Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
Author Message
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,110
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-04-2018 10:12 AM)leofrog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 02:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Remember that the Supreme Court found that the *NCAA* was in violation of antritrust laws when it had rules in place to limit TV appearances for football programs and thereby limited TV revenue. When the NCAA lost that case to the University of Oklahoma, that set into motion the conference-focused landscape that we see today.

The upshot is that when the NCAA was essentially looking to make equal TV appearances and redistribute income amongst its members, *that* was an antitrust violation. The free market where the Big Ten and SEC get paid much more than everyone else is NOT an antitrust violation.

Many sports fans might not want to hear this, but based on that Supreme Court precedent (which certainly wouldn’t get overturned with the current Supreme Court lineup that generally supports corporate deregulation and weaker antitrust oversight), the NCAA Tournament (with its equal access and redistribution of income despite the power conferences generating the vast majority of the value of that event) is much more likely to be in violation of antitrust laws than the CFP.

Thats sort of true. If I remember correctly, what actually precipitated the case was the NCAA was going to block NCAA members from playing Oklahoma when Oklahoma announced it was going to take its TV rights elsewhere. So, what the court actually found was that the NCAA couldn't block NCAA member teams from playing Oklahoma (which opened the way for Oklahoma to take its TV rights elsewhere). It was considered anti-trust. Interestingly---the NCAA actually argued that Oklahoma could join other college athletic organizations (NAIA for instance) and that the NCAA was a private organization and that the organization was within its rights to decide who it would and would not play. The courts found that the NCAA so dominated the college football landscape that denying Oklahoma access to NCAA teams effectively amounted to anti-trust behavior.

I suspect the P5 would face similar issues if the G5 filed suit. If I am remembering the details correctly, the 84 NCAA vs Oklahoma Regents case actually would probably work against the P5 now that the P5 are in such a dominant position in the college football landscape. There is a reason they gave 85 million a year to the G5.

Except, that the College Football Playoff is its’ own entity, separate from the NCAA, governed by representatives of all 10 FBS conferences. This is the part that I think hurts the G5 in any potential lawsuits.

Again, there is 0 talk of lawsuits.
01-05-2018 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #42
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-04-2018 02:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The courts found that the NCAA so dominated the college football landscape that denying Oklahoma access to NCAA teams effectively amounted to anti-trust behavior.

I suspect the P5 would face similar issues if the G5 filed suit. If I am remembering the details correctly, the 84 NCAA vs Oklahoma Regents case actually would probably work against the P5 now that the P5 are in such a dominant position in the college football landscape. There is a reason they gave 85 million a year to the G5.

I don't see how. The NCAA lost at court for two reasons. First, it claimed the right to exclusively negotiate for its members, and then tried to enforce that by banning schools from competing against schools that didn't agree to sign their rights to the NCAA. The courts found both practices objectionable in light of the Sherman act. The court saw the exclusive deal as price-fixing AND unjustified for any competitive reasons. E.g., the NCAA claimed its TV restrictions had the rational purpose of protecting live attendance, but the court responded with "so, you're shielding live attendance from having to compete with TV"? That's anti-competitive, not pro-competitive.

It also found it ironic (and unacceptable) that the NCAA was claiming that having exclusive TV rights fosters competition when it was choosing to enforce that ban by preventing schools that wouldn't sign from competing against other NCAA teams that did.

The CFP faces none of those problems. The CFP doesn't try to ban its members from playing each other, etc. There's no restraint of anything.

Basically the only way it would is if the G5 wanted to do what others have proposed and break away from the P5 and form their own playoffs, and the CFP/P5 tried to prevent them from doing so. And that would only be relevant in 2025 once the current deal, which was signed by the G5, expires.
01-05-2018 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #43
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-04-2018 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not sure that a breakaway Power 4 or 5 necessarily constitutes an antitrust issue. The universities are allowed to freely associate with whichever institutions they'd like. If they want their own playoff structure that's their right. It sucks for the UConn's, UCF's, and Houston's of the world but that's the reality.

Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 11:24 AM by quo vadis.)
01-05-2018 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 02:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The courts found that the NCAA so dominated the college football landscape that denying Oklahoma access to NCAA teams effectively amounted to anti-trust behavior.

I suspect the P5 would face similar issues if the G5 filed suit. If I am remembering the details correctly, the 84 NCAA vs Oklahoma Regents case actually would probably work against the P5 now that the P5 are in such a dominant position in the college football landscape. There is a reason they gave 85 million a year to the G5.

I don't see how. The NCAA lost at court for two reasons. First, it claimed the right to exclusively negotiate for its members, and then tried to enforce that by banning schools from competing against schools that didn't agree to sign their rights to the NCAA. The courts found both practices objectionable in light of the Sherman act. The court saw the exclusive deal as price-fixing AND unjustified for any competitive reasons. E.g., the NCAA claimed its TV restrictions had the rational purpose of protecting live attendance, but the court responded with "so, you're shielding live attendance from having to compete with TV"? That's anti-competitive, not pro-competitive.

It also found it ironic (and unacceptable) that the NCAA was claiming that having exclusive TV rights fosters competition when it was choosing to enforce that ban by preventing schools that wouldn't sign from competing against other NCAA teams that did.

The CFP faces none of those problems. The CFP doesn't try to ban its members from playing each other, etc. There's no restraint of anything.

Basically the only way it would is if the G5 wanted to do what others have proposed and break away from the P5 and form their own playoffs, and the CFP/P5 tried to prevent them from doing so. And that would only be relevant in 2025 once the current deal, which was signed by the G5, expires.

Well--they are artificially capping the number of playoff games al a very low number for 130 team division---but basically I agree with you. Thats why Ive said breach of contract suit is a better route. I'd attack HOW the contract provisions are being carried out as unequitable and not in the spirit of the document rather than the contract provisions themsleves.
01-05-2018 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not sure that a breakaway Power 4 or 5 necessarily constitutes an antitrust issue. The universities are allowed to freely associate with whichever institutions they'd like. If they want their own playoff structure that's their right. It sucks for the UConn's, UCF's, and Houston's of the world but that's the reality.

Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 12:34 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-05-2018 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #46
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not sure that a breakaway Power 4 or 5 necessarily constitutes an antitrust issue. The universities are allowed to freely associate with whichever institutions they'd like. If they want their own playoff structure that's their right. It sucks for the UConn's, UCF's, and Houston's of the world but that's the reality.

Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 12:52 PM by quo vadis.)
01-05-2018 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
Am I missing something but aren't there a lot of P5 commissioners on record with limiting the amount of G5 games? How does that not actually play into the antitrust case. It's on record.
01-05-2018 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 01:42 PM)otown Wrote:  Am I missing something but aren't there a lot of P5 commissioners on record with limiting the amount of G5 games? How does that not actually play into the antitrust case. It's on record.

They don't want to limit the number of G5 games to hurt the G5. They want to limit the number of G5 games because they get higher ticket prices for P5 games and because the networks pay them more for playing a P5 schedule and there is no court that will constrain a state university's ability to earn more revenue.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 01:47 PM by JRsec.)
01-05-2018 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not sure that a breakaway Power 4 or 5 necessarily constitutes an antitrust issue. The universities are allowed to freely associate with whichever institutions they'd like. If they want their own playoff structure that's their right. It sucks for the UConn's, UCF's, and Houston's of the world but that's the reality.

Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week. Just another reason I think the 8-team format with P5 champs being AQ with a slot reserved for the top G5 champ is inevitable. The current position is getting harder and harder to defend. Now its not just leagal grounds---there is a public backplash where more and more view the system as unfair and unjust. That tends to be a tipping point for change.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 02:01 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-05-2018 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:42 PM)otown Wrote:  Am I missing something but aren't there a lot of P5 commissioners on record with limiting the amount of G5 games? How does that not actually play into the antitrust case. It's on record.

