Get Ready For More Politicians To Get Involved In The Conference Shuffle

[UConnSportsGuy]

Here is an article posted tonight in a NJ paper about Rutgers and the conference shuffle:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/gov_christie_ready_to_help_rut.html

Oh great...so this is eventually just going to turn into a huge pissing match between all of the Governers and US Senators! I can't wait for the big 360 coverage of this played out on dual coverage on ESPN and C-SPAN!

 

[SubbaBub]

Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I think our elected representatives should be involved when such shady entities as these threaten a constituent business/or institution involving hundreds of millions of dollars of interstate commerce. Especially, when the taxpayers provide most of the operational and research funding for these universities.

If they want to be businesses, then by all means they should give up their nonprofit status. Otherwise, they should behave and comport themselves in a more cooperative fashion.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[businesslawyer]

When States don't want to honor their obligations to other states, when non-profit and non-taxed institutions don't want to act in the public good, when institutions of higher education that take federal money want to serve no one but their alumni, why in the world shouldn't the federal government intervene?

 

[uconndogs]

All just beginning. This will be a cluster **** for years.

 

[junglehusky]

When States don't want to honor their obligations to other states, when non-profit and non-taxed institutions don't want to act in the public good, when institutions of higher education that take federal money want to serve no one but their alumni, why in the world shouldn't the federal government intervene?

Cause the gov is baaaaaaaad.

 

[businesslawyer]

Cause the gov is baaaaaaaad.

A lot of people will answer that way. But keep in mind one thing -- college football is the government. These are battles between state institutions run by boards appointed by elected officials. If you are Ron Paul, and don't want government, I get that but you should be rooting for the NFL, and letting private enterprise do its thing, and not college football to begin with.

 

[junglehusky]

A lot of people will answer that way. But keep in mind one thing -- college football is the government. These are battles between state institutions run by boards appointed by elected officials. If you are Ron Paul, and don't want government, I get that but you should be rooting for the NFL, and letting private enterprise do its thing, and not college football to begin with.

Well... there's "letting private enterprise do its thing", and then there's competition, and even though this is totally not my field, I don't think those two things are the same thing. You mentioned the NFL which led me to look up the NFL antitrust exemption on wikipedia. True to the title of this thread, Arlen Spector (D-Comcast) has been going to bat against the NFL and DirecTV over availability of the NFL network (remember when Scarlet Knights fans wouldn't be able to see the RU-KSU Pinstripe bowl?)

Anywho, my take-home message would be that this is indeed much, much bigger than one university or one state, so absolutely the courts and the federal government would be withing their right to step in. I just hope all the Senators haven't been bought off by Disney.

 

[ruskin]

W. Va. Senator Jay Rockefeller said this last Friday after WVU joined Big 12. He's right.

“College football is struggling with the weight of its own success right now, and with all eyes on the conference system, this was an important moment to get it right. Conference decisions have far reaching consequences for publicly-supported state universities – and every school has to get a fair shake.”

When power is back and roads tree free, hope Lieberman and Blumenthal follow the WV senators' lead.

 

[ctchamps]

Just another layer of people with invested interests looking to make sure their vested interest is taken care of as opposed to looking for some objective unbiased solution to an issue.

 

[ctchamps]

We all have a bias in government action depending on a perceived benefit or detriment to our personal well being. Medicare recipients do not want government to stop providing them with subsidies, but are against any generalized inclusion of the population for two reasons. They are afraid the system will bankrupt sooner rather than later leaving them without benefits, and they are afraid an influx of people into the medical system will impact their care.

But if a medicare recipient expressed this openly, they would be perceived as selfish or self serving. So the response by a medicare person is diverted to something plausible that makes them not part of the problem. We rationalize actions to make us look better. I wouldn't say people are selfish for doing this. We are just human and afraid.

 

[uconndogs]

A lot of people will answer that way. But keep in mind one thing -- college football is the government. These are battles between state institutions run by boards appointed by elected officials. If you are Ron Paul, and don't want government, I get that but you should be rooting for the NFL, and letting private enterprise do its thing, and not college football to begin with.

