ACC options

[Dizzy21]

BC is significantly ahead of us..and still would be if we had p5 TV $$.... surprised by how much. Did not realize how valuable their product was.

This year's conference distribution difference would have closed the gap with just one year. Add into that 4 more years and an extra year of football revenue because we cancelled and we are something like $100 million more than them.

 

[nadav]

BC is significantly ahead of us..and still would be if we had p5 TV $$.... surprised by how much. Did not realize how valuable their product was.

Are you kidding? They take in 7 mil more a year. That’s not significant and they certainly are not valuable.

 

[CL82]

The schools in the ACC > Big12.

BC?

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Are you kidding? They take in 7 mil more a year. That’s not significant and they certainly are not valuable.

If you gave us the same tv revenue and exposure (that they get in the ACC), we'd be ahead of them by a healthy margin and be up around the 500m mark with Cal, etc.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Because they cannot prove collusion,

Has the Big Ten colluded with the SEC? No. They are competing.
Have any of the P-5 colluded with another conference? No. They are competing
Have Fox and ESPN colluded? No. They are competing,

So, no "classic anti-trust case.

Has the Big Ten colluded with Fox? No. They have contracted.

Has the SEC colluded with ESPN? No. they have contracted.

ESPN and Fox both contract with other teams and conferences in addition to the SEC and the Big . They haven't shut anybody out. No I don't agree that this is a "textbook anti-trust case" at all.

This is absolutely a classic anti-trust case. The major conferences, by themselves, are an anti-trust violation. The conferences market power is solely based on the collusion of the individual members. The universities are separate legal entities, so there is no free pass to collude with each other in a conference for greater market power. Since illegal collusion is the basis for the SEC's and Big 10's, and Big 12's and ACC's for that matter, market power, the problem does not improve at the conference level.

Market concentration is another test for anti-trust. It is a complicated formula for market concentration, but the Justice Department generally frowns upon mergers that will consolidate more than 20% of a market into a single player. The 4 major conferences have a stranglehold of about 80-90% of the total revenue available to college athletics. Maybe there is still some competition between them, but the existence of a CFP playoff model where the 4 major conferences all have a permanent automatic bid to the CFP, which they got because of their prior collusion into conferences that had exceptional market power, is a really big problem for them legally.

Finally, the fact that their prior collusion is enabling the early conference members to drive grossly unequal economic terms to new members is even a bigger problem, because it proves that there is market power from the collusion, and that the conferences are using their collusion to drive unequal terms. Ironically, ESPN, with its pro rata per team structure in its contracts, actually lets itself off the hook a little here because it is not directing the unequal revenue splits internally at the conference. Fox and CBS are probably in the clear too. All three are still exposed on the monopolistic ripping up of the Pac 12, since they all appeared to play a significant role in that.

I do not think there is a chance the conferences would survive an anti-trust lawsuit. The fact pattern is terrible, and sports leagues usually lose anti-trust cases to begin with, so the hurdle is not that high. I suspect that the P4 know this, which is why they are so generous with the G5 conferences in the CFP splits. The G5 has a lot of leverage in the revenue split negotiations after what just happened with the P5 going to P4.

 

[businesslawyer]

This is absolutely a classic anti-trust case. The major conferences, by themselves, are an anti-trust violation. The conferences market power is solely based on the collusion of the individual members. The universities are separate legal entities, so there is no free pass to collude with each other in a conference for greater market power. Since illegal collusion is the basis for the SEC's and Big 10's, and Big 12's and ACC's for that matter, market power, the problem does not improve at the conference level.

Market concentration is another test for anti-trust. It is a complicated formula for market concentration, but the Justice Department generally frowns upon mergers that will consolidate more than 20% of a market into a single player. The 4 major conferences have a stranglehold of about 80-90% of the total revenue available to college athletics. Maybe there is still some competition between them, but the existence of a CFP playoff model where the 4 major conferences all have a permanent automatic bid to the CFP, which they got because of their prior collusion into conferences that had exceptional market power, is a really big problem for them legally.

Finally, the fact that their prior collusion is enabling the early conference members to drive grossly unequal economic terms to new members is even a bigger problem, because it proves that there is market power from the collusion, and that the conferences are using their collusion to drive unequal terms. Ironically, ESPN, with its pro rata per team structure in its contracts, actually lets itself off the hook a little here because it is not directing the unequal revenue splits internally at the conference. Fox and CBS are probably in the clear too. All three are still exposed on the monopolistic ripping up of the Pac 12, since they all appeared to play a significant role in that.

I do not think there is a chance the conferences would survive an anti-trust lawsuit. The fact pattern is terrible, and sports leagues usually lose anti-trust cases to begin with, so the hurdle is not that high. I suspect that the P4 know this, which is why they are so generous with the G5 conferences in the CFP splits. The G5 has a lot of leverage in the revenue split negotiations after what just happened with the P5 going to P4.

So unlike your rants about Title IX, here you are on the right track. I have said for over a decade that general antitrust principles have been totally suspended in the case of college sports for reasons I don't understand. Here, there is the possibility of laws being used to change the system.