They don't want to limit the number of G5 games to hurt the G5. They want to limit the number of G5 games because they get higher ticket prices for P5 games and because the networks pay them more for playing a P5 schedule and there is no court that will constrain a state university's ability to earn more revenue.

Thats a bit of a circular argument. Those games would probably be more attractive if those G5 teams had a real opportunity to be in the playoff. As it stands--P5 games against the G5 may as well be FCS games since FCS teams have about the same chance as a G5 for landing in CFP. My guess is a few years with legitimate access to the CFP would do wonders for recruiting at the top G5 programs.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 02:05 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-05-2018 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:42 PM)otown Wrote:  Am I missing something but aren't there a lot of P5 commissioners on record with limiting the amount of G5 games? How does that not actually play into the antitrust case. It's on record.

They don't want to limit the number of G5 games to hurt the G5. They want to limit the number of G5 games because they get higher ticket prices for P5 games and because the networks pay them more for playing a P5 schedule and there is no court that will constrain a state university's ability to earn more revenue.

However, isn't that the whole reason there are antitrust laws? Any company being on the unfavorable side of an antitrust court decision was just trying to make more money for themselves on the free market, even if it unfairly affected the other businesses. Take that and intertwine it with no viable alternative to top tier football and there is an issue here.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 02:06 PM by otown.)
01-05-2018 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not sure that a breakaway Power 4 or 5 necessarily constitutes an antitrust issue. The universities are allowed to freely associate with whichever institutions they'd like. If they want their own playoff structure that's their right. It sucks for the UConn's, UCF's, and Houston's of the world but that's the reality.

Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week.
Completely different worlds huh? By what metrics? The same ones that really distinguish P5's from G5's: Revenue, Venue Size, Attendance, Quality of Facilities, Enrollment, and Endowment for Athletics.

Texas A&M generated 191 million in revenue last year. Houston generated about 50 million. And yet I consider Houston to be on the cusp of P5 status. Endowment, Facilities Quality, and Attendance say you are not P5 status yet. Only enrollment could pass at some P5 levels.

If you set 50 million as your cut off only about 7 G5's qualify. But the truth is that's 16 million behind the two P5 Schools ranked lower than 65th.

Of the G5's only two presently finish 65th or higher in revenue rankings: B.Y.U. and UConn. There are the only two schools that truly have a beef.

By all metrics a 50 million dollar cut off for the minimum revenue standard would be overwhelmingly generous. You know why?

The average SEC school generates 131 million per year.
The average B1G school generates 115 million per year.
The average B12 school generates 108 million per year.
The average PAC school generates 89 million per year.
The average ACC school generates 87 million per year.

And only the ACC has more than 1 who is making less than 70 million a year: Georgia Tech and Wake Forest. Do you care to match academics with those two?

So, if further stratification was enforced by the creation of new divisions then by all metrics only B.Y.U. and Connecticut have a case for inclusion.

No association of schools will ever be forced by the courts to include a member whose presence devalues their association. That's the end of this story.
01-05-2018 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week.
Completely different worlds huh? By what metrics? The same ones that really distinguish P5's from G5's: Revenue, Venue Size, Attendance, Quality of Facilities, Enrollment, and Endowment for Athletics.

Texas A&M generated 191 million in revenue last year. Houston generated about 50 million. And yet I consider Houston to be on the cusp of P5 status. Endowment, Facilities Quality, and Attendance say you are not P5 status yet. Only enrollment could pass at some P5 levels.

If you set 50 million as your cut off only about 7 G5's qualify. But the truth is that's 16 million behind the two P5 Schools ranked lower than 65th.

Of the G5's only two presently finish 65th or higher in revenue rankings: B.Y.U. and UConn. There are the only two schools that truly have a beef.

By all metrics a 50 million dollar cut off for the minimum revenue standard would be overwhelmingly generous. You know why?

The average SEC school generates 131 million per year.
The average B1G school generates 115 million per year.
The average B12 school generates 108 million per year.
The average PAC school generates 89 million per year.
The average ACC school generates 87 million per year.