To me there is something even more fundemental than the legality of all this (not that I understand the legal issues that may exist). College athletics, even at this level, have long been based on the fundementals of fair play and collegial affiliation among non-profit institutions whose primary mission is education. At some point this landscape changed dramatically and television dollars took away those basic values. We now have university leaders (BC as a recent example) expressly stating that they are placing their financial interests ahead of the interest of a fellow education institutions ability to compete on a level playing field (if not the outright survival of that institutions athletic department as it currently exists). This arena was never contemplated to act in this manner. Open an honest discourse among collegiate institutions has now turned into backroom dealing akin to political hacks or the hardnosed tactics of competive for-profit business. The level playing field is deliberately avoided by those who seek an ongoing advantage or outright distruction of a competitor - having nothing to do with the field of play.

Is it all legal? Beats the hell out of me. Is it right? No, absolutely not.

 

[flyonthewall]

I am still trying to figure out exactly what people expect politicians to do as far as the schools that are not invited to join an AQ conference. Even if Blumenthal and Lieberman introduced a bill requiring the ACC to accept UConn as a member there is no chance that it would pass and hearings and public statements do nothing but get headlines. For a current example see how well things worked out for Louisville
when Mitch McConnell got involved. He delayed things for what, all of 48 hours and WVU is in the B12 and Louisville is not.

The only time political pressure worked was in the first round of the ACC expansion. The ACC did not have enough votes to invite Miami, etc. without the vote of VA and VA politicians pressured VA to only vote 'yes' if VA Tech was included in the expansion. That was a unique set of circumstances and no leftover BE school is in a position to have its politicians exert similar influence because there are no current ACC members in states that have leftover BE teams.

 

[uconndogs]

The biggest nightmare for ESPN and the powers of collge football (the Texas', NDs, SEC's of world) is that this whole thing winds up in Congressional hearings and gets politicized to the 9th degree. I'm not saying that would be appropriate or not, but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibilities. The BCS has been a sham for years and is now being used more than ever to concentrate power and money among a much smaller universe of schools than might otherwise be the case with a more open system.

This thing is headed for an absolute mess of litigation and the pols are already invovled - it's simply a matter of how deep they want to go.

 

[BlueMAB]

I am still trying to figure out exactly what people expect politicians to do as far as the schools that are not invited to join an AQ conference. Even if Blumenthal and Lieberman introduced a bill requiring the ACC to accept UConn as a member there is no chance that it would pass and hearings and public statements do nothing but get headlines. For a current example see how well things worked out for Louisville
when Mitch McConnell got involved. He delayed things for what, all of 48 hours and WVU is in the B12 and Louisville is not.

The only time political pressure worked was in the first round of the ACC expansion. The ACC did not have enough votes to invite Miami, etc. without the vote of VA and VA politicians pressured VA to only vote 'yes' if VA Tech was included in the expansion. That was a unique set of circumstances and no leftover BE school is in a position to have its politicians exert similar influence because there are no current ACC members in states that have leftover BE teams.

Congress can invoke the Sherman Act, and call every exec from ESPN, every BCS conference commissioner (or those who recently expanded), every school president involved in realignment, and everyone associated with the BCS to DC for hearings. They can threaten to dismantle the BCS, to withold federal funding from the public universities, and to take away the non-profit tax exemption. It won't happen in 2012, they have re-election campaigns to run, but it could get traction in 2013 or beyond, depending on other variables.

 

[BlueMAB]

You started it, your the . Your crazy talk belongs in the cesspool.

Good news: 10 year olds know how to use the internet.
Bad news: 10 year olds know how to use the internet.

 

[HuskyNan]

You started it, your the . Your crazy talk belongs in the cesspool.

Good news: 10 year olds know how to use the internet.
Bad news: 10 year olds know how to use the internet.

For the love of God, stop. Don't you get enough of this in the newspapers? Stick to the topic at hand.

 

[BlueMAB]

For the love of God, stop. Don't you get enough of this in the newspapers? Stick to the topic at hand.

I responded to the topic at hand, Nan. There was one unprovoked attack in this thread. One.

 

[CL82]

When States don't want to honor their obligations to other states, when non-profit and non-taxed institutions don't want to act in the public good, when institutions of higher education that take federal money want to serve no one but their alumni, why in the world shouldn't the federal government intervene?

Because a for profit company is at the root of it all. An investigation of the practices involved might well prevent future interference with college sports.

