B1G pushing to shorten the Bowl Season

[UConnSportsGuy]

According to reports, the B1G and SEC are pushing to pass a rule that would restrict the timing in which bowl games could be played. They want to make a rule that all bowl games must be played between Dec 25th and Jan 1st.

I think this would eventually reduce the number of bowl games--which would of course only help the elite conferences as they wouldn't lose bowl games--it would be the "less powerful conferences" which would lose their bowl spots. More of the same...the power conferences consolidating all of their power and pushing out the competition.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...condensed-bowl-season-20120516,0,931036.story

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Not necessarily, as this would also likely cut out a bunch of the bowls that are currently filled with 6-6 B1G/SEC teams as well. Of course, the top conferences are still going to get the majority of the bowl slots, but I'm not against reducing the number of bowls at all, I think it'd be good overall as the "bowl experience" has been terribly watered down by stupid unattended bowls in dumb locations that serve no purpose.

 

[businesslawyer]

I am not an antitrust specialist, but that seems like such an unbelievably obvious "per se" violation of the Sherman Act that one has to ask why these universities now think they are more important than federal law. Why doesn't Arkansas just go back to not admitting black applicants for goodness sake. (Well, other than that it would put them at a disadvantage in athletics.)

If the Big Ten member institutions decide that they only want to play bowl games between Christmas and New Year's, go for it. More power to you. But to think you can tell ESPN, the MAC, CUSA and the Mobile Bowl that they can't play a bowl game at another time that makes sense for all of them but not the Big Ten -- it's unbelievably outrageous.

If I were Attorney General, I think I would take a State University President out of his office in handcuffs on live television. Whether you ultimately win the case or not, you will at least make the point that State Employees are not friggin free to ignore federal law just because they can make more money.

 

[pj]

The only part of this that makes sense is completing the bowls by a given date, holding the playoff after that date, and using the bowl games to evaluate which teams should participate in the playoff.

Then "bowl champion" could replace "conference champion" as one of the requirements for admission to the playoff. The playoff selection committee would meet the first weekend in January and announce the teams Sunday night, just like the basketball committee meets the weekend that concludes conference tourneys.

However, it would generate more money if the bowls could occupy the weekend containing or following Jan 1, which could be as late as Jan 7. Then have playoff games 2 weeks and 3 weeks later for a 4-team playoff, or 1 and 2 weeks if it's possible to arrange travel and ticket sales to fans of the invited teams in ~4 days.

 

[Sean]

The anti-trust law should just be amended to write "things related to sports can involve collusion, etc, at any time someone wants"...that seems to be the reality of the situation now.

 

[SubbaBub]

I have no idea why the B1G would mess with what is probably their greatest asset...Their fans almost universally travel to bowl games in droves. They do this because they play 5/7 bowl games on Jan 1. (fans know when it will be played,) most in Fla or TX, (they have a good idea where sometime in mid November) and they play mostly against SEC and B12 teams (the games will be against other known programs).

All they really need to fix is the fact that they play too many SEC teams (losses) and due to the absence of long term conference parity, they play the same teams too often. The solution is obvious, drop the games against the 6th or 7th best SEC/B12 teams and pick up games against 3rd or 4th best ACC/BE/Pac12 teams.

As for the Sherman Act, I'm no lawyer but I would assume its similar to the reason the NCAA can subject MBB to ex post facto and double jeopardy. If you choose to be a member of the NCAA, you can only play in NCAA sanctioned bowl games. Should the NCAA choose to sanction only bowl games between Dec 25 and Jan 1, then you can only play in bowl games between Dec 25 and Jan 1.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I doubt this story is true. I can't imagine the networks....ESPN giving up all that content.

 

[sdhusky]

I am not an antitrust specialist, but that seems like such an unbelievably obvious "per se" violation of the Sherman Act that one has to ask why these universities now think they are more important than federal law. Why doesn't Arkansas just go back to not admitting black applicants for goodness sake. (Well, other than that it would put them at a disadvantage in athletics.)

