Question for Boneyard lawyers

[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.

 

[Dooley]

UCONN is, very easily, a Top 5 basketball program in the country. Anyone who debates otherwise dislikes UCONN for some reason or isn't paying attention (or both). That kind of resume belongs in the P5 model, one way or the other. Kentucky, Indiana, UNC, Duke, Syracuse, etc have all fancied themselves in P5 conferences being basketball first schools. UCONN has more success than all of them in the past 20 years. UCONN football has had just as much or more success than all of them in the past 10 years, depending on the program. If UCONN is locked out of the P5 on a permanent basis 5 years from now, then I want someone or a bunch of someones to sit on a stand, under oath, and tell us why. And I better hear something more than the "oh well, they've been playing football since 1867 so that's why they got in" BS.

 

[frankthetank]

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.

I think you're severely underestimating both the revenue that the P5 can achieve on their own and how much they're giving up financially to the entire rest of the NCAA by participating in the NCAA Tournament. There are probably 15 to 20 auto-bid shares per year that are granted to conferences that are far beyond the market value of such conferences. Also, remember that the NCAA Tournament is subsidizing ALL levels of the NCAA - Division I through Division III. Those expenses for every single sport for every single NCAA school at every single level vastly outweigh any consternation that the P5 would have about running their own tournaments for non-revenue sports... which is what they want to do via conference realignment anyway!

Sure, there are excellent G5 basketball schools, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the P5's experience with basketball revenue sharing is EXACTLY why they want nothing to do with the same type of system in football. They'd be more than happy to marginalize any non-P5 school for basketball just as they've done in football and, in turn, increase the value of the P5 basketball regular season that they can keep 100% to themselves (which is what they've also done in football).

I'm not saying that the P5 is going to actively disband the NCAA Tournament. It's still a huge bridge to cross even for the biggest money-grubbers in the sport. However, if it comes down to a choice between protecting football autonomy or the NCAA Tournament, the P5 will choose football autonomy every single time without debate (and take basketball along with it in the process).

 

[upstater]

I think you're severely underestimating both the revenue that the P5 can achieve on their own and how much they're giving up financially to the entire rest of the NCAA by participating in the NCAA Tournament. There are probably 15 to 20 auto-bid shares per year that are granted to conferences that are far beyond the market value of such conferences. Also, remember that the NCAA Tournament is subsidizing ALL levels of the NCAA - Division I through Division III. Those expenses for every single sport for every single NCAA school at every single level vastly outweigh any consternation that the P5 would have about running their own tournaments for non-revenue sports... which is what they want to do via conference realignment anyway!

Sure, there are excellent G5 basketball schools, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the P5's experience with basketball revenue sharing is EXACTLY why they want nothing to do with the same type of system in football. They'd be more than happy to marginalize any non-P5 school for basketball just as they've done in football and, in turn, increase the value of the P5 basketball regular season that they can keep 100% to themselves (which is what they've also done in football).

I'm not saying that the P5 is going to actively disband the NCAA Tournament. It's still a huge bridge to cross even for the biggest money-grubbers in the sport. However, if it comes down to a choice between protecting football autonomy or the NCAA Tournament, the P5 will choose football autonomy every single time without debate (and take basketball along with it in the process).

I don't disagree with you here. I just laid out the reasons that it would be a monumentally stupid decision.

 

[frankthetank]

Regardless, the overarching point is that the postseason that fans think of as "fair" and with "equal access" (the NCAA Tournament) could actually be more of a collusive anticompetitive redistribution of income in violation of free market principles than the "unfair" and "closed" football system. Once again, just look at how the Supreme Court completely hammered the NCAA's governance structure in the University of Oklahoma case. People keep rhetorically asking, "Why doesn't the NCAA force a football playoff?!" or "Why don't the small schools sue the big schools?!" and the answer is right there in that court opinion. The NCAA Tournament is more in danger of a Sherman Act violation than the CFP system, as crazy as that might sound to sports fans.

 

[upstater]

Regardless, the overarching point is that the postseason that fans think of as "fair" and with "equal access" (the NCAA Tournament) could actually be more of a collusive anticompetitive redistribution of income in violation of free market principles than the "unfair" and "closed" football system. Once again, just look at how the Supreme Court completely hammered the NCAA's governance structure in the University of Oklahoma case. People keep rhetorically asking, "Why doesn't the NCAA force a football playoff?!" or "Why don't the small schools sue the big schools?!" and the answer is right there in that court opinion. The NCAA Tournament is more in danger of a Sherman Act violation than the CFP system, as crazy as that might sound to sports fans.

You're missing something here. The NCAA is doing the P5s bidding. It's perfectly fine for the P5 to break off right now. Maybe they should. But while they are under the NCAA umbrella, there are certain things they can be held liable for. Just because they can leave the NCAA and do their own thing doesn't mean they can do their own thing while part of the NCAA.

If they leave, I think they kill the golden goose. You can't tell me that schools like Michigan and Virginia are feeling confident being part of a world ruled by the SEC and whatever new "rules" that conference is going to come up with.

