Question for Boneyard lawyers

[noeynox]

Tell Louisville and Rick Pitino that basketball doesn't matter. Their basketball program made quite a bit more last year than their football program did AND the football programs of a lot of the teams they play in football. Yes, they have a good football program, but IMO the ACC took them for their basketball program, the FB program was just gravy.

And UCONN's could be just as successful financially if not more so.

The opposite of your post is actually accurate. We offer just as good basketball and much better academics. It was about football, and keeping Florida state and Clemson happy on the football side.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Businesslawyer has a legal concept in mind under which a suit might fall. He called it "illegal tiering" but it was all based on the new rules coming down the pike, not on what's happened in the past with the exclusion of UConn.

One thing I imagine that COULD temporarily help UConn is that a gaggle of G5 schools decides to compete with the P5 as independents, with scheduling agreements.

So, I'm not convinced that schools such as Tulsa and Tulane or, heck, even Houston for that matter, are all in on what it might take to pour mney into sports at the highest level.

But if the filter between the P5 and G5 is somewhat porous, I can imagine BYU, UConn, Cincy, USF, UCF, SMU, San Diego St., Memphis FedX, and Boise St. federating somehow at the top level. Schools like Houston and Tulane are right there with New Mexico and UNLV. Questionable commitment.

The 9 schools might decide to give it a go. BYU's TV model might be a good model for the entire federation, and especially UConn. This isn't something that could have been foreseen as viable or desirable two years ago, but look at where things are now. The P5 are creating fences. I am not at all convinced that the bottom of the MW and AAC want to go all in this universe.

I am not all convinced the bottom of the P5 want to go all in this universe...

 

[Marty Jackson]

I'd call Sen. Hatch and see if I could get my hands on his files and/or information. He probably had the goods on something or someone.
When it seemed like he was getting some momentum against the NCAA, Utah to Pac12 was announced.

 

[Marty Jackson]

What they should do and they won't because of the money the money/peanuts they get from the P5, is tell them to go on their merry way. Go have your own March Mayhem tournament. Figure out how to have a hockey championship with 10 schools. Run all of your own tournaments, and we will stay right here doing our own thing with FBS. The schools left behind then create their own highest division of Ahtletic Departments with budgets of at least 40 million, do pay for play, provide some sort of revenue sharing. In other words, help each other out and grow, and let the hypocrites continue to tout an amateur model where top coaches in revenue sports make more than a lot of their professional counterparts.

The P5 is essentially saying we don't want to play anyone but ourselves in football, the other schools should say go ahead and do the same in hockey, in soccer and every other sport and see how that works for you.

It won't happen, because football revenue drives the bus, but it is the only little bit of leverage the rest of the NCAA has on the P5.

I really think this is where the whole concept of a seperate division falls apart. Sure, you can define that for football, but what about basketball. are you telling me that Washington State or Wake Forest is more committed to competing in BB or Soccer than Uconn. Is BC going to pay it's hockey players in a league where none of the other schools can do so.

Makes no sense. And the lines aren't nearly as clear outside of football as the P5 would like them to appear. Even if football, the top G5 programs can easily compete with the middle of the pack P5 schools (namely Uconn and Cincy)...

 

[Kolumbo]

Makes no sense. And the lines aren't nearly as clear outside of football as the P5 would like them to appear. Even if football, the top G5 programs can easily compete with the middle of the pack P5 schools (namely Uconn and Cincy)...

In football, many G5 programs can easily compete with the middle of the pack P5 schools. Some G5 can compete with the top P5 programs. Which school in NC finished with the highest RPI? ECU.

 

[Pudge]

Did something happen in the last 100 hours?

I can't get too worked up week after week about this stuff. We know where this is going. What ... I think ... is the twist in this, as football drives the top 65, is how it works to eliminate Women's sports and competition at that level. Title IX has been a powerful thing.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think that the P5 schools have stated minimum "requirements" in terms of how many teams a school supports, how many scholarships it gives out, stadium size, etc. So it's not just that they decided not to invite certain teams, they have a stated "performance standard" that schools have to meet which is not arbitrary or targeted at certain other schools. That's another defense they could offer to collusion claims.

The conferences are issuing press releases that they won't play schools outside the P5. This falls squarely within the definition of collusion. I am at a loss to find a corollary for making a press release advertising a company's anti-competitive behavior in any other industry. When airlines collude to split up a market or when Coke and Pepsi used to collude to split promotions at supermarkets, they were more subtle about it.

