Only watched the first 56 minutes of this film before fast forwarding to the end (it was that boring/uninteresting). If I had watched this in theatres, I feel that this would've been the first movie ever I would've walked out on and that's saying something as I love college football and I am passionate about the student-athletes getting what they deserve (you know how far we've come when Republican governors like Ron DeSantis are in favour of players getting a piece of the pie).
First things first; making a movie/tv show about a fictional sports team/character set in a real-life league is going to require licencing. I know, I know, if you get the licencing you're either going to have to pay and/or submit the script for approval but by not having that and being a low-budget movie, it takes away from the authenticity/realism especially when coaches, players, and media are referring to "ESPN," "the NCAA," "the Big 12," and "Vanderbilt." Although superficial (and films like "any Given Sunday" have arguably pulled this off) this leads into the second more important point: the scope.
A way to get around not having licensing when you're trying to depict two big college football programmes facing off in the title game for the College Football Playoff would've been to re-interpret this as a five-star recruit making the decision as to where he wants to go to college. Having a fictional high school would've gotten around the issue of licencing since those are way more believable, and it could've been centred around National Signing Day almost mirroring the recent decision made by top recruit Travis Hunter's decision to go to an HBCU over a Power 5 programme. Weighing the more exploitative relationship at an Alabama versus a Jackson State or Harvard (which have sent players to the NFL) where the player gets more bang for their buck would've been an interesting backdrop that also offered the limited scope (you could set the entire thing in the hallways of a high school).
Ultimately, one of the things working against this film is the fact that it is outdated. This is primarily because the primary issue of the NCAA was not that it didn't pay it's players; it has and does in the form of scholarships; the central argument was should student-athletes be able to receive compensation above and beyond (and even up to) the true cost of attendance. The NCAA made the fatal mistake of preventing players (adults) from making money (e.g. No internships--which this film does bring up--not being able to accept gifts) while at the same time they didn't want to provide additional compensation in the form of salaries. By reluctantly allowing NIL, this issue of "if you're not going to pay the players, don't stop them from making money" the issue has been punctured and with Justice Brett Kavanagh's scathing decision baiting a case to be taken to the Supreme Court to allow for players to be classified as employees, this issue has been relatively dealt with as it is only now a matter of when, and not if, this will happen. The film characters in the film do note that NIL will only benefit the name players, but this is not entirely true. NIL allows the fourth-string punter or the field hockey player to monetize Youtube or Instagram (even OnlyFans) or even return to their hometowns during the summer and set up their own sports camps using their own name, likeness, and image (NIL). Everyone actually benefits from NIL legislation much more than what the film would have you believe.
Also, the reason why (like the storyline in one of the recent NBA 2K's where a senior player "boycotts"---the accurate term should be strike--the national championship game in his sport) this is fictional and not based on a true story is that student-athletes at the Power 5 schools in the revenue generating sports benefit (yes, even under the table monetarily) from the system as well. In other words, they are not just victims. This is also an issue I had with a film this was compared to "High Flying Bird"; the reason there why the top athletes don't go an start their own basketball league is because then they would have to invest the money and directly suffer the risks of things like the pandemic. As an NBA player, you show up play and every two weeks, rain or shine, regardless if the league has lost television revenue, ratings, attendance is down, you get paid your guaranteed salary. That's why these movements are being hypothetically on film by those outside, and not within, the sport by those with the actual power to make the statement.
This is also illustrated in that we have the quarterback preaching to the students as to how the NCAA takes advantage of them. Not only is this patronizing, as his fellow students are also college students, but ever since NCAA Football 14 was cancelled by EA Sports and the successive lawsuits that have followed, you'd have to be pretty much living under a rock to not know how exploitative college athletes are (particularly as a college athlete).
Things that I did like where the ruthlessness of the NCAA in terms of instigating a destruction of character mission against the athletes. This is realistic whenever one goes up against a big corporation and many times, as the saying goes, it's not personal, it's business." The sideshow affair could've been cut (much like the romance in the film "Draft Day") but J. K. Simmons was good and you do buy Stephan James as the charismatic leader/quarterback (as a fellow Canuck, I appreciated the way James pronounced "Sues-catch-you-won" in the way an American would when he joked about having to play in the CFL; his Canadian co-star's "southern accent" though, came off as less authentic).
