College Football Coaching Carousel

[THE DUKE]

2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

They could definitely do that, but based upon what I've read/other things, they'd also have to create other failsafes for things like not allowing users to go back in and "recreate/edit" these players.

Example: This random algorithm creates it so that OSU has some random RS Senior with random appearance, etc. I go in, change him to a 6'2 220 pound solid running QB with a likeness/traits very similar to JT Barrett. 

Also, part of the fight was whether or not this "random" algorithm would generate traits that were NOT random, such as throwing power/accuracy, running ability, what year he was, etc. If all of the traits are "JT Barrett-like" except appearance, jersey number, and home-town, is this really "random"?

You could make the traits random enough as well.  Just have varying sets for different positions so the team ratings end up relatively close to what many perceive as the ranked order of schools coming into the year.  If you do enough random generations, then eventually you may end up with a 6'2" 220 lb QB with strong running and limited throwing for OSU, but as long as it doesn't pop to that every time, it would pass a test.

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

You could make the traits random enough as well.  Just have varying sets for different positions so the team ratings end up relatively close to what many perceive as the ranked order of schools coming into the year.  If you do enough random generations, then eventually you may end up with a 6'2" 220 lb QB with strong running and limited throwing for OSU, but as long as it doesn't pop to that every time, it would pass a test.

It's not a question of could you do this in a way that is technically and legally sound. It's a question of whether you could sell the resulting product.

EA doesn't think you can. I'd tend to default to their marketing and sales teams.

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, THE DUKE said:

You could make the traits random enough as well.  Just have varying sets for different positions so the team ratings end up relatively close to what many perceive as the ranked order of schools coming into the year.  If you do enough random generations, then eventually you may end up with a 6'2" 220 lb QB with strong running and limited throwing for OSU, but as long as it doesn't pop to that every time, it would pass a test.

Right, but I'm 100% not buying a product where I'm stuck with some slow dude that can't run OSU's system (if they can even access these rights legally).

[devils1854]

10 hours ago, titansNvolsR#1 said:

Someone sell me on Pruitt. I know nothing about him outside of he was DC for FSU, UGA, and Bama. 

He is a great defensive coordinator, and a damn good recruiter.....

He will fail as a head coach. He has no clue how to talk to people. He has a short temper, and gets into it with coaches at every stop that he has been at. He had a toxic relationship with Mark Richt at Georgia, and everyone loves Mark Richt as a person. 

I dont think he will be able to successfully be the head of a program. 

[Phire]

Pruitt's a good defensive mind but there's also a reason he was Tennessee's 119th option for the job.

[jrry32]

8 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

“works of parody or other distortions of the celebrity figure are not, from the celebrity fan's viewpoint, good substitutes for conventional depictions of the celebrity and therefore do not generally threaten markets for celebrity memorabilia that the right of publicity is designed to protect.”

 

"That Appellant's likeness is the default position only serves to support our conclusion that realistic depictions of the players are the “sum and substance” of these digital facsimiles"

No chance Ryan Hart could have met a supporting burden of proof there. Proving (or concluding) that people bought the NCAA games (or that they were created) to play as any individual player(s). Not with the create player modes, the blatant ability to alter every aspect of an individual player, a career mode with pre-made recruits that in no way, shape, or form would purposefully resemble a real person. People did not buy the game to play as Ryan Hart, the same as people didn't buy the game to play as Jared Zabransky. Now, had someone like Denard Robinson brought it up when they came out with that "Road to the Heisman" mode or whatever it was called, he could have made that argument. The court is reaching here. 

 "Given that Appellant's unaltered likeness is central to the core of the game experience, we are disinclined to credit users' ability to alter the digital avatars in our application of the Transformative Use Test to this case."

Again, not in this case. Not by any evidence brought forth. And in the 06 version that was the basis of his claim, the Road to the Heisman "player" was user-made. 

The italicized portion may as well translate to: "Although we are clearly using the Transformative Use Test in this case, we are going to specifically avoid using the essential aspects of what the TUT is." 

"  Indeed, the ability to modify the avatar counts for little where the appeal of the game lies in users' ability to play “as, or alongside” their preferred players or team."

For one, schools did not bring the suit. Playing as a "team" is irrelevant. And here's why:

Again, the court assumes that the prevailing reason people bought and played the NCAA games were to play alongside any specific player avatar. No proof was offered. Now, understand, I agree with you as far as their likeness being used. But the court in this case took a lot of liberty in assuming they knew why people played the game. If the presumption that "the appeal of the game..." is valid, the presumption that people would buy and play the game if it were a bunch of non-faced humanoid figures so long as the jersey color was crimson, the pants were white, and a big A appeared center field deserves just as much credit. By ignoring that caveat, the court literally crapped all over what the Transformative Use Test is meant to cover in the first place. Specifically here:

"For larger potential changes, such as a different body type, skin tone, or face, Appellant's likeness is not transformed; it simply ceases to be. Therefore, once a user has made major changes to the avatar, it no longer represents Appellant, and thus it no longer qualifies as a “use” of the Appellant's identity for purposes of our inquiry."