And only the ACC has more than 1 who is making less than 70 million a year: Georgia Tech and Wake Forest. Do you care to match academics with those two?

So, if further stratification was enforced by the creation of new divisions then by all metrics only B.Y.U. and Connecticut have a case for inclusion.

No association of schools will ever be forced by the courts to include a member whose presence devalues their association. That's the end of this story.

You are missing the fact that they are doing this, all within the realm of being designated second class citizens and not getting teams like Alabama, Texas, Michigan to play at home. Not even a shot at the playoffs if they go undefeated. Put them in a P5 conference, and within 5 years, their revenue will be at least mid tier P5. Hell, the rumor is that Auburn didn't even sell their full ticket allotment to the Peach bowl. You demote Auburn to a G5 conference and let's talk where their revenue is in 5 to 10 years.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 02:23 PM by otown.)
01-05-2018 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
College football is not violating anti-trust 1/10 as much as any professional sports league outside of baseball (which has an official exemption).

I know people love to argue anti-trust, but really that's the case. Start a professional football or basketball team and tell me how much access you have to the Super Bowl or NBA Finals.

College football will not be even at the same point that those sports are until it removes all access to the major bowls and playoff. The big players have more power here no doubt, but there is literally nothing stopping the conferences from breaking apart or dropping their post-season affiliation with any conference except mutual self interest.

If we ever get to the point the major conferences break away or exclude the Group of 5 entirely (a long way from where we are now), then the anti-trust issues will become equal to the anti-trust issues against the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.

Edit: None of this is to say you can't argue for or against different approaches, but the anti-trust angle has never held water to me.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 02:35 PM by ohio1317.)
01-05-2018 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 02:22 PM)otown Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week.
Completely different worlds huh? By what metrics? The same ones that really distinguish P5's from G5's: Revenue, Venue Size, Attendance, Quality of Facilities, Enrollment, and Endowment for Athletics.

Texas A&M generated 191 million in revenue last year. Houston generated about 50 million. And yet I consider Houston to be on the cusp of P5 status. Endowment, Facilities Quality, and Attendance say you are not P5 status yet. Only enrollment could pass at some P5 levels.

If you set 50 million as your cut off only about 7 G5's qualify. But the truth is that's 16 million behind the two P5 Schools ranked lower than 65th.

Of the G5's only two presently finish 65th or higher in revenue rankings: B.Y.U. and UConn. There are the only two schools that truly have a beef.

By all metrics a 50 million dollar cut off for the minimum revenue standard would be overwhelmingly generous. You know why?

The average SEC school generates 131 million per year.
The average B1G school generates 115 million per year.
The average B12 school generates 108 million per year.
The average PAC school generates 89 million per year.
The average ACC school generates 87 million per year.

And only the ACC has more than 1 who is making less than 70 million a year: Georgia Tech and Wake Forest. Do you care to match academics with those two?

So, if further stratification was enforced by the creation of new divisions then by all metrics only B.Y.U. and Connecticut have a case for inclusion.

No association of schools will ever be forced by the courts to include a member whose presence devalues their association. That's the end of this story.

You are missing the fact that they are doing this, all within the realm of being designated second class citizens and not getting teams like Alabama, Texas, Michigan to play at home. Not even a shot at the playoffs if they go undefeated. Put them in a P5 conference, and within 5 years, their revenue will be at least mid tier P5. Hell, the rumor is that Auburn didn't even sell their full ticket allotment to the Peach bowl. You demote Auburn to a G5 conference and let's talk where their revenue is in 5 to 10 years.

I can't recall a single P5 school that sold its entire ticket allotment when forced to play the G5 representative. And the bowls take turn losing money by offering that spot. But Auburn was 10th last year in total revenue 1 spot ahead of Notre Dame and we averaged about 87,000 at home. We aren't in any danger.

When you can put forth an argument based on something more than spurious accusations and backed with some hard core facts, I'll listen. But you've been stirring crap in a lot of threads and getting away with backing one false accusation with another while grandstanding to those who have a beef with the system.

