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

[NEforceUConn]

Yes, the bowls are non-profit. At least the major ones.

Yes regarding non-profit the Bowl commissioners (and system) insure that they spend every damn last penny collected. If a commissioner's salary has to be bumped from $600k to $665k to spend that last $65k so be it.

 

[Jericho]

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.

I feel like you are taking legal terms and just throwing them out there without comprehending their actual meaning. And you've also resorted to calling me a troll, even though I don't recall ever saying UConn was doomed (please show me otherwise). I don't comprehend the Syracuse reference either? Are you imply I'm a Syracuse fan? Because I am not. You seem to be completely misguided with everything, from your legal "analysis" to your name calling.

The point remains that you have failed to identify how the new proposed BCS is an unreasonable restraint of trade. You continue to rehash vague references to price fixing and restricting market access. If the BCS controls one game, who are they restricting access to exactly? They've come up with some formula to choose the two participants. Nothing prevents a lower tier conference from qualifying for this BCS championship. Now you might say that the voters will never rank a lower tier conference school that high. And that may be true. But since the human polls are completely independent of the BCS and since the computer polls are also independent, what blame can you actually put on the BCS? Where is their restraint of trade? They do not control the voters. They have no rules to prevent any school for making the bowl game. They have ditched the AQ so that no conference gets preferential treatment. What pray tell is unreasonable about that kind of system? This is a very important point.

Also, I think you "precendent" argument was pretty well shot down earlier. Precedent does matter. But precedent is based on facts. And factually this scenario is different. The mere fact both cases involved sports is only a very small piece in determining if precedence is even relevant (which as someone who has studied Antitrust law, I've found that Antitrust cases are excellent at not following precedent and carving out exceptions and distinctions as they choose).

 

[Jericho]

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.

But under this hypothetical, who is the Rose Bowl colluding with? Nothing in Antitrust would force the Rose Bowl to take other conferences. If they want to deal with just the Big 10 and Pac-12, that's their prerogative. The collusion would have to take place among the Bowls. Which certainly is possible, but much harder to prove if the Bowls do not communicate with each other. The Pac-12 can reach an agreement o send their champion to their game. And the Rose Bowl can accept this. That means other bowls cannot invite the Pac-12 champ. AS long as the Rose Bowl does not specifically dictate who the Fiesta will take, the Bowls should be in the clear.

 

[Jericho]

Which all goes to prove the point that the current BCS system is anti-competitive - forcing the bowl, and the network, to take a BE team that it does not want, and the nation does not want to watch - pursuant to a pre-arranged contract.

This is true. The best argument against the CURRENT system is that the BCS grants automatic births to champions from 6 conferences. In the past this was 6/8 spots. Now it's only 6/10 spots, but still a majority. This regardless of merit. So the system favors these conferences at the expense of the small conferences. And the smaller conferences have restricted access since they don't have automatic births (Not too mention the polls are biased against these schools, although that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand).

But as VAHuskyFan pointed out, this is no slam dunk of an Antitrust suit.

 

[Jericho]

My view is that an antitrust action against the BCS would ultimately fail because it would be hard for plaintiffs to demonstrate that "output" has fallen in any meaningful sense -- or even that they have been directly harmed (i.e. back before the BCS system, non-AQ schools were still not getting invited to major bowls). I think the far larger threat to the system is the loss of non-profit status, which is becoming increasingly difficult to justify as the schools, conferences, and bowls are increasingly brazen about the fact that money is their number one priority.

Random aside, but why would the schools lose non-profit status? Its not something I've heard (although I do not follow these kind of things all that closely) and I certainly do not know all the ins and outs about 401c status. But non-profit does not mean they cannot take in a lot of money. Its just how they use it that matters. Although if there are limits, let me know.

 

[businesslawyer]

Random aside, but why would the schools lose non-profit status? Its not something I've heard (although I do not follow these kind of things all that closely) and I certainly do not know all the ins and outs about 401c status. But non-profit does not mean they cannot take in a lot of money. Its just how they use it that matters. Although if there are limits, let me know.

Because at the end of the day there has to be a "charitable purpose." Universities, at the end of the day, have a charitable purpose. University athletic departments, the way that they are currently operating, raise money to pay ADs and coaches higher salaries. Almost nothing else gets done with the money. That would be the argument.