 

[06029]

The conferences are issuing press releases that they won't play schools outside the P5. This falls squarely within the definition of collusion. I am at a loss to find a corollary for making a press release advertising a company's anti-competitive behavior in any other industry. When airlines collude to split up a market or when Coke and Pepsi used to collude to split promotions at supermarkets, they were more subtle about it.

Since you seem to lack a dictionary, here are definitions of collusion -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collusion
Note the key word is secret. If they have press releases, it is not in secret. The things you referenced as collusion were that because it was a secret. It is not collusion, it is a business decision by these conferences.

The exclusion of other FBS teams from the FB championship, operating outside of the NCAA for FB champion and all the FB money (they are just making what has happened for years look more official) are the real issues. The P5 FB have always had more money from TV. How they are cornering the market now may be the way to attack if it violates any of the exemptions they have from certain laws, or violates certain laws like Title IX, as (cough, cough) educational institutions. Of course, given that things like this will make it to the Supreme Court, they will probably decide that as long as schools have the same number of men's and women's teams, they are equal, no matter the # of scholarships. And things are just so much different today than when Title IX was enacted. And women don't play football, so it should be exempt from Title IX anyway. They should just stand on the sideline and shale their pom poms.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Since you seem to lack a dictionary, here are definitions of collusion -
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collusion
Note the key word is secret. If they have press releases, it is not in secret. The things you referenced as collusion were that because it was a secret. It is not collusion, it is a business decision by these conferences.

The exclusion of other FBS teams from the FB championship, operating outside of the NCAA for FB champion and all the FB money (they are just making what has happened for years look more official) are the real issues. The P5 FB have always had more money from TV. How they are cornering the market now may be the way to attack if it violates any of the exemptions they have from certain laws, or violates certain laws like Title IX, as (cough, cough) educational institutions. Of course, given that things like this will make it to the Supreme Court, they will probably decide that as long as schools have the same number of men's and women's teams, they are equal, no matter the # of scholarships. And things are just so much different today than when Title IX was enacted. And women don't play football, so it should be exempt from Title IX anyway. They should just stand on the sideline and shale their pom poms.

Wrong. I am tired of arguing with people about anti-trust law who have no idea what they are talking about and just want to be ACC cheerleaders.

 

[bobbyinaz]

Wrong. I am tired of arguing with people about anti-trust law who have no idea what they are talking about and just want to be ACC cheerleaders.

I'm certainly no ACC cheerleader but, I have not read anywhere where these conferences have said "they will not play BYU or G5 schools".

Instead they have said that playing them does not meet the criteria they have set as a conference in regards to every school being required to schedule a minimum of 1 P5 school per yr. Schools can still play them they just won't count as a P5 game.

IMO, this is a big difference. All of the P5 conferences have very well paid attorneys working for them & in no way do I believe that all the attorneys for all the P5 have turned their backs & allowed their clients to collude with one another in a public manner the way people here are describing it

 

[noeynox]

I'm certainly no ACC cheerleader but, I have not read anywhere where these conferences have said "they will not play BYU or G5 schools".

Instead they have said that playing them does not meet the criteria they have set as a conference in regards to every school being required to schedule a minimum of 1 P5 school per yr. Schools can still play them they just won't count as a P5 game.

IMO, this is a big difference. All of the P5 conferences have very well paid attorneys working for them & in no way do I believe that all the attorneys for all the P5 have turned their backs & allowed their clients to collude with one another in a public manner the way people here are describing it

but for a non p5 game why would you schedule a school as good as BYU? You don't think P5 schools are looking to do home and homes with the unwashed members of the G5 do you? I know, I know, we just signed with Illinois and Indiana, but this is going to get harder and harder.

 

[upstater]

I'm certainly no ACC cheerleader but, I have not read anywhere where these conferences have said "they will not play BYU or G5 schools".

Instead they have said that playing them does not meet the criteria they have set as a conference in regards to every school being required to schedule a minimum of 1 P5 school per yr. Schools can still play them they just won't count as a P5 game.

IMO, this is a big difference. All of the P5 conferences have very well paid attorneys working for them & in no way do I believe that all the attorneys for all the P5 have turned their backs & allowed their clients to collude with one another in a public manner the way people here are describing it

If you do a home and home with a P5 and a home and home with BYU, you have essentially locked yourself out of the extra home game, especially in conferences with 9 games. It's like agreeing to take less money, unless of course BYU decides to travel without a return game.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm certainly no ACC cheerleader but, I have not read anywhere where these conferences have said "they will not play BYU or G5 schools".

