McMurphy - B1G, CUSA commishes point towards post-BCS era

[junglehusky]

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Great! Just in time for SMU and SDSU to join...

 

[Uptop]

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Great! Just in time for SMU and SDSU to join...

I know. But both improve TV money.

Check out ND's comments on McMurphy's twitter below:

http://twitter.com/McMurphyCBS

 

[fortebleedsblue]

I heard about this the other day from a Michigan friend. This is simply a ploy to take the Big East out of the picture. The big bowls will realign with their big conferences. No one is going to pick the Big East up in this scenario. Sucks for Boise, that team is cursed ..

 

[HuskyHawk]

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Great! Just in time for SMU and SDSU to join...

Perfect. Now that we've bent our conference into an absurd pretzel of teams in pursuit of the mythical AQ status, it will disappear. Back to #Begharder, as we've got to evacuate this disaster in waiting.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I'm not sure they'd let the bowls go back to just completely and arbitrarily aligning with whoever they want, that would open themselves wide to massive anti-trust lawsuits, especially if one of the military academies moves to a BCS conference and is then left out. They may very well restructure the entire bowl system, but with the litigious spotlight being shone on college football right now, I don't think they want to open themselves to lawsuits they very well could lose, or some type of Congressional investigation. (not that anyone in Congress right now would probably even agree on anything related to it)

That said, this is why I absolutely despise college football. We're all arguing over admission to irrelevant bragging rights games. For all of the arguments that college football has the most relevant regular season, (as was soundly disproved this year) it has absolutely positively the most irrelevant and boring postseason. Sure, the BCS bowls are grand and nice, but that'd be like winning an elite 8 game and saying OK, that was fun, let's all go home now, season's over.

 

[Jericho]

I'm not sure they'd let the bowls go back to just completely and arbitrarily aligning with whoever they want, that would open themselves wide to massive anti-trust lawsuits, especially if one of the military academies moves to a BCS conference and is then left out. They may very well restructure the entire bowl system, but with the litigious spotlight being shone on college football right now, I don't think they want to open themselves to lawsuits they very well could lose, or some type of Congressional investigation. (not that anyone in Congress right now would probably even agree on anything related to it)

Not sure you understand Antitrust law. Antitrust law is about promoting competition. Allowing bowls to choose who to take is more competitive than forcing them to take teams under the BCS system. If anything, this makes it less likely there's an Antitrust suit filed.

 

[Uptop]

Brett McMurphy

With Big East adding 5 in 2013, I asked AD Oliver Luck if WVU would drop lawsuit if could leave in 2013. "Big12 needs 10 teams to fulfill TV contract. Can't delay on coming to the conference

Syracuse AD D.Gross: "As (Big East) goes forward to put together new multi-media deals, they’re going to need us to move out of way. We’re waiting for that."


Syracuse AD Daryl Gross said if WVU leaves Big East early "We're open to see what happens" about earlier move to ACC

 

[HuskyHawk]

Not sure you understand Antitrust law. Antitrust law is about promoting competition. Allowing bowls to choose who to take is more competitive than forcing them to take teams under the BCS system. If anything, this makes it less likely there's an Antitrust suit filed.

If there was open competition, perhaps. But I think the bowl tie-ins are potentially suspect. It's time for a playoff.

 

[husky10]

The bowls always have two conferences lined up the fiesta, sugar and orange currently only have 1 with the other coming from at-large teams and the BE i find it hard to imagine that the BE is left out of the former BCS bowls all together, or at least gets a spot of a team that is taken to the national championship. (that would mean all 2nd place teams that they take over the BE #1) idk maybe its just me

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Not sure you understand Antitrust law. Antitrust law is about promoting competition. Allowing bowls to choose who to take is more competitive than forcing them to take teams under the BCS system. If anything, this makes it less likely there's an Antitrust suit filed.

Antitrust law is absolutely about promoting competition. Competitors meeting together to discuss setting prices and negotiating cooperatively with customers to both exclude other competitors and drive up prices is ILLEGAL. And that is all the BCS is. It is a cartel in restraint of trade. If you do not get that, than you do not understand Antitrust Law.