First things first; making a movie/tv show about a fictional sports team/character set in a real-life league is going to require licencing. I know, I know, if you get the licencing you're either going to have to pay and/or submit the script for approval but by not having that and being a low-budget movie, it takes away from the authenticity/realism especially when coaches, players, and media are referring to "ESPN," "the NCAA," "the Big 12," and "Vanderbilt." Although superficial (and films like "any Given Sunday" have arguably pulled this off) this leads into the second more important point: the scope.
A way to get around not having licensing when you're trying to depict two big college football programmes facing off in the title game for the College Football Playoff would've been to re-interpret this as a five-star recruit making the decision as to where he wants to go to college. Having a fictional high school would've gotten around the issue of licencing since those are way more believable, and it could've been centred around National Signing Day almost mirroring the recent decision made by top recruit Travis Hunter's decision to go to an HBCU over a Power 5 programme. Weighing the more exploitative relationship at an Alabama versus a Jackson State or Harvard (which have sent players to the NFL) where the player gets more bang for their buck would've been an interesting backdrop that also offered the limited scope (you could set the entire thing in the hallways of a high school).
Ultimately, one of the things working against this film is the fact that it is outdated. This is primarily because the primary issue of the NCAA was not that it didn't pay it's players; it has and does in the form of scholarships; the central argument was should student-athletes be able to receive compensation above and beyond (and even up to) the true cost of attendance. The NCAA made the fatal mistake of preventing players (adults) from making money (e.g. No internships--which this film does bring up--not being able to accept gifts) while at the same time they didn't want to provide additional compensation in the form of salaries. By reluctantly allowing NIL, this issue of "if you're not going to pay the players, don't stop them from making money" the issue has been punctured and with Justice Brett Kavanagh's scathing decision baiting a case to be taken to the Supreme Court to allow for players to be classified as employees, this issue has been relatively dealt with as it is only now a matter of when, and not if, this will happen. The film characters in the film do note that NIL will only benefit the name players, but this is not entirely true. NIL allows the fourth-string punter or the field hockey player to monetize Youtube or Instagram (even OnlyFans) or even return to their hometowns during the summer and set up their own sports camps using their own name, likeness, and image (NIL). Everyone actually benefits from NIL legislation much more than what the film would have you believe.
Also, the reason why (like the storyline in one of the recent NBA 2K's where a senior player "boycotts"---the accurate term should be strike--the national championship game in his sport) this is fictional and not based on a true story is that student-athletes at the Power 5 schools in the revenue generating sports benefit (yes, even under the table monetarily) from the system as well. In other words, they are not just victims. This is also an issue I had with a film this was compared to "High Flying Bird"; the reason there why the top athletes don't go an start their own basketball league is because then they would have to invest the money and directly suffer the risks of things like the pandemic. As an NBA player, you show up play and every two weeks, rain or shine, regardless if the league has lost television revenue, ratings, attendance is down, you get paid your guaranteed salary. That's why these movements are being hypothetically on film by those outside, and not within, the sport by those with the actual power to make the statement.
This is also illustrated in that we have the quarterback preaching to the students as to how the NCAA takes advantage of them. Not only is this patronizing, as his fellow students are also college students, but ever since NCAA Football 14 was cancelled by EA Sports and the successive lawsuits that have followed, you'd have to be pretty much living under a rock to not know how exploitative college athletes are (particularly as a college athlete).
Things that I did like where the ruthlessness of the NCAA in terms of instigating a destruction of character mission against the athletes. This is realistic whenever one goes up against a big corporation and many times, as the saying goes, it's not personal, it's business." The sideshow affair could've been cut (much like the romance in the film "Draft Day") but J. K. Simmons was good and you do buy Stephan James as the charismatic leader/quarterback (as a fellow Canuck, I appreciated the way James pronounced "Sues-catch-you-won" in the way an American would when he joked about having to play in the CFL; his Canadian co-star's "southern accent" though, came off as less authentic).