All I'm saying is that you don't have a legal leg to stand upon, and that nobody is going to force state schools to earn less by taking in other schools that bring down their associations revenues. Freedom of association is not at stake.

Furthermore, every strata of sports in America has enrollment, investment, and size restrictions to define divisions within a particular sport. When the NCAA finally permits the upper tier to form, or when the upper tier demands it, that won't be illegal either.

When those who know the law have stated this you ignored them and kept up your lawsuit bogus threats and your accusations of misdeeds. Just like you kept woofing about the revenue even though there are ample sites and a compiled list here.

Until you start backing up your accusations with facts, or sustainable precedents, I will merely consider that you are trolling.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 03:17 PM by JRsec.)
01-05-2018 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #56
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not sure that a breakaway Power 4 or 5 necessarily constitutes an antitrust issue. The universities are allowed to freely associate with whichever institutions they'd like. If they want their own playoff structure that's their right. It sucks for the UConn's, UCF's, and Houston's of the world but that's the reality.

Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week. Just another reason I think the 8-team format with P5 champs being AQ with a slot reserved for the top G5 champ is inevitable. The current position is getting harder and harder to defend. Now its not just leagal grounds---there is a public backplash where more and more view the system as unfair and unjust. That tends to be a tipping point for change.

The NCAA lost because of it (a) fixed prices, and (b) enforced the price-fixing with a boycott of recalcitrant members. Nothing about the P5 leaving the G5 would involve either of those things. The P5 would not be forcing the G5 to accept a contract negotiated by the P5 and if it was smart, it would not try to preclude P5 teams from playing willing G5 teams. But a split is easily accomplishable without doing either of those things.

Basically, the G5 argument would be similar to what UConn argued in 2003 when it tried to sue Miami for leaving the Big East, "hey, we invested a bunch of money in a stadium because we thought Miami would be playing here, so they shouldn't be allowed to leave!" It's actually an attempt to restrain trade, force someone to do business with you.

Now you raise an interesting point about "blocking access to the CFP". That sounds like a lawsuit that would be filed now, and it would be a breach of contract claim, that the P5 schools are violating the terms of the agreement so as to block G5 teams from the playoffs.

That's going to be really hard to prove. First, the committee members are chosen by the Management Committee of the CFP, which is the 10 conference commissioners plus Notre Dame. So it's hard for the G5 to argue that the members are selected without their fair input and according to the procedure agreed upon.

Second, unless some kind of memo is found whereby it is clear that the P5 conferences are making payments to the committee members to get them to exclude G5 candidates in their ranking deliberations, it's going to be hard to argue that the committee members are using anything but their good faith conscience to evaluate teams.

As for pubic backlash, that IMO has never worked to change the system. The only thing that has worked was congressional pressure, namely in the form of Orin Hatch, who was responding not to a national sense of outrage but rather the politics of his own state of Utah. That worked because at root, it's not the courts but congress that controls this issue. In their 1984 decision, the court didn't rely on constitutional principles, they interpreted an act of congress, the sherman anti-trust act. So Congress could make what the CFP is doing illegal by simply amending the Sherman act to make it so. Congress often does this - if the supreme court interprets a law (a law passed by congress, not a constitutional provision - congress can on its own change the former but not the latter) in a way that congress disagrees with, congress will pass a new law clarifying for the courts that it really did intend a different outcome. That's the danger that the BCS responded to and it led to the changes that brought about more inclusion into the BCS from 2005 onwards and also helped move the conferences to change the BCS to the CFP.

Congress definitely has the power to change the various anti-trust acts to make what the CFP is doing illegal, that's the danger the CFP will respond to.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 03:40 PM by quo vadis.)
01-05-2018 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week. Just another reason I think the 8-team format with P5 champs being AQ with a slot reserved for the top G5 champ is inevitable. The current position is getting harder and harder to defend. Now its not just leagal grounds---there is a public backplash where more and more view the system as unfair and unjust. That tends to be a tipping point for change.