If the Big Ten member institutions decide that they only want to play bowl games between Christmas and New Year's, go for it. More power to you. But to think you can tell ESPN, the MAC, CUSA and the Mobile Bowl that they can't play a bowl game at another time that makes sense for all of them but not the Big Ten -- it's unbelievably outrageous.

If I were Attorney General, I think I would take a State University President out of his office in handcuffs on live television. Whether you ultimately win the case or not, you will at least make the point that State Employees are not friggin free to ignore federal law just because they can make more money.

How is it an anti trust for the Big10 to try to convince the NCAA to shorten the bowl season?

 

[businesslawyer]

The NCAA is free to define its own rules about bowls. If the member leagues that benefit by the long bowl season are o.k. with this, and not coerced into doing this, that's fine. But the Big Ten does not have a license to violate the antitrust laws merely because it acts through a trade organization. And my statement is based on the assumption that the non-power conferences have no interest in walking away from exposure and money so the biggest conferences can have more exclusivity during bowl season.

 

[freescooter]

Seems to me that there is a simple solution to all this...if you don't like playing in Bowl games before December 25 or after January 1 just don't agree to play in them. Pretty simple. Make it a league rule or just don't agree to send a team. When the Mobile Bowl asks you to send a team to their game on December 20, just say no. Other leagues may feel differently about playing in those games so if they want to do it, why should the Big 10 ands the SEC get to tell the MAC and CUSA and the Sunbelt when they can play? Next they'll be demanding royalties from other conferences for the right to play in bowls that compete with SEC/B10 games...

 

[ktuck911]

Not necessarily, as this would also likely cut out a bunch of the bowls that are currently filled with 6-6 B1G/SEC teams as well. Of course, the top conferences are still going to get the majority of the bowl slots, but I'm not against reducing the number of bowls at all, I think it'd be good overall as the "bowl experience" has been terribly watered down by stupid unattended bowls in dumb locations that serve no purpose.

I strongly disagree... The more bowl games the better... When the regular season ends it gets boring real fast... With the technology boom over the past 20 years, media access nationally for college football ( tv, satellite/cable to be exact ) you can't go back in time. It keeps the excitement of college football going a little longer. Plus it doesn't hurt for the little guys to get that national exposure. The big boys certainly get it all...

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I am not an antitrust specialist, but that seems like such an unbelievably obvious "per se" violation of the Sherman Act that one has to ask why these universities now think they are more important than federal law. Why doesn't Arkansas just go back to not admitting black applicants for goodness sake. (Well, other than that it would put them at a disadvantage in athletics.)

If the Big Ten member institutions decide that they only want to play bowl games between Christmas and New Year's, go for it. More power to you. But to think you can tell ESPN, the MAC, CUSA and the Mobile Bowl that they can't play a bowl game at another time that makes sense for all of them but not the Big Ten -- it's unbelievably outrageous.

If I were Attorney General, I think I would take a State University President out of his office in handcuffs on live television. Whether you ultimately win the case or not, you will at least make the point that State Employees are not friggin free to ignore federal law just because they can make more money.

Biz, I don't think I've ever felt more in agreement with you. In fact, I'm sure. Great post.

As for the Bowl games . . . go back to the old days. 11 am (the Outback & Citrus) Noon (the Gator), 2 pm the Sugar, 3pm the Cotton, 4:30 the Rose and 8 the Orange. Let the polls decide the NC on Jan 2 (taking into considerations the upsets from the day before). Put NYD back in the hands of the football fans.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

I am not an antitrust specialist, but that seems like such an unbelievably obvious "per se" violation of the Sherman Act that one has to ask why these universities now think they are more important than federal law. Why doesn't Arkansas just go back to not admitting black applicants for goodness sake. (Well, other than that it would put them at a disadvantage in athletics.)

If the Big Ten member institutions decide that they only want to play bowl games between Christmas and New Year's, go for it. More power to you. But to think you can tell ESPN, the MAC, CUSA and the Mobile Bowl that they can't play a bowl game at another time that makes sense for all of them but not the Big Ten -- it's unbelievably outrageous.

If I were Attorney General, I think I would take a State University President out of his office in handcuffs on live television. Whether you ultimately win the case or not, you will at least make the point that State Employees are not friggin free to ignore federal law just because they can make more money.