Given your extensive expertise on antitrust law, you would also know that the majority of credible anti-trust lawsuits in sports are successful, because essentially every single league violates anti-trust law by its existence. The NFL and NBA players unions' tactic of decertifying was in order to sue those leagues for anti-trust violations, which the unions had a very high likelihood of winning. The BCS' problem is much worse than the pro leagues, because the BCS is not just acting as a monopoly against customers and vendors, but also against other competitors. The BCS knows this of course, which is why every time the non-AQ's rattled their sabres on anything, they got more money or better access. If the BCS had such a strong position, why were they responding to blackmail?

I hope they end the BCS and go back to the old bowl system, because I think it will accelerate the formation of a playoff. But I also strongly believe that this strategy INCREASES the majors' antitrust problem, not decreases it.

 

[SubbaBub]

I heard about this the other day from a Michigan friend. This is simply a ploy to take the Big East out of the picture. The big bowls will realign with their big conferences. No one is going to pick the Big East up in this scenario. Sucks for Boise, that team is cursed ..

This has been clear for a while now. Some others are banking on political protection for the BE or outright ignoring this fact.

Look up the old Bowl Coalition.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[Jericho]

Antitrust law is absolutely about promoting competition. Competitors meeting together to discuss setting prices and negotiating cooperatively with customers to both exclude other competitors and drive up prices is ILLEGAL. And that is all the BCS is. It is a cartel in restraint of trade. If you do not get that, than you do not understand Antitrust Law.

Given your extensive expertise on antitrust law, you would also know that the majority of credible anti-trust lawsuits in sports are successful, because essentially every single league violates anti-trust law by its existence. The NFL and NBA players unions' tactic of decertifying was in order to sue those leagues for anti-trust violations, which the unions had a very high likelihood of winning. The BCS' problem is much worse than the pro leagues, because the BCS is not just acting as a monopoly against customers and vendors, but also against other competitors. The BCS knows this of course, which is why every time the non-AQ's rattled their sabres on anything, they got more money or better access. If the BCS had such a strong position, why were they responding to blackmail?

I hope they end the BCS and go back to the old bowl system, because I think it will accelerate the formation of a playoff. But I also strongly believe that this strategy INCREASES the majors' antitrust problem, not decreases it.

I think you missed the point of my post entirely. In the hypothetical scenario, the BCS would form together to select the #1 and #2 teams in the nation. This was done through some combination of human polls and computer polls independent of the BCS. The remaining bowls would then be free to bargain with whomever they wanted. The BCS would have no influence of these remaining bowls. Such a hypothetical kills an Antitrust argument, since there is no actual restraint of trade. I made no comments on the existing system, which you were so quick to criticize me on.

Now that said, a free market Bowl system, which basically reverts to the pre-BCS/Bowl Alliance days, would obviously favor the major conferences. Although bowls are free to select whomever they want, it is in their interest to align themselves with high profile teams/leagues. But HuskyHawk is wrong. This is open competition.

Now, if you want to rail against the current BCS system as against Antitrust law, that is a more complex argument (and one I did not previously address). Since its probably significantly changing, it's likely a moot point. Nevertheless, whether the existing BCS is an unreasonable restraint of trade is a debateable question. Of course, if you knew Antitrust law, you'd realize that the case law is all over the place, with many cases that do not make sense in light of past and often times future decisions (including Baseball's still existing Antitrust exemption). So knowing a result should a claim be made is impossible.

All that said, I do not see how the new proposed system would: (1) set prices; (2) exclude competition; (3) be an unreasonable restraint of trade. If you have specific examples, I'm all ears. But the BCS would simply provide a mechanism for the percieved top two teams to play. The BCS does create a selection forumla, but it is based on independent factors. The worst argument you'd have against the new proposed BCS from an Antitrust standpoint is how they would allocate any money made.