The NCAA lost because of it (a) fixed prices, and (b) enforced the price-fixing with a boycott of recalcitrant members. Nothing about the P5 leaving the G5 would involve either of those things. The P5 would not be forcing the G5 to accept a contract negotiated by the P5 and if it was smart, it would not try to preclude P5 teams from playing willing G5 teams. But a split is easily accomplishable without doing either of those things.

Basically, the G5 argument would be similar to what UConn argued in 2003 when it tried to sue Miami for leaving the Big East, "hey, we invested a bunch of money in a stadium because we thought Miami would be playing here, so they shouldn't be allowed to leave!" It's actually an attempt to restrain trade, force someone to do business with you.

Now you raise an interesting point about "blocking access to the CFP". That sounds like a lawsuit that would be filed now, and it would be a breach of contract claim, that the P5 schools are violating the terms of the agreement so as to block G5 teams from the playoffs.

That's going to be really hard to prove. First, the committee members are chosen by the Management Committee of the CFP, which is the 10 conference commissioners plus Notre Dame. So it's hard for the G5 to argue that the members are selected without their fair input and according to the procedure agreed upon.

Second, unless some kind of memo is found whereby it is clear that the P5 conferences are making payments to the committee members to get them to exclude G5 candidates in their ranking deliberations, it's going to be hard to argue that the committee members are using anything but their good faith conscience to evaluate teams.

As for pubic backlash, that IMO has never worked to change the system. The only thing that has worked was congressional pressure, namely in the form of Orin Hatch, who was responding not to a national sense of outrage but rather the politics of his own state of Utah. That worked because at root, it's not the courts but congress that controls this issue. In their 1984 decision, the court didn't rely on constitutional principles, they interpreted an act of congress, the sherman anti-trust act. So Congress could make what the CFP is doing illegal by simply amending the Sherman act to make it so. Congress often does this - if the supreme court interprets a law (a law passed by congress, not a constitutional provision - congress can on its own change the former but not the latter) in a way that congress disagrees with, congress will pass a new law clarifying for the courts that it really did intend a different outcome. That's the danger that the BCS responded to and it led to the changes that brought about more inclusion into the BCS from 2005 onwards and also helped move the conferences to change the BCS to the CFP.

Congress definitely has the power to change the various anti-trust acts to make what the CFP is doing illegal, that's the danger the CFP will respond to.

Shrug. We are just going to have to disagree on this. I dont think the anti-trust angle is completley groundless--I just think its the weaker of the 2 cases. That said, the CFP gave the G5 85 million plus another 4 for appearing in the access game. If there was no value in the G5 (as many have stated) and there was no fear of anti-trust--then why do that?

We arent going to solve it here--nor is there going to be a lawsuit (thats basicaly the final nuclear option), but I dont think the option is as groundless as you do (and I suspect neither does the CFP). 04-cheers
01-05-2018 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,558
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 180
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm not sure that a breakaway Power 4 or 5 necessarily constitutes an antitrust issue. The universities are allowed to freely associate with whichever institutions they'd like. If they want their own playoff structure that's their right. It sucks for the UConn's, UCF's, and Houston's of the world but that's the reality.

Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week. Just another reason I think the 8-team format with P5 champs being AQ with a slot reserved for the top G5 champ is inevitable. The current position is getting harder and harder to defend. Now its not just leagal grounds---there is a public backplash where more and more view the system as unfair and unjust. That tends to be a tipping point for change.

Again, the CFP chooses the TOP FOUR TEAMS not the top four conference champs. They have already shown that conference champions do not guarantee entry to the CFP entry with OSU and Alabama. Again, I give the CFP credit from learning from the mistakes of the BCS.

What happens in the next contract the P5 stays the same and offer the G5 similar offer to what they currently % wise have and one of the following happen.

- All but the AAC agrees, other G4 take the money and run along with the G5 share.
- All G5 says no, and either NCAA creates own Division or P5 breakaway.