What does that say about their Law Schools?

More seriously, these organizations (conferences and TV) have turned into bullies that will keep pushing until something pushes back. What is needed is a Judge Green (presided over AT&T divestiture and was a real pr@#k).

 

[VAHuskyFan]

Biz, you can make an argument that this is somehow an anticompetitive restraint of trade, but it sure as hell ain't a "per se" violation.

Read over NCAA vs. Board of Regents (U. of Oklahoma), the seminal 1984 Supreme Court case. In that case, a number of the major college football programs (members of the CFA) negotiated a contract with NBC that would have led to a greater number of football games being televised. The NCAA threatened to take disciplinary action against any CFA member that complied with NBC contract and increased the number of games televised. The CFA teams sued the NCAA under the antitrust laws.

The Court held that even that situation didn't rise to the level of a "per se" violation:

While the plan constitutes horizontal price-fixing and output limitation, restraints that ordinarily would be held "illegal per se," it would be inappropriate to apply a per se rule in this case where it involves an industry in which horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all.​

In Board of Regents the Court did find that the NCAA's rules violated the Sherman Act - but those rules explicitly sought to limit the total output of televised football games. That was a much easier call than attempts to influence when games are played.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Here is a per se for ya. . . somebody, somewhere has got to put an end to this preditory conference raiding, this bed-swapping ('ho bagging) Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, Missouri, et al, conference jumping. Some needs to sit down with a map and devise 6 to 8 ten team conferences. These would mandate geographic rivalries, minimize travel for olympic sports teams, and demand (yes, demand) round robin conference play in football. If you don't - or can't- play every team in your conference, every year then that configuration is too big (that means you SEC, PAC whatever, BiG whatever, The Other BIG whatever, the ACC, et al) and the overage get reduced and relocated to other conferences who are looking for additional teams starting with the Conference Champion and the runner-up. So welcome Florida State and Alabama to the Big East. Stop the Oligopolistic trend.

 

[businesslawyer]

Biz, you can make an argument that this is somehow an anticompetitive restraint of trade, but it sure as hell ain't a "per se" violation.

Read over NCAA vs. Board of Regents (U. of Oklahoma), the seminal 1984 Supreme Court case. In that case, a number of the major college football programs (members of the CFA) negotiated a contract with NBC that would have led to a greater number of football games being televised. The NCAA threatened to take disciplinary action against any CFA member that complied with NBC contract and increased the number of games televised. The CFA teams sued the NCAA under the antitrust laws.

The Court held that even that situation didn't rise to the level of a "per se" violation:

While the plan constitutes horizontal price-fixing and output limitation, restraints that ordinarily would be held "illegal per se," it would be inappropriate to apply a per se rule in this case where it involves an industry in which horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all.​

In Board of Regents the Court did find that the NCAA's rules violated the Sherman Act - but those rules explicitly sought to limit the total output of televised football games. That was a much easier call than attempts to influence when games are played.

Without going back and reading the case again, that case said it wasn't o.k. (but was not a per se violation) for the broader trade group -- the NCAA -- to hvae limits on what member institutions can do with the rights to their home games (sell rights to their own games outside the NCAA umbrella). It was an NCAA restriction being challenged and judged. Anything that the NCAA does, however, as an umbrella trade group, would presumably be looked at with far less suspicion and rigor than when a particular group of members -- here the Big Ten -- push for a rule that has application to limit how others compete with their product without directly effecting their product at all (because they don't need the NCAA's help to only play bowl games between XMas and New Year's).

But again, I am not an antitrust lawyer and have not read the case recently, so I am not in a position to say you are incorrect.

 

[Carl Spackler]

To my knowledge, the NCAA has absolutely no influence whatsover on the college football post season and nothing has changed with the conference commissioners approving the move to a 4 team playoff format to determine a national champion. The 1984 case was about regular season games.

Btw - it warms my heart to see that people have actually paid attention.....and learned........

