Just last week, EA Sports tortured fans of their college football video game series by teasing its resurrection only to officially say there had been absolutely no new developments.
The last release came in 2013 ("NCAA Football 14") due to a settlement that got the publisher out of the Ed O'Bannon-led class action lawsuit that the NCAA ended up losing and is now appealing. Realistically, there are still two to three years before the game could possibly return.
MORE: O'Bannon appeal complicates 'NCAA Football' return | What O'Bannon ruling means
In an interview with SEC Country, ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit was asked whether EA should bring the "NCAA Football" series back. His response? “They better . . . I can’t believe Ed O’Bannon took that game away from us."
He later added that “Ed O’Bannon ruined that for all of us and hopefully we can get that fixed.”
Of course, it should be noted that Herbstreit was a party that profited from the "NCAA Football" franchise. He was on the game's commentary team from "NCAA Football 2002" to "NCAA Football 14."
The blame being placed solely on O'Bannon is misguided. O'Bannon wasn't even the first to sue EA Sports or the NCAA, and his particular case regarded athletes from the past being used in the games rather than the likenesses of current players. Sam Keller and Ryan Hart initially brought suits related to current players, and even Jim Brown had previously sued the company — though that related to being an unnamed player in Madden, but it was similar in nature to the issues at hand with NCAA.
O'Bannon just ended up being the face of a combined class action that argued over the presence of both past and current players in video games, plus their rights to money being made through broadcasting contracts and merchandising.
Herbstreit continued by arguing a position that is held by many student-athletes, but certainly can't be said for all of them.
“I’ve never met one player in college football that’s like: ‘They can’t use my name and likeness! I need to be paid!’ They’re just thrilled to be on the game," Herbstreit said. "They love being on the game. It’s like the biggest highlight of their life, is to be on the game.”
This probably holds more truth, though, for individuals who aren't able to extensively capitalize on their likeness — they aren't the players who would be signing endorsements if they could, who would be selling their autographs, who would be making appearance fees, who move jerseys off store shelves. The vast majority of college football and basketball players wouldn't be able to profit off their likenesses in such a manner. No one would be buying a video game for them. But it's the presence of the big-name, marketable, nationally known players who are the ones most harmed by the rules that are in place.
The truth is that this outcome, in which college video games would be taken away until collegiate athletes could be paid for their likenesses, was an inevitable one. Some players, whether current or former or both, were going to challenge the NCAA's rules for amatuerism, and argue that they deserve a cut of the money being made off their backs. Video games were just collateral damage in the fight over something much bigger.
Bryan Wiedey posts sports gaming news and analysis daily at Pastapadre.com, has co-founded the new site HitThePass.com, is the host of the Press Row Podcast, and can be reached on Twitter @Pastapadre.