 

[VAHuskyFan]

Random aside, but why would the schools lose non-profit status? Its not something I've heard (although I do not follow these kind of things all that closely) and I certainly do not know all the ins and outs about 401c status. But non-profit does not mean they cannot take in a lot of money. Its just how they use it that matters. Although if there are limits, let me know.

Bizlaw's answer is right on point. The link below is to an article from a few years ago that lays out the argument pretty well.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas...ll-deserve-its-big-149737.html?printArticle=y

 

[kingdobbs]

UConn and the Big East in general can stop all the whining and hand wringing about AQ status by simply playing a better non conference schedule and beating the big boys. When your schedule is as tough as Alabama's and your record is better everyone across the country will see it and you'll get the invite you deserve. Now lets give Coach P and staff time and support to get this ship moving in that direction.

Scheduling goes two ways. UConn has all the incentive to schedule better, but very few teams have enough incentive to schedule UConn.

 

[weyuo]

Scheduling goes two ways. UConn has all the incentive to schedule better, but very few teams have enough incentive to schedule UConn.

Why is there more incentive for Penn St to play Buffalo(2015) than there is to play UConn? Or Eastern Michigan(2013)? Kent St(2013)? I'd venture a bet that we would bring more fans to Happy Valley than any of those schools and would make for a more interesting game ratings wise. I understand your point and hopefully the BCS conferences won't black-list us in an attempt to put the final nails in the Big East football conference coffin. I'm hoping that the powers that be will try and spruce up the non conference schedule to make us more attractive. Playing Buffalo might get you an automatic W and serve as a glorified scrimmage for your players but that is just not gonna cut it when your dolling yourself up for a BCS conference invite.

 

[ddminct]

When is Penn St playing at Buffalo?

 

[businesslawyer]

Why is there more incentive for Penn St to play Buffalo(2015) than there is to play UConn? Or Eastern Michigan(2013)? Kent St(2013)? I'd venture a bet that we would bring more fans to Happy Valley than any of those schools and would make for a more interesting game ratings wise. I understand your point and hopefully the BCS conferences won't black-list us in an attempt to put the final nails in the Big East football conference coffin. I'm hoping that the powers that be will try and spruce up the non conference schedule to make us more attractive. Playing Buffalo might get you an automatic W and serve as a glorified scrimmage for your players but that is just not gonna cut it when your dolling yourself up for a BCS conference invite.

1. They don't have to offer the MAC team return games away from Happy Valley.

2. They aren't worried about losing at home to those teams. They can't count on beating UConn every time they play them.

You mean aside from those reasons why would they prefer to play Akron?

 

[SubbaBub]

Lol, at any school like PSU/Mich/Alabama worried about selling games. Teams like that schedule the Buffalos of the world precisely because they sell 100k+ regardless of the opponent. In contrast, UConn needs to schedule better to sell tickets. Western Michigan doesn't cut it.

 

[kingdobbs]

Why is there more incentive for Penn St to play Buffalo(2015) than there is to play UConn? Or Eastern Michigan(2013)? Kent St(2013)? I'd venture a bet that we would bring more fans to Happy Valley than any of those schools and would make for a more interesting game ratings wise. I understand your point and hopefully the BCS conferences won't black-list us in an attempt to put the final nails in the Big East football conference coffin. I'm hoping that the powers that be will try and spruce up the non conference schedule to make us more attractive. Playing Buffalo might get you an automatic W and serve as a glorified scrimmage for your players but that is just not gonna cut it when your dolling yourself up for a BCS conference invite.

Penn State (or any other top tier program) would rather have those teams because (a) they won't demand a return game (or will take one for two or more at Penn State), (b) probably won't beat them on their home turf, and (c) really doesn't need good teams on their resume to make the NCG as long as they win out in the Big Ten.

There won't be any bonafide blacklisting, but as long as there's more incentive to fill your non-con schedule with cupcakes than there is for good teams which you might lose to (i.e. in a more objective system that isn't just trolling for the top two teams), then there are very few teams who will look at UConn as a smart match to fill holes in their schedule.