The court, as the dissent later points out, is literally giving an impossible standard. If the changes are "minor", they don't transform. If they are "major", it ceases the avatar's existence. It totally misrepresents the TUT and it's roots in 1st Amendment rights. 

And in the dissent:

"The Transformative Use Test gives First Amendment immunity where, in an expressive work, an individual's likeness has been creatively adapted in some way. Correctly applied, this test strikes an appropriate balance between countervailing rights—the publicity interest in protecting an individual's right to benefit financially when others use his identifiable persona for their own commercial benefit versus the First Amendment interest in insulating from liability a creator's decision to interweave real-life figures into its expressive work.

My colleagues limit effectively their transformative inquiry to Hart's identity alone, disregarding other features of the work. This approach, I believe, does not find support in the cases on which they rely. Further, my colleagues penalize EA for the realism and financial success of NCAA Football, a position I find difficult to reconcile with First Amendment protections traditionally afforded to true-to-life depictions of real figures and works produced for profit."

The majority opinion's standard makes the first point impossible, as I stated above. If it isn't adapted enough, it's non-Transformative. If it is adapted any more, it ceases to be. 

Respectfully, I still don't agree with you. This lawsuit wasn't just Hart vs. EA. They have to take the viewpoint of all CFB players. There is no transformation. It was the likeness of football players playing football.

I also am not following your point about it ceases to be. The Court is saying that if they change it enough, it ceases to be a misuse of the likeness, so the test is unnecessary. That's the answer to EA's problems. But EA chose to stop making the game because they knew they needed the likeness of the players for it to be profitable enough to be worthwhile.

[ramssuperbowl99]

29 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Respectfully, I still don't agree with you. This lawsuit wasn't just Hart vs. EA. They have to take the viewpoint of all CFB players. There is no transformation. It was the likeness of football players playing football.

I also am not following your point about it ceases to be. The Court is saying that if they change it enough, it ceases to be a misuse of the likeness, so the test is unnecessary. That's the answer to EA's problems. But EA chose to stop making the game because they knew they needed the likeness of the players for it to be profitable enough to be worthwhile.

We can just ask a somewhat obvious question to get to the bottom of this: Everything else stays the same, and the player names aren't even changed, just omitted with duplicate numbers given instead. Given that, could EA have done anything more to be more blatant in their attempt to recreate players and use their likeness?

The answer is no. If this isn't using the players' likeness, what standard would be? Are we saying that any omission of a name is no longer a likeness (or, put another way, that the word likeness doesn't mean anything because it's synonymous with name)?

I don't think I could get a pixelated version of Taylor Swift on a commercial, not pay her, and flash "Pop Singer #1 can't come to the phone right now; why, because she doesn't have Verizon!".

[devils1854]

Georgia WR coach James Coley just said no to becoming the Aggie OC

#AlphaProgram

[TENINCH]

2 hours ago, devils1854 said:

Georgia WR coach James Coley just said no to becoming the Aggie OC

#AlphaProgram

Good recruiter too if I remember right. Was with FSU for a few years.

[devils1854]

21 minutes ago, TENINCH said:

Good recruiter too if I remember right. Was with FSU for a few years.

Yeah, he's good. He's the main guy for our 2 5* 2019 guys. He's definitely a better recruiter than WR coach. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 hours ago, devils1854 said:

Georgia WR coach James Coley just said no to becoming the Aggie OC

#AlphaProgram

Apart from the never ending cycle of lulz that is Aggy, Georgia is freaking terrifying.

[devils1854]

2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Apart from the never ending cycle of lulz that is Aggy, Georgia is freaking terrifying.

Coley was a former OC, and everyone thought he would be gone within a couple years. He came out and said that he loves Athens, and his family is happy. $$$ raise.

Kirby has assembled an amazing staff there. Coley, Del McGee the RB coach and definitely a top 3 recruiter in the nation, and Pittman on the o-line. Tucker at DC, Sherrer LB coach(who will be gone soon for a DC job), Schumann is a future DC star and will probably be our DC in a a year or two, and we got Trey Scott from North Carolina for the d-line and he has been better than anyone had thought. Hell, even little Beamer has the special teams playing better than they have in years.

Jim Chaney has his faults, but he has called some damn good games this year, especially the SEC Championship game. 

Overall, I dont think Id trade this staff for any other in the nation. 

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Apart from the never ending cycle of lulz that is Aggy, Georgia is freaking terrifying.

I'm not worried about UGA. They'll do well under Smart, but how is his start at UGA any different than Richt's?

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, jrry32 said:

I'm not worried about UGA. They'll do well under Smart, but how is his start at UGA any different than Richt's?

Crootin. They're a 5* factory right now.

[jrry32]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Crootin. They're a 5* factory right now.

They recruited incredibly well at the beginning of the Richt era too. They'll likely end up with a marginally better class, but I think that has more to do with timing than anything. FSU and UF are both having extremely down years and are turning over the majority of their coaching staffs. The same is true of Tennessee. That's not usual, and those are three schools that compete with UGA for the top talent in Georgia (along with SC, Bama, Auburn, and Clemson).