 

[businesslawyer]

Not sure you understand Antitrust law. Antitrust law is about promoting competition. Allowing bowls to choose who to take is more competitive than forcing them to take teams under the BCS system. If anything, this makes it less likely there's an Antitrust suit filed.

Letting the bowls bid for teams after the season is over is pro-competition. That will never happen. Letting the bowls lock up slots with conference tie ups before the season starts is anti-competition. That is what the conferences want, but it raises issues. And the issues are there notwithstanding the history of bowl games.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

What was the last credible anti-trust suit in sports where the plaintiff lost? USFL? That is ONE case (which the USFL won, incidentally, just for $1 in damages) in 40 years. Any others?

 

[Jericho]

Letting the bowls bid for teams after the season is over is pro-competition. That will never happen. Letting the bowls lock up slots with conference tie ups before the season starts is anti-competition. That is what the conferences want, but it raises issues. And the issues are there notwithstanding the history of bowl games.

Not sure how to address this. But I think you're confusing the issue. The BCS only currently has influence over 5 bowls. Under the new proposed plan, that number shrinks to one. Under this new proposed plan, the Bowls and the BCS are essentially independent of each other. So no matter what the Bowls choose to do, it has no bearing on whether the BCS is in violation of Antitrust. They are separate entities.

Addressing the Bowls specifically, nothing in Antitrust law prevents entities from entering into contracts with conferences. For the same reason Walmart can enter into contracts with certain vendors and not others. Antritrust law won't force Walmart to entertain bids everytime they want to buy something. They can have contracts, even exclusive contracts, with vendors for long periods. That itself is fine.

The key distinction is that the Bowls choose. The biggest criticism of the current system is that the BCS denies, or at least significantly restrains, access to the Major Bowls by non BCS conferences schools. Here that restriction is lifted and the Bowls can go with whomever. That's the essence of free market choice. And Antitrust law will not limit freedom of contract. If the big Bowls don't want to have Mountain West or Conference USA teams invited to them, that's fine legally. So long as each Bowl arrives at that decision independently and not through some collusion or back deal arrangement with the other Bowls. Antitrust has never been about guaranteeing equal access.

 

[Jericho]

What was the last credible anti-trust suit in sports where the plaintiff lost? USFL? That is ONE case (which the USFL won, incidentally, just for $1 in damages) in 40 years. Any others?

Not sure of your point here. Are all sports illegal then? The biggest problem sports have is a lack of competition. That makes them a de facto monopoly. And while being a monopoly is not illegal (only the exercise of monopoly power is illegal), it seems inevitable that a monopoly will exercise its power and be in violation of Antitrust. Most cases will find against sports leagues (except baseball, which had it's last major decision 40 years ago - Curt Flood. Hmmm... is that why you chose a 40 year cut-off?). I'll admit the decisions are generally against sports leagues. Of course, there haven't been that many major Antitrust case on sports in the last 40 years either.

However, none of that addresses the main question of how a 1 game BCS arrangement is a violation of Antitrust law. That was the central issue that started all this. The BCS, a conglomeration of conferences, has come up with an arrangement to put two teams on the field in January. By releasing the other Bowls to do what they want, other schools can no longer claim they are denied access to the Major Bowls. The best they can argue is they are denied access to the Championship game. However, since the criteria for selection to the championship game is based off of polls and computers outside the control of the BCS, not sure how that argument flies. So what specifically about this new arranement would restrain trade?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Letting the bowls bid for teams after the season is over is pro-competition. That will never happen. Letting the bowls lock up slots with conference tie ups before the season starts is anti-competition. That is what the conferences want, but it raises issues. And the issues are there notwithstanding the history of bowl games.

Agree completely. The bowl tie-ins are potentially a problem. They could do this, and if they were for very short periods, maybe two seasons, followed by open competition, I think they would be fine. But these long term deals freeze out competition from the other leagues. It's essentially a "refusal to deal".