Instead they have said that playing them does not meet the criteria they have set as a conference in regards to every school being required to schedule a minimum of 1 P5 school per yr. Schools can still play them they just won't count as a P5 game.

IMO, this is a big difference. All of the P5 conferences have very well paid attorneys working for them & in no way do I believe that all the attorneys for all the P5 have turned their backs & allowed their clients to collude with one another in a public manner the way people here are describing it

Colluding in public absolutely does NOT make it ok. You actually find that companies are reluctant to get involved in setting industry standards through non-profit associations, which are as public as it gets, because they expose themselves to collusion charges. This comes up all the time in securities markets, where industry standards are necessary for efficient markets but a bunch of big banks sitting in a room together deciding market structure obviously could be interpreted negatively by outsiders.

I can't explain what legal basis these organizations think they have for their actions, because I do not think for-profit corporations would ever behave like this so publicly. Maybe they think that their status as non-profits or universities is their defense, or maybe they will hide behind implicit sports exemptions that exist in anti-trust law. Maybe they are just flat out wrong, as sports leagues usually are when they get sued for anticompetitive behavior. I am sure MLB thought the reserve clause was legal or that the free agency collusion of the late 80's was legal. I am sure the NCAA thought it was on firm legal footing right up to the point where Georgia and Oklahoma kicked its ass and started the dominoes tipping that would bring us to this point. One aspect of this whole situation that screams guilt, and could be used against them in court, is the $85 million that they pay the G5, which looks like little more than a payoff not to sue.

 

[06029]

Wrong. I am tired of arguing with people about anti-trust law who have no idea what they are talking about and just want to be ACC cheerleaders.

Then don't use words like collusion when you mean anti-trust or monopoly. And I had no idea you were an anti-trust expert. What case did you participate in that makes you so knowledgeable? And try and differentiate that collegiate conferences are organized different than corporations and fall under some rules that do not apply to corporations. At least at this point in time. If it is as cut and dry as you like to believe, then something will happen fast. But you know that it is not.

The schools that are in the position that Uconn finds itself are basically none. Uconn is the only school that was invited to and joined a BCS/top 5-6 conference prior to conference expansion. It was its only Div. I home. And it disintegrated around them and now Uconn is in the have nots when it was in the haves for its entire FBS existence. Cinci moved up from another conference but has historically been in the have nots along with USF. Temple might have a place because it was kicked out of a BCS conference but that was before expansion took place. The TV $$ for all non-P5 schools is essentially unchanged and their place in FB heirarchy is unchanged. It changed, in reality, only for Uconn which believed it was destined to be in a power FB conference from day 1 of the plan. If the P5 have a plan that allows for inclusion of the left behinds in the big bowl picture, then everything is pretty much the same as it was before. One non-P5 school will be in the big bowls, they will get their moments of national fame and people will say it is just like George Mason or Butler making a run in BB.

How does this play into your ant-trust/monopoly point of view? 1, maybe 2, schools impacted in a significant way by the turn of events. Yeah, it sucks that it is Uconn. Now if the P5 change the dynamics to push all non-P5 schools off TV or onto games that air in non-prime slots (Tuesday, Wednesday at midnight) or if the formula to gain access to the major bowls becomes exclusionary, then there is a basis. And I am sure they will find a way to come right up to that line but not cross it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Then don't use words like collusion when you mean anti-trust or monopoly. And I had no idea you were an anti-trust expert. What case did you participate in that makes you so knowledgeable? And try and differentiate that collegiate conferences are organized different than corporations and fall under some rules that do not apply to corporations. At least at this point in time. If it is as cut and dry as you like to believe, then something will happen fast. But you know that it is not.

The schools that are in the position that Uconn finds itself are basically none. Uconn is the only school that was invited to and joined a BCS/top 5-6 conference prior to conference expansion. It was its only Div. I home. And it disintegrated around them and now Uconn is in the have nots when it was in the haves for its entire FBS existence. Cinci moved up from another conference but has historically been in the have nots along with USF. Temple might have a place because it was kicked out of a BCS conference but that was before expansion took place. The TV for all non-P5 schools is essentially unchanged and their place in FB heirarchy is unchanged. It changed, in reality, only for Uconn which believed it was destined to be in a power FB conference from day 1 of the plan. If the P5 have a plan that allows for inclusion of the left behinds in the big bowl picture, then everything is pretty much the same as it was before. One non-P5 school will be in the big bowls, they will get their moments of national fame and people will say it is just like George Mason or Butler making a run in BB.

