(07-10-2023 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the Supreme Court rules affirmatively in the Johnson case, and pay for play becomes reality, then profitability becomes the cutoff line for the upper tier. Subsidies become a liability and things will sort themselves out naturally and according to the free market. College athletics will become officially what it has been for a long, long time, a business. That designation is likely to impact the current necessity that state legislators feel to subsidize some programs. And while I'm not a lawyer the state subsidizing a business at tax payer expense is likely not kosher.

In any event if it follows this path I don't see the anti-trust provision playing a part so long as the attrition is natural and the coalescing of those which are profitable into a league is the defining process.

I agree that some college athletics have been a business for a long time. For me, a more important question is not whether they are a business (schools themselves are businesses), but whether they have changed to a point where they are no longer truly a business sufficiently related to the tax-exempt missions of some of the schools that engage in them to justify their tax-exempt status.

At what point are they more like the NFL in nature than the Ivy League? Does that happen when they generate nine-figure revenues like so many P5 schools today? And if not, does it ever happen, no matter how much money is at stake? I grew up at a time when major league baseball players took jobs in the offseason to make ends meet. That's similar to the differences in college football over that same time frame. And in my lifetime if there is one thing I have learned is that change is inevitable, and the pace of change almost always accelerates and rarely slows down. So hold on to your hats, we're in for quite a ride.

(07-10-2023 09:57 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  It's definitely an issue, not an insurmountable one but an issue. Here's a publication where the author argues for a couple of ways to create a top tier that would pass muster but you can bet the house on the fact that those left just outside will cry foul and probably challenge it legally.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cg...=sportslaw

edit:

And what he proposes is not a "P5" break away as he sees 65 as way too many as only a handful really have a chance at winning the CFP. But when you had Cincinnati make it to the playoffs not in a P5 then a criteria other than competitiveness or ability to compete may run afoul.

If the playoffs happened in between 2000 and 2012? Boise State, Utah, Tulane, Hawaii and TCU would have made the playoffs for their undefeated seasons.

(07-10-2023 01:22 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  The NCAA is a voluntary organization.
If the P2 wanted to walk away tomorrow nothing would stop them.
Nothing.

Better?
They could point at the NAIA and the NCAA as "competing" businesses with similar and different practices (like Ford, Chevy, and Dodge).

That’s all well and good to attempt to argue, but once again, it all depends on how the regulator or judge defines the relevant market. The P2 can argue that all day, but if the regulator/judge defines the market to be, “The percentage of overall revenue for FBS football” and the P2 alone have the majority of it (or the P5 have 80% or more of it), then they’re likely going to be blocked on antitrust grounds.

I can’t emphasize enough that this definition can change greatly depending on who is doing the evaluation. For instance, the Disney-Fox merger almost certainly wouldn’t get approved under the current presidential administration because they are taking a much narrower definition of applicable markets (e.g. the market is the handful of legacy movie studios in Hollywood) as opposed to a broader definition of the market (such as the entertainment industry including Apple, Amazon, YouTube, etc.). This isn’t about politics and whether it’s right or wrong, but rather the application of antitrust law can vary greatly depending on who is performing the enforcement.

(07-10-2023 10:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, it’s a real threat.

Now, whether a P5 breakaway would lose an antitrust case (or even before it gets to that point, FTC regulators stepping in from the get go) is a different question. As with any antitrust case, it’s highly fact-specific. For instance, how the “market” is defined by regulators or a court upfront can often determine the outcome of the case.

Is the market all spectator sports in America whether college or pro?

Is the market all of college athletics?

Is the market the top level of college football?

Anyone that pretends to say with absolute certainty about how the market would be defined is selling snake oil. A particular presidential administration or judge could have very different interpretations of what the relevant market would be.

A P5 breakaway *probably* doesn’t have market power if the market is defined as all spectator sports in America.

A P5 breakaway *probably* has market power if the market is defined as all of college athletics.