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Not sure of your point here. Are all sports illegal then? The biggest problem sports have is a lack of competition. That makes them a de facto monopoly. And while being a monopoly is not illegal (only the exercise of monopoly power is illegal), it seems inevitable that a monopoly will exercise its power and be in violation of Antitrust. Most cases will find against sports leagues (except baseball, which had it's last major decision 40 years ago - Curt Flood. Hmmm... is that why you chose a 40 year cut-off?). I'll admit the decisions are generally against sports leagues. Of course, there haven't been that many major Antitrust case on sports in the last 40 years either.

However, none of that addresses the main question of how a 1 game BCS arrangement is a violation of Antitrust law. That was the central issue that started all this. The BCS, a conglomeration of conferences, has come up with an arrangement to put two teams on the field in January. By releasing the other Bowls to do what they want, other schools can no longer claim they are denied access to the Major Bowls. The best they can argue is they are denied access to the Championship game. However, since the criteria for selection to the championship game is based off of polls and computers outside the control of the BCS, not sure how that argument flies. So what specifically about this new arranement would restrain trade?

There have been several. The NCAA has lost at least two times that I know of. Oklahoma beat the NCAA in 1984, and the assistant coaches beat the NCAA in 1999. There is a suit working its way to the supreme court about licensing of likenesses of players that is not looking good for the NCAA either.

The polls are not outside of the BCS. The majority of those participating in the polls are from BCS conferences. Furthermore, by having long-term contracts with bowl games that restricts access of competitors, the BCS or whatever it calls itself in the future has clear violation in and of itself. The biggest problem is the coordination between the major players. You are not allowed to sit in a room with your major competitors and discuss price or restrict access to market. See the ADM case if you have any questions. Yet that is exactly what the BCS does, right out in the open.

Every sports league generally loses anti-trust cases because they are all violating anti-trust law. It is not a coincidence. As you point out, Baseball has this weird exemption, and it still lost the collusion case of the late 90's.

 

[tduconn]

Assuming the "new" bowl system reverts back to the old conference alliances, this will not be good for the new BE.

Its like making a selection from a menu. Some go for the beef as an entree, others for chicken, pork, fish, or vegetables. Everyone has their own preferences and appetite.

I don't think the new BE adds much to the menu of college football at this time......and even if it did, don't see it being selected for anything more than an appetizer bowl leading up to major bowls over the New Years weekend.

Right now the new BE would be extremely lucky to be chosen as a participant in any major collge football bowl competition absent the BCS system......despite its flaws.

 

[Jericho]

There have been several. The NCAA has lost at least two times that I know of. Oklahoma beat the NCAA in 1984, and the assistant coaches beat the NCAA in 1999. There is a suit working its way to the supreme court about licensing of likenesses of players that is not looking good for the NCAA either.

I should just let this comment go, but you're still talking about counting the major sports case on two hands. And yes, the NCAA has lost before

The polls are not outside of the BCS. The majority of those participating in the polls are from BCS conferences. Furthermore, by having long-term contracts with bowl games that restricts access of competitors, the BCS or whatever it calls itself in the future has clear violation in and of itself. The biggest problem is the coordination between the major players. You are not allowed to sit in a room with your major competitors and discuss price or restrict access to market. See the ADM case if you have any questions. Yet that is exactly what the BCS does, right out in the open.

The BCS are not the Bowls! They are different entities. If they go to this new system, the BCS will control 1 bowl. One! You cannot have restraint of trade of other Bowls if you have no influnce on said Bowls. The Rose Bowl could sign a 99 year agreement with the Pac-12 and it would have zero bearing on the BCS.

Yes, you cannot sit down with your competitors and price fix. You have Antitrust 101 down pat. But is the BCS discussing price? Is it restricting access to market? I'm not talking about the current system. I'm talking about the new proposed system. How does it restain trade?

Look, I'm not trying to defend the system. I'm not saying its fair. I'm just trying to look at it legally. What's legal and what should happen are often different things. This new proposed system is an attempt to avoid the legal questions the current system poses.

Every sports league generally loses anti-trust cases because they are all violating anti-trust law. It is not a coincidence. As you point out, Baseball has this weird exemption, and it still lost the collusion case of the late 90's.