 

[BlueMAB]

Because a for profit company is at the root of it all. An investigation of the practices involved might well prevent future interference with college sports.

ESPN can violate the Sherman Act if they are working with the ACC to attempt to destroy the competition. Their behavior isn't excused just because they are for profit.

 

[flyonthewall]

Congress can invoke the Sherman Act, and call every exec from ESPN, every BCS conference commissioner (or those who recently expanded), every school president involved in realignment, and everyone associated with the BCS to DC for hearings. They can threaten to dismantle the BCS, to withold federal funding from the public universities, and to take away the non-profit tax exemption. It won't happen in 2012, they have re-election campaigns to run, but it could get traction in 2013 or beyond, depending on other variables.

Your reply says it all, key word 'CONGRESS.'

'Congress' means enough Senators and Representatives to take legislative action as in actually pass legislation.

My point consistently has been that although there are states with aggrieved schools, i.e., the left over schools, there are many more states where the schools that matter think things are just fine. Add up the senators and representatives from the states in the Pac12, B1G, ACC, SEC and B12 and you have more than enough who will think the status quo is fine and a few leftover schools don't matter. Maybe schools like SMU and/or Houston can make some noise but at the end of the day the schools that matter in TX, that is UT, will insure that their congressional delegation thinks things are just great.

 

[BlueMAB]

Your reply says it all, key word 'CONGRESS.'

'Congress' means enough Senators and Representatives to take legislative action as in actually pass legislation.

My point consistently has been that although there are states with aggrieved schools, i.e., the left over schools, there are many more states where the schools that matter think things are just fine. Add up the senators and representatives from the states in the Pac12, B1G, ACC, SEC and B12 and you have more than enough who will think the status quo is fine and a few leftover schools don't matter. Maybe schools like SMU and/or Houston can make some noise but at the end of the day the schools that matter in TX, that is UT, will insure that their congressional delegation thinks things are just great.

Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell.

There are only two senators from each state, so TX is no more powerful than CT in that regard.

You don't actually need enough to pass legislation, you need enough to make the schools/BCS/ESPN think they will be seriously harmed financially and change their behavior on their own.

 

[junglehusky]

Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell.

There are only two senators from each state, so TX is no more powerful than CT in that regard.

You don't actually need enough to pass legislation, you need enough to make the schools/BCS/ESPN think they will be seriously harmed financially and change their behavior on their own.

Getting off topic here... but given the way Senate seniority works, and the ability for Senators on a committee to put an anonymous "hold" on a bill, and the fact that the number of constituents per senator varies by state population, it's possible for a Senator representing a tiny fraction of the public (say, from Idaho) to wield a huge amount of power over everyone else.

 

[businesslawyer]

Because a for profit company is at the root of it all. An investigation of the practices involved might well prevent future interference with college sports.

To say I have no clue what your point is would be a large understatement. Please feel free to try again.

 

[SubbaBub]

If one sub-committee chairman wants to subpoena the BCS, conference commissioners, and ESPN to a sworn hearing, they don't need anyone else's OK. This is what the bad guys want to avoid at all costs (see Roger Clemens and
Mark Maguire) because once that ball.starts rolling it could mean the end of the BCS and possibly some anti-trust sanctions to boot.

As with a lawsuit, the discovery investigstion would hurt ESPN badly, if their involvement in this is what everyone suspects it was.



Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[businesslawyer]

Your reply says it all, key word 'CONGRESS.'

'Congress' means enough Senators and Representatives to take legislative action as in actually pass legislation.

My point consistently has been that although there are states with aggrieved schools, i.e., the left over schools, there are many more states where the schools that matter think things are just fine. Add up the senators and representatives from the states in the Pac12, B1G, ACC, SEC and B12 and you have more than enough who will think the status quo is fine and a few leftover schools don't matter. Maybe schools like SMU and/or Houston can make some noise but at the end of the day the schools that matter in TX, that is UT, will insure that their congressional delegation thinks things are just great.

It would be a mistake to assume that no one in Congress will vote in favor of enforcing antitrust laws, and/or forcing some ethics back into higher education, merely because it is against the interests of their state university. Most people who run for Congress actually believe, at least in part, that their job encompasses more than helping certain interests in their state.