A P5 breakaway almost *certainly* has market power if the market is defined as the top level of college football.

I think of College sports as high sports. Both are run by the schools. In high school? A Should like Boise State would be in a P5 for the large city they are in.

(07-10-2023 10:36 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 09:51 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The only reason to break away from the NCAA is to pay the players as professional athletes.

I think the NIL structure is working. I don't think there will be any major complaints that rise to shake the current system.

If the only reason to break away from the NCAA is to pay people whose labor you have been getting for free, I'm pretty sure we know why it hasn't happened.

All schools have to pay their players in the future. The lawsuit was against the NCAA as a whole that does include all D1, D2 and D3 schools.

(07-10-2023 10:46 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 10:36 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 09:51 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The only reason to break away from the NCAA is to pay the players as professional athletes.

I think the NIL structure is working. I don't think there will be any major complaints that rise to shake the current system.

I don't think paying the players would be the primary reason. I would think the primary purpose of a breakaway league would be to create a new playoff structure and basketball tournament with the money split fewer ways.

Football should happen IMO. Basketball would be stupid and a lot more challenges to it. 2 of the final 4 last year were from conferences likely to get left out so how are you going to justify that's not anti-competitive?

Nothing would prohibit the breakaway conferences from inviting schools from outside the group into the "P5" tournament. I'd think that would sharpen the competition. The breakaway would just direct a greater amount of BB tournament money to the participating schools and conferences and more quickly than the NCAA parcels it out in dribs and drabs over a longer period.

(07-10-2023 11:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 09:57 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  It's definitely an issue, not an insurmountable one but an issue. Here's a publication where the author argues for a couple of ways to create a top tier that would pass muster but you can bet the house on the fact that those left just outside will cry foul and probably challenge it legally.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cg...=sportslaw

edit:

And what he proposes is not a "P5" break away as he sees 65 as way too many as only a handful really have a chance at winning the CFP. But when you had Cincinnati make it to the playoffs not in a P5 then a criteria other than competitiveness or ability to compete may run afoul.

If I'm reading it correctly, he is also arguing that teams in the top tier should not be allowed to play against teams in lower tiers for the same competitive reasons that a breakaway tier should be allowed. That is, he wouldn't allow games against FCS teams in the current structure, or P5 vs G5 in a new structure.

The problem with that, of course, is that the P5 doesn't want full competitiveness. They want to keep their body bag games to pad their records so alumni can puff up their chests every fall. And I don't think a smaller number of elite teams would only want to play each other exclusively.

At the end of the day, that piece sounds less like a legal opinion than a fan argument to me.

Exactly.

While it's a factor, I don't think antitrust is the biggest obstacle to a breakaway. The biggest obstacle is the degree to which the current P5-G5 relationship is symbiotic.

The P5 schools benefit by getting to play far more home games than they would if they only played each other. This increases their revenue streams and helps them pad their win totals, both of which reinforce their recruiting advantage over the G5 schools.

The G5 schools benefit by having a mechanism to earn some trickle-down cash from the P5 schools, and by retaining a formally defined path to the playoffs and national championship. This helps keep their athletic programs viable and allows them to claim they're playing at college football's highest level, even though the likelihood of any G5 school successfully navigating the national championship path is practically nil.

Many forces are remaking the college football landscape, but so long as the P5-G5 relationship continues to yield net benefits for both sides, I don't see it being severed.

Depends upon how it's set up. So long as it's free association and not a cartel.

I sort of envision a breakaway looking more like an AAU type of setup, with individual sports sanctioning, than like a full umbrella NCAA. Technically nobody would be excluded, and the gatekeeping would be at the tournament level.

What I see is a B1G/SEC and other power group sponsored invitational championships (Football, Basketball, maybe others), where certain conferences, either as proprietary owners, or via contract with the tournament, would be reserved a certain number of slots. As proprietary owners of the tournaments, the conferences would profit share. Selection would likely be farmed off, similar to how the NCAA does the CFP, MBB and WBB tournaments, where a committee would select the at-large participants, seeding and schedule slots.