If you were a lawyer and your argument was, "Judge, you know sports organizations generally lose Antitrust so find against the BCS," the Judge is going to what a little more, shall we say, specifics.

 

[SubbaBub]

Right now the new BE would be extremely lucky to be chosen as a participant in any major collge football bowl competition absent the BCS system......despite its flaws.

Bingo! I can't think of any attractive bowl destinations that would take anything but an undefeated or one-loss BE team that isn't from Texas.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Jericho,

I have explained how the system restrains trade several times. Competitors coordinating with each other to restrict market access is restraining trade. What else would you call it?

Ever heard of "precedent"? If not, look it up. It matters because judges have this habit of saying "someone already settled this point, so why should I re-settle it?" It is not bulletproof, but it is a fundamental legal concept in common law systems like the United States'.

You are taking a position because you like to troll here about how UConn is doomed, and any piece of information that does not justify Syracuse's decision (there are so many trolls on this board that I forget where they all come from) to stab the Big East in the back is argued and debated by you. Your position is wrong and you aren't looking at if from a legal viewpoint.

 

[RS9999X]

My prediction: the BCS game becomes a 1-game affair of the top two ranked teams in the BCS poll and have to be from different conferences.

For the rest of the major games, the answer is for each conference to get the media money directly from ESPN.

The Big 4 will each offer a Champion Game during the New Years Holidays. The BiG, B12, SE, PAC12 will get $50 million per year added to the Conference TV product. $10 million of the media fee will go to the visiting team.

Opponents are at-large and chosen by the Conferences and ESPN as Most television friendly teams available (usually from the Big 4).

The Conferences bid out the game to competing stadiums.The 'good old boys' bowl network is dead. They deal with Jerry Jones management and the Mark Cubans and MSGs and other event producers directly to handle the logistics and tickets and stadium.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Jericho,

I have explained how the system restrains trade several times. Competitors coordinating with each other to restrict market access is restraining trade. What else would you call it?

Ever heard of "precedent"? If not, look it up. It matters because judges have this habit of saying "someone already settled this point, so why should I re-settle it?" It is not bulletproof, but it is a fundamental legal concept in common law systems like the United States'.

You are taking a position because you like to troll here about how UConn is doomed, and any piece of information that does not justify Syracuse's decision (there are so many trolls on this board that I forget where they all come from) to stab the Big East in the back is argued and debated by you. Your position is wrong and you aren't looking at if from a legal viewpoint.

You're both talking apples and oranges. If the BCS controls only one bowl, it is unlikely that the BCS will have any antitrust issues, particularly is it is made up of every football conference.

So no, in the proposed system, the BCS doesn't do anything anti-competitive. But that is not to say that the behavior of the conferences and individual bowls in the proposed system is immune from antitrust concerns. If the Rose Bowl freezes out all but the Pac 10 and Big Ten, and refuses to consider others, how is that not collusion at some level? You'd need to look at the market. In the market for bowl games and bowl game participants, the bowl tie-ins reduce competition. The Rose may say they're not going to big big bucks to get LSU, as long as the Fiesta doesn't try to steal Oregon. Dividing up the market with your competitors is illegal. Is it a slam dunk? No. But it's a colorable claim.

 

[businesslawyer]

You're both talking apples and oranges. If the BCS controls only one bowl, it is unlikely that the BCS will have any antitrust issues, particularly is it is made up of every football conference.

So no, in the proposed system, the BCS doesn't do anything anti-competitive. But that is not to say that the behavior of the conferences and individual bowls in the proposed system is immune from antitrust concerns. If the Rose Bowl freezes out all but the Pac 10 and Big Ten, and refuses to consider others, how is that not collusion at some level? You'd need to look at the market. In the market for bowl games and bowl game participants, the bowl tie-ins reduce competition. The Rose may say they're not going to big big bucks to get LSU, as long as the Fiesta doesn't try to steal Oregon. Dividing up the market with your competitors is illegal. Is it a slam dunk? No. But it's a colorable claim.

this