How does this play into your ant-trust/monopoly point of view? 1, maybe 2, schools impacted in a significant way by the turn of events. Yeah, it sucks that it is Uconn. Now if the P5 change the dynamics to push all non-P5 schools off TV or onto games that air in non-prime slots (Tuesday, Wednesday at midnight) or if the formula to gain access to the major bowls becomes exclusionary, then there is a basis. And I am sure they will find a way to come right up to that line but not cross it.

Your argument was that they did it in public, therefore it is Ok. That was really your argument.

The rest of your post does not matter either as it relates to an anti-trust case. UConn has no right to be in a P5 conference just because they are the best program that is left on the outside (BYU would argue otherwise). UConn being in or out of a P5 conference also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case other than determining whether UConn is a plaintiff or a defendant in the eventual lawsuit.

Every single non-P5 school is impacted by the collusive behavior of the P5, not just UConn. The exclusionary bowl affiliations is exactly what the P5 has done, as is the exclusionary scheduling. Industries can set minimum standards for participation, but those standards can not be set in a manner as to create a cartel. In a lot of industries, the securities industry for example, it results in a gray area.

I had a professor in grad school that was one of the top advisors and expert witnesses in the world for anti-trust litigation. I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means, but two classes with this guy exposed me to a lot of the core principles of anti-trust laws. One of his favorite phrases was "it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to act like a monopolist". Market share is just one of the standards by which anti-competitive behavior is measured, although without a significant market share by the defendent(s), a successful anti-trust litigation is impossible. Intel had to cough up $1.25 billion primarily because their market share was too big. Most successful litigation is a result of collusion (AMD, multiple airline cases, Salomon Treasury price fixing, etc.).

Collusion or any kind of coordinated action between competitors to restrict access to markets or fix prices is a foundation of any anti-trust action, and together with a big market share, usually determinative of the outcome of any litigation. In this case, we have 65 competitors working together publicly to restrict access to markets and fix prices (through bowl revenue allocations), and these 65 competitors probably comprise about 90% of the market as a result of their actions.

If you can poke a hole in that argument, let me know.

 

[frankthetank]

The problem with every antitrust argument that the G5 would plausibly attempt is that the NCAA itself is actually a bigger walking potential antitrust violation than anything under the new CFP structure. Note that the one time that the Supreme Court has ever reviewed the business of college sports - the University of Oklahoma case in the 1980s - it completely slapped down NCAA restrictions on schools and conferences making their own TV deals on antitrust grounds and quite literally created the conference-driven money atmosphere that we see today. That's why we saw threats and threats and threats and threats and threats of litigation against the BCS system for 15 straight years... and not a SINGLE piece of litigation was EVER filed. Politicians can drag commissioners in front of Congressional committees and shame them publicly, but when it comes down to the law itself, the Supreme Court precedent implies that the NCAA Tournament (by redistributing income from more powerful schools to smaller schools that wouldn't otherwise receive that type of money in a true free market) is actually more of a potential Sherman Act violation than the old BCS or new CFP systems. That's why everyone in the NCAA is effectively rolling over right now for the P5 - the small schools know that the P5 have both the market power to leave AND the legal argument on their side.

Believe me - the power conference legal teams have had every legal angle covered for years. The only arguments that the non-power teams can hope to advance are within the public and political spheres as opposed to the legal sphere. However, I don't think we'll see the same public and political complaints under the CFP compared to the BCS. The thing is that 06029 is correct that virtually every single school in the G5 is at least satisfied with the outcome of conference realignment EXCEPT for UConn, Cincinnati and USF (the 3 schools that went from power status to non-power status). As a result, it's going to be much harder to rally the proverbial non-power school troops in this new CFP environment compared to the BCS environment - every single G5 school besides UConn, Cincinnati and USF is going to be making significantly more postseason money compared to the BCS years, so their interests are just making sure that the P5 stay in the fold and don't walk away entirely. There isn't any realistic legal or political recourse for G5 schools to make P5 money other than getting out of the G5 and into the P5.