It's very possible the schools and conferences would not technically leave the NCAA at all, simply withdraw from their tournaments. What they really want is to control and maximize the revenue, to actually get the money they create, rather than subsidize. But they don't want to run a college rules and regulations body. Hesitation on setting up an AAU like overseeing organization is the only thing preventing this from happening now (also the media recession).

Brett Yormark has recognized this possibility and is trying to position the Big 12 in such a way that it cannot be excluded. His aim is to have strong enough football, and dominant basketball requiring any championship require their participation to be valid. He's working on gaining the Big 12 an equity share alongside the B1G and SEC. (I am not the only one who sees this as a strong possibility)

So how might this look? For a 12 school CFP, you could see 2 slots for the B1G, 2 for the SEC, 1 for the Big 12 and 1 for the ACC, with the other 6 being at-large. Prize and appearance money would be paid to the participants, with equity partners splitting the profits (this is the way the original NIT worked). Something similar for a basketball tournament. Most likely these tournaments would be run by a corporate entity that would have equity members on the board. It would be responsible for media rights, legal and financial requirements. Conferences would be free to distribute profits, appearance and prize money among their members as they see fit; the tournament will cut the checks to the named entity by individual participants (i.e., Belmont might play in the basketball tournament and specify the MVC as the one to receive or may designate themselves, as it is not the tournaments concern).

As for the sanctioning body, likely an annual membership fee of say $1m per school might replace the NCAA, since it would no longer be earning money from tournaments, and in fact would be barred from doing so, to avoid ever returning to the welfare system of the current NCAA. Basically, schools would have to buy in, but would not be guaranteed any distributions whatsoever. They would have to perform at a high level to get anything. Collusion would be avoided by allowing any conference or group of schools to run their own tournaments, just like in AAU.

That is how I think it will get setup. A much looser operation, with sanctioning body separated from the championship tournaments.

(07-10-2023 02:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Depends upon how it's set up. So long as it's free association and not a cartel.

I sort of envision a breakaway looking more like an AAU type of setup, with individual sports sanctioning, than like a full umbrella NCAA. Technically nobody would be excluded, and the gatekeeping would be at the tournament level.

What I see is a B1G/SEC and other power group sponsored invitational championships (Football, Basketball, maybe others), where certain conferences, either as proprietary owners, or via contract with the tournament, would be reserved a certain number of slots. As proprietary owners of the tournaments, the conferences would profit share. Selection would likely be farmed off, similar to how the NCAA does the CFP, MBB and WBB tournaments, where a committee would select the at-large participants, seeding and schedule slots.

It's very possible the schools and conferences would not technically leave the NCAA at all, simply withdraw from their tournaments. What they really want is to control and maximize the revenue, to actually get the money they create, rather than subsidize. But they don't want to run a college rules and regulations body. Hesitation on setting up an AAU like overseeing organization is the only thing preventing this from happening now (also the media recession).

Brett Yormark has recognized this possibility and is trying to position the Big 12 in such a way that it cannot be excluded. His aim is to have strong enough football, and dominant basketball requiring any championship require their participation to be valid. He's working on gaining the Big 12 an equity share alongside the B1G and SEC. (I am not the only one who sees this as a strong possibility)

So how might this look? For a 12 school CFP, you could see 2 slots for the B1G, 2 for the SEC, 1 for the Big 12 and 1 for the ACC, with the other 6 being at-large. Prize and appearance money would be paid to the participants, with equity partners splitting the profits (this is the way the original NIT worked). Something similar for a basketball tournament. Most likely these tournaments would be run by a corporate entity that would have equity members on the board. It would be responsible for media rights, legal and financial requirements. Conferences would be free to distribute profits, appearance and prize money among their members as they see fit; the tournament will cut the checks to the named entity by individual participants (i.e., Belmont might play in the basketball tournament and specify the MVC as the one to receive or may designate themselves, as it is not the tournaments concern).