 

[businesslawyer]

To my knowledge, the NCAA has absolutely no influence whatsover on the college football post season and nothing has changed with the conference commissioners approving the move to a 4 team playoff format to determine a national champion. The 1984 case was about regular season games.

Btw - it warms my heart to see that people have actually paid attention.....and learned........

Everything the Conference Commissioners want to do will need to be approved by the NCAA (unless all the schools leave the NCAA).

 

[SubbaBub]

All the NCAA would need to do is create a true division 1 FB tournament for the 70-80 true BCS teams. 8 teams, one from each carefully selected geographic region.

You'll see schools realign geographically in a heartbeat.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carl Spackler]

Everything the Conference Commissioners want to do will need to be approved by the NCAA (unless all the schools leave the NCAA).

I'm not sure that's correct BL. To my knowledge, b/c of the legal history around it all, which started in 1984, but has seen other stuff over the past 28 years, good God, time flies, but anyway....the NCAA has absolutely no role in any game being broadcast that is not explicitly sponsored by the NCAA. I believe, and again, I may be wrong, not sure, but I believe that the BCS system as it exists right now, and any playoff (the BCS people still won't officially call it a playoff - they call it an 'event'), b/c they know that as soon as the word is officially invoked, there will be no stopping the public demand for a true system)......

but I digress.....I don't think that the NCAA is an official sponsor of any of the BCS games, or any of the bowl games at all. It's a big freaking mess that started with the ruling in 1984, and I posted the dissent by Justice White aroudn here a while back. It predicts essentially every thign that's happened in the time since.

Here's a decent article, from it irks me to post, Boston College. Enjoy.

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_2/06_mccann.pdf

 

[Carl Spackler]

All the NCAA would need to do is create a true division 1 FB tournament for the 70-80 true BCS teams. 8 teams, one from each carefully selected geographic region.

You'll see schools realign geographically in a heartbeat.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

I think this is correct. IF the NCAA as an organization, were to simply create it's own playoff format and lay out how teams are supposed to qualify, everything is solved. They've already done it in 1-AA.

But I'm no lawyer, and i believe there is a lot legal mess in the past 3 decades that prevents the NCAA for doing that in division 1-A football.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm not sure that's correct BL. To my knowledge, b/c of the legal history around it all, which started in 1984, but has seen other stuff over the past 28 years, good God, time flies, but anyway....the NCAA has absolutely no role in any game being broadcast that is not explicitly sponsored by the NCAA. I believe, and again, I may be wrong, not sure, but I believe that the BCS system as it exists right now, and any playoff (the BCS people still won't officially call it a playoff - they call it an 'event'), b/c they know that as soon as the word is officially invoked, there will be no stopping the public demand for a true system)......

but I digress.....I don't think that the NCAA is an official sponsor of any of the BCS games, or any of the bowl games at all. It's a big freaking mess that started with the ruling in 1984, and I posted the dissent by Justice White aroudn here a while back. It predicts essentially every thign that's happened in the time since.

Here's a decent article, from it irks me to post, Boston College. Enjoy.

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_2/06_mccann.pdf

The NCAA limits how many games you can play and when you can play them, and certifies each and every bowl. No playoff is allowable without changes to NCAA rules.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The NCAA limits how many games you can play and when you can play them, and certifies each and every bowl. No playoff is allowable without changes to NCAA rules.

It's a complex thing huh, the college football post season.

 

[Kevin Caliendo]

ITs pretty clear that the four super conferences will be breaking away from the NCAA.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I doubt this story is true. I can't imagine the networks....ESPN giving up all that content.

I imagine that one major part of this is to move control away from ESPN (and anyone else televising these games) back to the power football conferences. The other is the further marginalize (as they would now be competing for TV exposure with bowl games featuring bigger name participants) the smaller bowls.

This is one of many steps towards an end game where there will be four conferences basically operating at the highest level in college football, the remaining (current and to be upgraded FBS) schools at a level between FCS and the power four then the FCS schools completing D-I football.

The NCAA would have been far more intelligent if when they split D-I they called the higher level D-IAA and the lower D-IA. This way, every time there was a further movement to a more select, higher level they could just have added an A to the division's title.