 

[upstater]

The NCAA Tournament (by redistributing income from more powerful schools to smaller schools that wouldn't otherwise receive that type of money in a true free market) is actually more of a potential Sherman Act violation than the old BCS or new CFP systems. That's why everyone in the NCAA is effectively rolling over right now for the P5 - the small schools know that the P5 have both the market power to leave AND the legal argument on their side.

I can't understand how you came to this conclusion. You're assuming a tournament of 65 teams is more valuable than what we have now. The current setup sees $1m go to entire small conferences, so schools are getting less than $100k. You're saying that if the tourney were limited to 65, it would be more valuable? Even so, the 65 would have to pay to run their own championships from then on because half the money the NCAA takes from the tourney is used to run D1 championships for all sports.

In a free market, I'm not at all convinced these schools make less money. In a free market, someone may actually pay MORE to have a tourney largely composed the way it is now.

 

[frankthetank]

Your argument was that they did it in public, therefore it is Ok. That was really your argument.

The rest of your post does not matter either as it relates to an anti-trust case. UConn has no right to be in a P5 conference just because they are the best program that is left on the outside (BYU would argue otherwise). UConn being in or out of a P5 conference also has nothing to do with an anti-trust case other than determining whether UConn is a plaintiff or a defendant in the eventual lawsuit.

Every single non-P5 school is impacted by the collusive behavior of the P5, not just UConn. The exclusionary bowl affiliations is exactly what the P5 has done, as is the exclusionary scheduling. Industries can set minimum standards for participation, but those standards can not be set in a manner as to create a cartel. In a lot of industries, the securities industry for example, it results in a gray area.

I had a professor in grad school that was one of the top advisors and expert witnesses in the world for anti-trust litigation. I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means, but two classes with this guy exposed me to a lot of the core principles of anti-trust laws. One of his favorite phrases was "it's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it is illegal to act like a monopolist". Market share is just one of the standards by which anti-competitive behavior is measured, although without a significant market share by the defendent(s), a successful anti-trust litigation is impossible. Intel had to cough up $1.25 billion primarily because their market share was too big. Most successful litigation is a result of collusion (AMD, multiple airline cases, Salomon Treasury price fixing, etc.).

Collusion or any kind of coordinated action between competitors to restrict access to markets or fix prices is a foundation of any anti-trust action, and together with a big market share, usually determinative of the outcome of any litigation. In this case, we have 65 competitors working together publicly to restrict access to markets and fix prices (through bowl revenue allocations), and these 65 competitors probably comprise about 90% of the market as a result of their actions.

If you can poke a hole in that argument, let me know.

Here's the thing: even if you can actually prove that the P5 violated antitrust laws, can the G5 prove damages (or at least damages in excess of their share of CFP money)? Recall the USFL's antitrust case against the NFL. The USFL actually won that case on the legal merits in showing that the NFL violated the Sherman Act and engaged in anticompetitive practices. Yet, the court ended up awarding a grand total of $3 ($1 in actual damages times 3 since there are treble damages for antitrust violations) to the USFL. The upshot was that even though the NFL was violating antitrust laws all day, it had nothing to do with why the USFL couldn't sign up better TV deals, sell tickets or obtain sponsorships, which meant that the USFL couldn't show that their lack of financial resources was caused by the NFL's actions. In essence, the NFL anticompetitive behavior didn't take *away* any money that the USFL would have made in a true free market.

This is exactly where the G5 would struggle in its potential argument. Let's say that the P5 colluded and openly violated the Sherman Act. Did those actions actually cause ESPN and Fox to pay less money for G5 TV rights... or did ESPN and Fox pay less money for G5 TV rights simply because the G5 schools are worth less money regardless of the P5 actions? Likewise, did the P5 actually prevent the G5 from getting a better bowl deal... or did bowls simply not find G5 schools attractive from a financial perspective? The Big Ten and SEC will say that they didn't prevent the AAC or MWC from signing their own big-money bowl deals, but rather that the bowls individually decided on their own in their reasonable business judgments that the AAC and MWC weren't worth that much. That's the inherent problem with the G5 argument - even if they could win on the legal side, they'll have a hard time showing the economic side of the ledger. A court can easily find that the P5 are making 90% of the money because they are literally that much more popular... and that 10% share of CFP money might actually be *overcompensating* the G5 in relation to their value in a true free market where they would never have been able to make that money on their own (i.e. if the G5 weren't included in the system at all, ESPN, the bowls, and consumers as evidenced by TV ratings data wouldn't care one bit, so the P5 are arguably giving up money under this system when they ought to be taking close to 100%).