As for the sanctioning body, likely an annual membership fee of say $1m per school might replace the NCAA, since it would no longer be earning money from tournaments, and in fact would be barred from doing so, to avoid ever returning to the welfare system of the current NCAA. Basically, schools would have to buy in, but would not be guaranteed any distributions whatsoever. They would have to perform at a high level to get anything. Collusion would be avoided by allowing any conference or group of schools to run their own tournaments, just like in AAU.

That is how I think it will get setup. A much looser operation, with sanctioning body separated from the championship tournaments.

The bolded sounds similar to what other Kansas fans have told me was the way Phog Allen expected the NCAA basketball tournament to operate. When it didn't, I'm told Dr. Allen withdrew from the NCAA committee, which he had helped to form.

(07-10-2023 09:30 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  No, I don't think it's anti trust. I think what keeps them from breaking away is they gain very little from it and would pick up a ton more liability.

There was a lot of discussion. There are all the compensation lawsuits and the concussion lawsuits out there. They aren't ready to give up the NCAA umbrella with those issues hanging out there.

(07-10-2023 01:49 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 10:46 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 10:36 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 09:51 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The only reason to break away from the NCAA is to pay the players as professional athletes.

I think the NIL structure is working. I don't think there will be any major complaints that rise to shake the current system.

I don't think paying the players would be the primary reason. I would think the primary purpose of a breakaway league would be to create a new playoff structure and basketball tournament with the money split fewer ways.

Football should happen IMO. Basketball would be stupid and a lot more challenges to it. 2 of the final 4 last year were from conferences likely to get left out so how are you going to justify that's not anti-competitive?

Nothing would prohibit the breakaway conferences from inviting schools from outside the group into the "P5" tournament. I'd think that would sharpen the competition. The breakaway would just direct a greater amount of BB tournament money to the participating schools and conferences and more quickly than the NCAA parcels it out in dribs and drabs over a longer period.

Breaking off football is one thing. It's one sport, lot's of money, lots of disparity in resources and power. Kind of makes since. If you try to break off basketball then you're taking all of your sports out of the NCAA because you can't have a Div I conference that doesn't sponsor MBB. Now you've got to administer a bunch of individual tournaments in various sports with many having probably just a handful of members. It'd be a mess. That and destroying March Madness which a lot of people enjoy solely for those cinderella stories. So you might split the pie less ways but my guess is it'd be an overall smaller pie, a weaker product. Those are the reasons I said it'd be stupid. As far as the competition, sure you could invite who you want but that's not going to mean much for the antitrust lawsuit where plenty of schools that were guaranteed access to a premier MBB tournament and have shown to be able to compete and had success in the past are now at the whim of a select few. Again, not an attorney but I would think the argument for just football would be stronger than basketball (and essentially all sports).

(07-10-2023 02:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 09:30 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  No, I don't think it's anti trust. I think what keeps them from breaking away is they gain very little from it and would pick up a ton more liability.

There was a lot of discussion. There are all the compensation lawsuits and the concussion lawsuits out there. They aren't ready to give up the NCAA umbrella with those issues hanging out there.

Yes, this is a good point.

The legal shield and insurance coverage that the NCAA provides is a BIG deal (particularly in this litigious environment), even to leagues with a lot of money like the Big Ten and SEC.

(07-10-2023 02:28 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 02:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Prize and appearance money would be paid to the participants, with equity partners splitting the profits (this is the way the original NIT worked).

As for the sanctioning body, likely an annual membership fee of say $1m per school might replace the NCAA, since it would no longer be earning money from tournaments, and in fact would be barred from doing so, to avoid ever returning to the welfare system of the current NCAA. Basically, schools would have to buy in, but would not be guaranteed any distributions whatsoever. They would have to perform at a high level to get anything. Collusion would be avoided by allowing any conference or group of schools to run their own tournaments, just like in AAU.

