revenue/gifts/earnings/donations. Not a dollar of the $740 million they raised that year that didn't go to athletics counts towards "profitability", but you can bet your ass they already know exactly how athletic failure or irrelevance impacts the university's real bottom line. 

Frankly, it's amazing Harbaugh and Saban don't make multiple times what they do now. Because as long as schools can't or won't buy the players directly like a true semi-pro league, the proxy method is to buy the guys who bring those players in instead. And the chasm between the 1st or 2nd best guy in the world at it, vs. the 10th or 20th? It's enormous, and across the 5-10 year lifespan of a successful top level coach, it could mean the difference in BILLIONS of dollars for the institution. 

For the record, I'm not saying that any of this is good, or likable, or appropriate. 

But this is the game we're watching, and anyone who wants to pretend that it isn't reality is lying to themselves. 

It's a bigger business than ever before, and it's more of a business at more schools than it was 10, 20, or 50 years ago. But the changes are a matter of scope and scale, not a fundamental change in the sports themselves. 

D1 schools are semi-pro sports franchises that happen to offer educational programs, mostly to non-athletes. Some of those D1 schools are fantastically successful at it, most are jockeying for position somewhere in the middle, and some are swimming along in the wake, gobbling up the leavings. Even the schools that historically suck at it all, like us, are far, far richer (financially and otherwise) for being at the bottom of that pile.