 

[upstater]

This is exactly where the G5 would struggle in its potential argument. Let's say that the P5 colluded and openly violated the Sherman Act. Did those actions actually cause ESPN and Fox to pay less money for G5 TV rights... or did ESPN and Fox pay less money for G5 TV rights simply because the G5 schools are worth less money regardless of the P5 actions? Likewise, did the P5 actually prevent the G5 from getting a better bowl deal... or did bowls simply not find G5 schools attractive from a financial perspective? The Big Ten and SEC will say that they didn't prevent the AAC or MWC from signing their own big-money bowl deals, but rather that the bowls individually decided on their own in their reasonable business judgments that the AAC and MWC weren't worth that much. That's the inherent problem with the G5 argument - even if they could win on the legal side, they'll have a hard time showing the economic side of the ledger. A court can easily find that the P5 are making 90% of the money because they are literally that much more popular... and that 10% share of CFP money might actually be *overcompensating* the G5 in relation to their value in a true free market where they would never have been able to make that money on their own (i.e. if the G5 weren't included in the system at all, ESPN, the bowls, and consumers as evidenced by TV ratings data wouldn't care one bit, so the P5 are arguably giving up money under this system when they ought to be taking close to 100%).

The only thing many of us saw that was legally questionable were the tiers in the new agreements to be voted on in August. I can't see how they would enforce tiers that many schools are not happy with. You say they are happy but we've heard from presidents, commissioners and ADs who are clearly not happy about any proposed tiering that would differentiate between P5 and G5. Money is another story. That gets divvied up differently. But in terms of competition, I don't think the G5 can allow the P5 to play by other rules. It should be done on a school by school basis, or conference by conference. And if the P5 rig it so that the G5 have to play with limitations, I can easily see a lawsuit.

 

[frankthetank]

I can't understand how you came to this conclusion. You're assuming a tournament of 65 teams is more valuable than what we have now. The current setup sees $1m go to entire small conferences, so schools are getting less than $100k. You're saying that if the tourney were limited to 65, it would be more valuable? Even so, the 65 would have to pay to run their own championships from then on because half the money the NCAA takes from the tourney is used to run D1 championships for all sports.

In a free market, I'm not at all convinced these schools make less money. In a free market, someone may actually pay MORE to have a tourney largely composed the way it is now.

TOTAL money is irrelevant. The revenue SPLIT is what matters. If the P5 could run their own basketball tournament and their revenue share would be larger in that system than their current share in the NCAA Tournament, then they're leaving money on the table in the name of the NCAA. It wouldn't matter if the NCAA Tournament is worth $1 billion total per year while the P5-only tournament is worth only half as much as long as the P5 leagues themselves make more in the latter situation. The average fan might find that notion crazy, but I'm telling you straight up: the P5 HATE HATE HATE the NCAA Tournament revenue split. HATE IT. They legitimately believe that they ought to be making 90% of the basketball money in the same way that they're earning 90% of the football money. The fact that such 90/10 disparity exists in football but not basketball is why conference realignment has been almost entirely a football-driven affair (which is probably to the chagrin of most of the people on this board).

Ever since the University of Oklahoma Supreme Court case, there's been a tacit understanding between the power conferences and the NCAA: as long as the NCAA doesn't mess with the football postseason, then the power conferences won't mess with the NCAA Tournament. That's why every single call for more NCAA oversight of the football postseason is DOA - the P5 will walk in that situation (and that's not an empty threat) and take all of the basketball money with them in the process. Just read the University of Oklahoma case (which was written by the liberal Justice Stevens, by the way) - its slapdown of NCAA regulations is exactly why the NCAA doesn't ever challenge the power leagues today. Contrary to popular fan belief, it's the *NCAA* that's in constant risk of violating the Sherman Act with any move (NOT the individual power leagues).