The bolded sounds similar to what other Kansas fans have told me was the way Phog Allen expected the NCAA basketball tournament to operate. When it didn't, I'm told Dr. Allen withdrew from the NCAA committee, which he had helped to form.

I left the critical section to explain why things got off tract. The NCAA took control of the tournament, and thus the revenue. Politics in the NCAA led to a distribution regime. Then it used its power as sanctioning body and revenue distributer to kill off the NIT as a rival.

The way to avoid this is to remove revenue generation from the sanctioning body, restricting it to dues to pay for operations (e.g., making sure the tournament has insurance, as do the participants, and that rules are followed, but nothing more). I'd go farther and restrict sanctioning fees for tournaments to minimal dollar amounts, requiring these to be no more than necessary to perform those specific required duties. Every tournament would be a private operation, not run by the sanctioning body. I would not even allow this sanctioning body to have divisions. It's only top level, and only schools that pay can play.

Below the top level, what today is FCS, lower mid-major D-I and D-II, would very likely need a sanctioning body to operate a tournament. This is where I see the NCAA in the future, or some successor organization.

It is important that a new sanctioning body have no ambition to control everything, as this is what the NCAA is doing, and why it is failing.

I think the breakaway would be FBS + because the talks would be a split for all sports. They are talking along the football schools breaking away from the basketball only schools. Unless the Gonzaga, Wichita State, UTA, Little Rock, Big Least, etc schools without football? You are not welcome into the club unless you start getting really serious about football.

(07-10-2023 04:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the breakaway would be FBS + because the talks would be a split for all sports. They are talking along the football schools breaking away from the basketball only schools. Unless the Gonzaga, Wichita State, UTA, Little Rock, Big Least, etc schools without football? You are not welcome into the club unless you start getting really serious about football.

Both correct and incorrect at the same time. Yes, there is some desire not to take on the administrative load of non-revenue sports. Just leaving those in the NCAA may be the solution. But probably not, as the entire objective would be to demonetize the NCAA. But the NCAA is in the business of distributions and administrative control of the revenue making playoffs and tournaments. Keep that in mind, as I think such a solution won't work.

You are incorrect anyway in thinking Basketball would remain in the NCAA, as it is a revenue sport. Gonzaga doesn't matter much at all, a mere rounding error on the financial sheet of the big conferences. And everyone else is worth even less.

If you had the sanctioning body reduced to a skeletal AAU type structure, where it only collected membership dues, and was restricted to minimal charges for sanctioning events like playoffs and tournaments, with no access to the funds those generate, then anyone can own and organize a playoff or tournament. But these would be like the original NIT. They can invite anyone. Their legitimacy and ability to make money depends on inviting the stronger teams. This is why any playoff/tournament is almost certainly going to be some form of SEC and B1G cooperative venture, maybe with some other partners (e.g., XII, ACC) who contractually agree to participate. With a core of top conferences participating (with guarantees), the field can be filled out by invitation to others (no obligation to play, up to the individual schools, like Gonzaga, who can play in the tournament or in another if they want).

The autonomous schools may not want to replace the entire NCAA, but I suspect they will have to.

(07-10-2023 05:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 04:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the breakaway would be FBS + because the talks would be a split for all sports. They are talking along the football schools breaking away from the basketball only schools. Unless the Gonzaga, Wichita State, UTA, Little Rock, Big Least, etc schools without football? You are not welcome into the club unless you start getting really serious about football.

Both correct and incorrect at the same time. Yes, there is some desire not to take on the administrative load of non-revenue sports. Just leaving those in the NCAA may be the solution. But probably not, as the entire objective would be to demonetize the NCAA. But the NCAA is in the business of distributions and administrative control of the revenue making playoffs and tournaments. Keep that in mind, as I think such a solution won't work.

