Just saw this article in the online version of the Wall Street Journal. According to the article, Electronic Arts (EA) has settled a class action anti-trust lawsuit that alleged their exclusive contracts with the National Football League (NFL), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and Arena Football League (AFL) constituted monopolistic behavior. If the settlement is upheld by the court, EA will owe a small sum of money to consumers who purchased any of their Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the PlayStation 2, Xbox, Wii, PlayStation 3, or Xbox 360.
I doubt that many gamers will be able to actually claim the money owed to them, since I'm sure EA will demand receipts that show a new purchase of the games (and honestly, how many people actually keep receipts for every game that they buy?). I'm also not sure how the settlement will treat consumers who purchased applicable games used, or consumers who resold the games (i.e on eBay or to GameStop).
The most disappointing thing though, is that although EA is agreeing not so sign exclusive deals with the NCAA or AFL, there is no mention of the status or future of its current deal with the NFL. If EA is not forced to relinquish its exclusive deal with the NFL, then this settlement is a very hollow victory for football gaming fans.
I still have a lot of questions, but the prospect of a return to open competition on football video games should be very exciting for football fans! Even if it doesn't apply to the NFL. I hope that companies like 2K, Natural Motion, Sony, and Microsoft will release competitors to EA's NCAA Football over the next few years. I'm disappointed that NFL 2K, NFL Fever, or Backbreaker NFL don't seem to be any more likely, but I hope companies will step up to the plate with new titles like NCAA Football 2K, NCAA Football Fever, and Collegiate Backbreaker. [More]
52f54598-516a-496f-9fd0-c5b3044d6cc9|0|.0
Tags:Electronic Arts, EA, EA Sports, NFL, NCAA, Madden NFL, NCAA Football, Arena Football, 2K Games, NaturalMotion, NFL 2K, NFL Gameday, NFL Fever, Backbreaker, anti-trust, lawsuit, monopoly
Matt Forte (and fans) should be smiling after he signed a 4-year deal.
Bears players left and right are stating in interviews that they think this year's Bears team is going to be great. Recently, receiver Earl Bennett said in an interview that he thinks the Bears are the best team in the NFC North. Other players have expressed similar thoughts over the summer. Pro Bowl linebackers Lance Briggs and Brian Urlacher have both stated in interviews this year that the 2012 Bears team is the best team they've been on, and that includes the Bears' 2006 SuperBowl run!
So are these sentiments even remotely accurate? Or are the players just a bit overconfident?
Well, in my humble opinion (as a Bears' fan), these players have every right to be excited about their team this year! [More]
9e44869c-ee00-47b1-899a-ae6f3e2efb45|1|5.0
Tags:DA Bears, Chicago Bears, Chicago, football, NFL, offense, defense, special teams, Jay Cutler, Matt Forte, Brandon Marshall, Johnny Knox, Earl Bennett, Brian Urlacher, Lance Briggs, Charles Tillman, Julius Peppers, Shea McClellin, Devin Hester, Robbie Gould, Mike Tice, Dave Toub, Green Bay Packers, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings, NFC, NFC North, SuperBowl, playoff
A few weeks ago, I stressed the importance of a Bears' victory over the Detroit Lions on November 13th following their week 9 defeat of the Eagles. That win was a big one, and with that win and a victory of the San Diego Chargers last week, both the Bears and Lions are tied for the top contenders for both of the NFC wild card playoff spots with the Bears going into one of the easiest collections of four games that any NFL team has on their schedule!
But the win over San Diego did not come without its cost. The Bears suffered several significant injuries, the most prominent being starting quarterback Jay Cutler....
|
|
Kyle Orton was cut by Denver this week. Could he make a return to Chicago to relieve the injured Jay Cutler? I'd like to see it happen. But given the stinginess of the Bears' management, and Orton's starter salary, it probably won't happen. |
UPDATE November 23, 2011 1:26 PM
Kyle Orton was picked up off of waivers by the Kansas City Chiefs, who were higher in the waiver order than Chicago. With Orton unavailable, the Bears have claimed Josh McCown. McCown hasn't played a game since 2009, so he will likely be an emergency option in the event that Hanie gets injured or performs poorly. The Bears also have rookie Nathan Enerle on their roster. [More]
The Saints' Darren Sproles stepped out of bounds prior to scoring a touchdown in a game against the Bears. This play was ruled as a touchdown on-the-field, but was not reviewed by the booth!
Last week, I offered my thoughts on the NFL's rule change regarding reviews of scoring plays. In summary, I thought the rule was stupid. It's unfair, as the rule only requires plays that are called as "touchdowns" on the field to be reviewed. It ignores plays that might have been touchdowns, but which were ruled as not a touchdown on the field. This rule bit the Dolphins in the butt last week, but was not a game-deciding issue.
This week, a new problem with the rule change was exposed: if coaches are expecting a "scoring" play to be reviewed by the booth, they aren't going to throw the challenge flag. But what if the booth doesn't make the decision to review the play in time? [More]
One of the NFL's new rule changes for this year is that the booth will now automatically review all plays that are called as touchdowns on the field without needing the play to be challenged by a coach.
It sounds good in principle.
Reggie Bush's touchdown was ruled out-of-bounds on the field, so had to be challenged by Tony Sporano.
Make sure that teams aren't getting points put up on the board when they shouldn't be.
But what about the inverse?
The rule is that only plays that are called as touchdowns on the field are being reviewed. For plays that are incorrectly called as not a touchdown, the coach still has to use a challenge.
So the NFL is making sure that points aren't put up on the board when they shouldn't be, but they're not making sure that points do go up when they should. Why the hell not? [More]
|
12 | | | | | | | 60 | 11 | | | | | | | 55 | 10 | | | | | | | 50 | 09 | | | | | | | 45 | 08 | | | | | | | 40 | 07 | | | | | | | 35 | 06 | | | | | | | 30 | 05 | | | | | | | 25 | 04 | | | | | | | 20 | 03 | | | | | | | 15 | 02 | | | | | | | 10 | 01 | | | | | | | 05 |
|