 

[upstater]

TOTAL money is irrelevant. The revenue SPLIT is what matters. If the P5 could run their own basketball tournament and their revenue share would be larger in that system than their current share in the NCAA Tournament, then they're leaving money on the table in the name of the NCAA. It wouldn't matter if the NCAA Tournament is worth $1 billion total per year while the P5-only tournament is worth only half as much as long as the P5 leagues themselves make more in the latter situation. The average fan might find that notion crazy, but I'm telling you straight up: the P5 HATE HATE HATE the NCAA Tournament revenue split. HATE IT. They legitimately believe that they ought to be making 90% of the basketball money in the same way that they're earning 90% of the football money. The fact that such 90/10 disparity exists in football but not basketball is why conference realignment has been almost entirely a football-driven affair (which is probably to the chagrin of most of the people on this board).

Ever since the University of Oklahoma Supreme Court case, there's been a tacit understanding between the power conferences and the NCAA: as long as the NCAA doesn't mess with the football postseason, then the power conferences won't mess with the NCAA Tournament. That's why every single call for more NCAA oversight of the football postseason is DOA - the P5 will walk in that situation (and that's not an empty threat) and take all of the basketball money with them in the process. Just read the University of Oklahoma case (which was written by the liberal Justice Stevens, by the way) - its slapdown of NCAA regulations is exactly why the NCAA doesn't ever challenge the power leagues today. Contrary to popular fan belief, it's the *NCAA* that's in constant risk of violating the Sherman Act with any move (NOT the individual power leagues).

You invoked the free market. That's what I was responding to. Then you wrote "IF the revenue share would be larger..." I wrote that I think the total pie would be smaller, AND that the P5 would then have to run their own championships (some of the B1G schools participate in sports like hockey where there are only 7 P5 members), AND once outside the NCAA system some of those P5 conferences would be beholden to the crazy whims of the SEC schools.

I just don't see how they could possibly take more money especially since there are many G5 schools just as good at basketball as the P5 schools.

 

[upstater]

As a matter of fact, I would also argue there are almost as many good basketball schools outside the P5 than there are inside the P5. I have 26 schools outside, and 37 inside. That's schools that care about bball and field good teams over the last decade or so. In other words, I excluded schools like Colorado and SMU who have not been strong over the last decade.

 

[frankthetank]

The only thing many of us saw that was legally questionable were the tiers in the new agreements to be voted on in August. I can't see how they would enforce tiers that many schools are not happy with. You say they are happy but we've heard from presidents, commissioners and ADs who are clearly not happy about any proposed tiering that would differentiate between P5 and G5. Money is another story. That gets divvied up differently. But in terms of competition, I don't think the G5 can allow the P5 to play by other rules. It should be done on a school by school basis, or conference by conference. And if the P5 rig it so that the G5 have to play with limitations, I can easily see a lawsuit.

What is the basis of the lawsuit? How is it legally questionable if the NCAA membership votes and passes the measure in accordance with NCAA by-laws? Furthermore, how is this any different than if the P5 were to just leave the NCAA entirely (thereby enabling them to create their own rules on anything that they wanted), which would be completely legal? If the G5 don't like the new rules, why don't they mitigate the potential damages (to the extent that they exist) by leaving the NCAA themselves? The fact that some schools don't like new rules voted on by the NCAA membership doesn't in and of itself create a potential legal claim. Indeed, the entire impetus of the "P5 autonomy" push is that the P5 conferences themselves didn't like rules that were passed (or not passed) by the rest of the membership.

 

[businesslawyer]

Contrary to popular fan belief, it's the *NCAA* that's in constant risk of violating the Sherman Act with any move (NOT the individual power leagues).

No. The fact that the NCAA is subject to Sherman Act review and compliance does not, repeat NOT, mean that the conferences are exempt from it. The conferences are just as much subject to federal antitrust laws as the NCAA. They just haven't been seriously challenged yet.

 

[upstater]

What is the basis of the lawsuit? How is it legally questionable if the NCAA membership votes and passes the measure in accordance with NCAA by-laws? Furthermore, how is this any different than if the P5 were to just leave the NCAA entirely (thereby enabling them to create their own rules on anything that they wanted), which would be completely legal? If the G5 don't like the new rules, why don't they mitigate the potential damages (to the extent that they exist) by leaving the NCAA themselves? The fact that some schools don't like new rules voted on by the NCAA membership doesn't in and of itself create a potential legal claim. Indeed, the entire impetus of the "P5 autonomy" push is that the P5 conferences themselves didn't like rules that were passed (or not passed) by the rest of the membership.

I'm sure you're going to get an answer shortly but this was discussed on this board several weeks ago as an illegal tiering arrangement within the NCAA.

Also, I don't believe I said that individual schools will be suing other conferences.