You are incorrect anyway in thinking Basketball would remain in the NCAA, as it is a revenue sport. Gonzaga doesn't matter much at all, a mere rounding error on the financial sheet of the big conferences. And everyone else is worth even less.

If you had the sanctioning body reduced to a skeletal AAU type structure, where it only collected membership dues, and was restricted to minimal charges for sanctioning events like playoffs and tournaments, with no access to the funds those generate, then anyone can own and organize a playoff or tournament. But these would be like the original NIT. They can invite anyone. Their legitimacy and ability to make money depends on inviting the stronger teams. This is why any playoff/tournament is almost certainly going to be some form of SEC and B1G cooperative venture, maybe with some other partners (e.g., XII, ACC) who contractually agree to participate. With a core of top conferences participating (with guarantees), the field can be filled out by invitation to others (no obligation to play, up to the individual schools, like Gonzaga, who can play in the tournament or in another if they want).

The autonomous schools may not want to replace the entire NCAA, but I suspect they will have to.

I am not talking about a breakaway from the NCAA total, I am saying along the lines that 1A/FBS for all sports and 1AA/FCS for all sports. Each divisions can make up their own rules except for the safety, nutrition, etc, but mainly the lower division conferences can set their own rules at their levels at D1 to actually recruit D2 to join D1. It would actually help nudge the schools at D2 on the fence about going to D1 finally pulling the trigger to go. Omaha could restart their football program, the Minnesota D2 schools could move up, etc.

(07-11-2023 04:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 05:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(07-10-2023 04:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the breakaway would be FBS + because the talks would be a split for all sports. They are talking along the football schools breaking away from the basketball only schools. Unless the Gonzaga, Wichita State, UTA, Little Rock, Big Least, etc schools without football? You are not welcome into the club unless you start getting really serious about football.

Both correct and incorrect at the same time. Yes, there is some desire not to take on the administrative load of non-revenue sports. Just leaving those in the NCAA may be the solution. But probably not, as the entire objective would be to demonetize the NCAA. But the NCAA is in the business of distributions and administrative control of the revenue making playoffs and tournaments. Keep that in mind, as I think such a solution won't work.

You are incorrect anyway in thinking Basketball would remain in the NCAA, as it is a revenue sport. Gonzaga doesn't matter much at all, a mere rounding error on the financial sheet of the big conferences. And everyone else is worth even less.

If you had the sanctioning body reduced to a skeletal AAU type structure, where it only collected membership dues, and was restricted to minimal charges for sanctioning events like playoffs and tournaments, with no access to the funds those generate, then anyone can own and organize a playoff or tournament. But these would be like the original NIT. They can invite anyone. Their legitimacy and ability to make money depends on inviting the stronger teams. This is why any playoff/tournament is almost certainly going to be some form of SEC and B1G cooperative venture, maybe with some other partners (e.g., XII, ACC) who contractually agree to participate. With a core of top conferences participating (with guarantees), the field can be filled out by invitation to others (no obligation to play, up to the individual schools, like Gonzaga, who can play in the tournament or in another if they want).

The autonomous schools may not want to replace the entire NCAA, but I suspect they will have to.

I am not talking about a breakaway from the NCAA total, I am saying along the lines that 1A/FBS for all sports and 1AA/FCS for all sports. Each divisions can make up their own rules except for the safety, nutrition, etc, but mainly the lower division conferences can set their own rules at their levels at D1 to actually recruit D2 to join D1. It would actually help nudge the schools at D2 on the fence about going to D1 finally pulling the trigger to go. Omaha could restart their football program, the Minnesota D2 schools could move up, etc.

What you are talking about is not a breakaway at all, just a Division-IV (D4) above the current FBS. You are still keeping everything sanctioned by the NCAA, and the monetary control under the NCAA. It's just cosmetics and the same redistribution of P5 earned money to support other schools lower in D1 and D2 continues. What is the point of that?

A true breakaway would ditch the NCAA altogether.