How does any this violate anti-trust? Remember, this does not even touch TV money.
01-05-2018 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,281
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 217
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
I'm not entirely sure one can say the CFP isn't the NCAA's problem if there's a barrier between FBS and the conference invitation rule that Liberty just ran past.

FBS and this "not my problem" fallacy is ripe for some sort of legal fight because conference rules and considerations are so stacked for mass affiliation and sponsorship.

In the ideal setting, any school could/should place any athletic program into any conference it wanted.
01-05-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Antitrust....... put to bed or bring out?
(01-05-2018 03:59 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 01:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Exactly. "Restraint of trade" means trying to *stop* entity X that is currently a sub-set of entity B from leaving. That's what the NCAA tried to do in 1984 - prevent a subset of its members, the CFA, from negotiating its own TV deal and threatening them with a boycott if they did.

That's the opposite of what a P5 breakaway would be, they wouldn't be trying to keep the G5 in the fold so no restraint of trade.

Likewise, once the CFP contract is up, if the G5 decided to break away and have their own playoffs, that would not be antitrust, rather it would be antitrust if the P5 tried to keep them from doing so.

Now this is where you have a problem with your argument you made in several posts---because the NCAA argued in 1984 that their group TV deal wasnt restraint of trade because Oklahoma could keep their rights and join any number of other college football organizations (such as the NAIA) if they didn't like the NCAA deal. The NCAA wasn't "forcing" them to stay. You're making essentially the same argument---saying the G5 could start their own playoff or league if they dont like the way the current agreement is being implemented. However, what you seem to be ignoring is that the Supreme Court found that the NCAA was so dominant in that space, that there was no real reasonable alternative to the NCAA for Oklahoma---therefore the NCAA was being anti-competetive. Id argue that the Supreme Court would likely find that the P5 so dominates the top level of college football that the same could be said of them. Any league or playoff that didnt include the P5 would not likely be a reasonably similar alternative. Keep in mind--the G5 isnt asking for more money. They are simply asking to be treated fairly in an existing agreement. In other words, I think your unlikely to find that the courts will say its ok for the P5 to treat the G5 unfairly and unequitably in regards to competition for a championship in intercollegient football simply because of their more powerful market position. That would be anti-competetive.

The key difference IMO is that the NCAA didn't just say that Oklahoma was free to leave the NCAA, they also instituted a ban on NCAA teams competing against Oklahoma. That's where the restraint came in.

Similarly, if the G5 broke away from the P5 (or vice versa), and in retaliation the group that didn't want a split told its members that you can't schedule games against G5/P5, that would be a big restraint issue.

The notion that the P5 is 'so dominant' also doesn't seem to make sense to me, simply because there are plenty of college football programs - in FCS, Division II, and Division III, that aren't affiliated with the P5 and yet they carry on with their football programs anyway.

In effect, G5 would be making an argument that somehow the law says they must be allowed to compete at a certain level of football, make a certain amount of money, play against Alabama for a championship, etc. And i don't think any court is likely to agree with that. It's more a claim of entitlement than anything else.

Same exact argument the NCAA made and lost. But lets be honest, everyone can see through that. When people discuss college football--they are not talking about FCS, D2, and D3. Those completely different worlds and are not equally viable options to the existing FBS world. Essentially, the P5 are using thier market position to block the G5 from access to the CFP. Thats really not going to be that hard to prove--especially when commissioners are making public statements like Bowlsby did this week. Just another reason I think the 8-team format with P5 champs being AQ with a slot reserved for the top G5 champ is inevitable. The current position is getting harder and harder to defend. Now its not just leagal grounds---there is a public backplash where more and more view the system as unfair and unjust. That tends to be a tipping point for change.


- All but the AAC agrees, other G4 take the money and run along with the G5 share.
- All G5 says no, and either NCAA creates own Division or P5 breakaway.

What happens if option 1 happens? Does the AAC get locked out of everything? Is that even possible? Or is the voting structure in a way that even if the AAC doesn't agree to it, if the other 4 accept it, they are pulled in?
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 04:03 PM by otown.)
01-05-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.