 

[billybud]

NCAA vs Alston had some interesting language from the Supremes...

Although Alston put the NCAA on notice that it could be held liable for violating antitrust laws, the court took a different approach to conferences, noting “individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow — or more restrictive ones still.”

Looking at the NCAA overall and the 32 conferences that make up Division I, the court likely reasoned that if any one conference adopted restrictive rules on player compensation, athletes could offer their services elsewhere. For example, an athlete dissatisfied with the Ivy League’s policy against athletic scholarships has numerous other conference options.

 

[billybud]

Now...if there ends up being two superconferences...some legal pundits think that may alter the philosophy...

In the scenario where the Big Ten is one of two super conferences, the analysis looks different. An elite player unable or uninterested in securing an offer from an SEC school would have to either: (1) live with the Big Ten restriction; or (2) play in a lower-tier conference. In this world, the restriction might well be considered an undue restraint on competition. The biggest question in evaluating such a restriction would be how the relevant labor market is defined. In Alston, the court described the NCAA’s Division I as representing the labor market for elite college athletics generally. To prevail in an antitrust lawsuit, a plaintiff would have to show that in a “super conference world,” the Big Ten and SEC constitute the market for elite college football players specifically.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

NCAA vs Alston had some interesting language from the Supremes...

Although Alston put the NCAA on notice that it could be held liable for violating antitrust laws, the court took a different approach to conferences, noting “individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow — or more restrictive ones still.”

Looking at the NCAA overall and the 32 conferences that make up Division I, the court likely reasoned that if any one conference adopted restrictive rules on player compensation, athletes could offer their services elsewhere. For example, an athlete dissatisfied with the Ivy League’s policy against athletic scholarships has numerous other conference options.

"individual conferences" is the key word, and even that probably would get deeper scrutiny if the majors took any punitive steps against athletes. That phrase was primarily for the low major conferences so that they would not be forced to pay players out of an empty till.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So unlike your rants about Title IX, here you are on the right track. I have said for over a decade that general antitrust principles have been totally suspended in the case of college sports for reasons I don't understand. Here, there is the possibility of laws being used to change the system.

A standard anti-trust defense is to try to expand the definition of market size. The P4 may argue that they are part of a broader entertainment industry. Not a great argument, but one they would try to make.

Ironically, I believe that if the P4 continue down this road, they may end up being plaintiffs, not defendants. I still think the NBA and NFL are waiting for college sports to become concentrated enough that the pro leagues can drown it in a bathtub, and take those billions of dollars of revenue for themselves. I can promise you that the P4 hypocrites would sue the pro leagues if that ever happened.

 

[billybud]

"individual conferences" is the key word, and even that probably would get deeper scrutiny if the majors took any punitive steps against athletes. That phrase was primarily for the low major conferences so that they would not be forced to pay players out of an empty till.

It has to do with how the Court defined the "labor market".

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It has to do with how the Court defined the "labor market".

I understand, but the colleges were stomped 9-0 in Alston by the most divided Supreme Court since before the Civil War. This is also probably the most hostile Court to labor since the 30's, and the colleges still got destroyed in a labor case. You think that major colleges want to run back to court in another anti-trust case between competitors in a market? The case would never get to the Supreme Court, and would probably get smashed in court, and then smashed in the first appeal.

 

[businesslawyer]

A standard anti-trust defense is to try to expand the definition of market size. The P4 may argue that they are part of a broader entertainment industry. Not a great argument, but one they would try to make.

Ironically, I believe that if the P4 continue down this road, they may end up being plaintiffs, not defendants. I still think the NBA and NFL are waiting for college sports to become concentrated enough that the pro leagues can drown it in a bathtub, and take those billions of dollars of revenue for themselves. I can promise you that the P4 hypocrites would sue the pro leagues if that ever happened.

But the NBA allowing younger players to turn pro isn't anti-competitive -- it's pro competitive. There is no basis at all for that kind of suit.

 

[bendm]

hate this as a Cal alum. if any school actually gave a damn about student athletes it was supposed to be them, but no. Selling their soul for a 25% cut which will all go towards travel costs. can ACC at least change its name to the Athletic Coastal Conference?

 

[HuskyHawk]

But the NBA allowing younger players to turn pro isn't anti-competitive -- it's pro competitive. There is no basis at all for that kind of suit.

He's conflating two entirely different things. The labor situation with students isn't going to be a way to attack the conference/TV arrangements at all.

I think going after the conferences will be very hard. The definition of "market" would indeed be critical, but there is a near zero chance that college football or even college sports would stand alone as a "market" apart from professional sports. I think ESPN is probably the only vulnerable entity.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

He's conflating two entirely different things. The labor situation with students isn't going to be a way to attack the conference/TV arrangements at all.

I think going after the conferences will be very hard. The definition of "market" would indeed be critical, but there is a near zero chance that college football or even college sports would stand alone as a "market" apart from professional sports. I think ESPN is probably the only vulnerable entity.

I am not conflating anything. Another poster brought up a labor case. I just consistently point out that the NCAA and incumbents in sports more generally almost always lose in anti-trust cases. This is because they are all anti-trust violations.