 

[frankthetank]

You're missing something here. The NCAA is doing the P5s bidding. It's perfectly fine for the P5 to break off right now. Maybe they should. But while they are under the NCAA umbrella, there are certain things they can be held liable for. Just because they can leave the NCAA and do their own thing doesn't mean they can do their own thing while part of the NCAA.

Sure, but that doesn't matter if the rest of the NCAA membership passes P5 autonomy. The NCAA membership can't vote to allow the P5 to have autonomy on the one hand and then turn around and sue the P5 for exercising such autonomy on the other hand. There simply isn't any claim there assuming the NCAA passes those rules.

If they leave, I think they kill the golden goose. You can't tell me that schools like Michigan and Virginia are feeling confident being part of a world ruled by the SEC and whatever new "rules" that conference is going to come up with.

The Big Ten and SEC might squabble publicly on the stuff that fans care about (i.e. recruiting, on-the-field performance), but when it comes to the truly big issues regarding money, power and control, they have been in alignment 100%.

 

[djct1999]

Regardless, the overarching point is that the postseason that fans think of as "fair" and with "equal access" (the NCAA Tournament) could actually be more of a collusive anticompetitive redistribution of income in violation of free market principles than the "unfair" and "closed" football system. Once again, just look at how the Supreme Court completely hammered the NCAA's governance structure in the University of Oklahoma case. People keep rhetorically asking, "Why doesn't the NCAA force a football playoff?!" or "Why don't the small schools sue the big schools?!" and the answer is right there in that court opinion. The NCAA Tournament is more in danger of a Sherman Act violation than the CFP system, as crazy as that might sound to sports fans.

when UConn gets the big10 invite, i may sue you for blasphemy, unless you relocate to west virginia!

 

[upstater]

Sure, but that doesn't matter if the rest of the NCAA membership passes P5 autonomy. The NCAA membership can't vote to allow the P5 to have autonomy on the one hand and then turn around and sue the P5 for exercising such autonomy on the other hand. There simply isn't any claim there assuming the NCAA passes those rules.

The ACC voted for a $50 million exit fee, Maryland is suing the conference.

If the SEC goes semi-pro, they grab that Michigan/Virginia tiger by the tail and no one knows how that's going to end up.

 

[IthacaMatt]

If you could provide a link to these "guidelines" that would be great. . .although I don't have much faith that you'll find any such document.

I wouldn't call it a "document", but it's what Mike Slive talked about at a recent address that was reported on by ESPN.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...-slive-lays-goals-five-conference-subdivision

 

[itgoeslike]

What FTT is describing could be construed as a for-profit business entity. If there's one place that might agree it's the State of California. It could look at all that revenue and decide it's taxable; or perhaps that the redistribution of revenue to other state schools could reduce shortfalls in the budget; or heck, maybe athletes should unionize. Visiting schools from other conferences and states would also have a tax liability for doing business in California. (Having done business in that California from afar, I can tell you they have it down to a science. Amazon even decided it was in their best interest to pay-to-play in CA). . .Far fetched? A few years ago, who would have guessed that the O'Bannon suit would progress the way it has and that Northwestern would actually vote to unionize? It's a slippery slope. . .

 

[itgoeslike]

I wouldn't call it a "document", but it's what Mike Slive talked about at a recent address that was reported on by ESPN.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...-slive-lays-goals-five-conference-subdivision

What you are implying is that if a school complies with all the listed student-centric initiatives they are automatically a P5 school on equal footing? I doubt it.

There will likely have to be some level of guidelines published in the coming months as the NCAA reorganizes, akin to D1-A and D1-AA, but I can't imagine they would publish/adopt anything formal in advance of that. Conference attorneys are trying to move slowly and deliberately to push the envelope. We'll see if they overextend themselves. I still think the challenge comes from an unlikely source.

 

[UConnJim]

I think you're severely underestimating both the revenue that the P5 can achieve on their own and how much they're giving up financially to the entire rest of the NCAA by participating in the NCAA Tournament. There are probably 15 to 20 auto-bid shares per year that are granted to conferences that are far beyond the market value of such conferences. Also, remember that the NCAA Tournament is subsidizing ALL levels of the NCAA - Division I through Division III. Those expenses for every single sport for every single NCAA school at every single level vastly outweigh any consternation that the P5 would have about running their own tournaments for non-revenue sports... which is what they want to do via conference realignment anyway!

Sure, there are excellent G5 basketball schools, but don't let that blind you to the fact that the P5's experience with basketball revenue sharing is EXACTLY why they want nothing to do with the same type of system in football. They'd be more than happy to marginalize any non-P5 school for basketball just as they've done in football and, in turn, increase the value of the P5 basketball regular season that they can keep 100% to themselves (which is what they've also done in football).

I'm not saying that the P5 is going to actively disband the NCAA Tournament. It's still a huge bridge to cross even for the biggest money-grubbers in the sport. However, if it comes down to a choice between protecting football autonomy or the NCAA Tournament, the P5 will choose football autonomy every single time without debate (and take basketball along with it in the process).

I don't think you are correct. If the P5 broke away in basketball, say the G5 (or others) don't play them in basketball anymore. It would mean that half (plus or minus) of the P5 teams would be under 0.500. I guess you could have a basketball tournament with all P5 schools, but you would have some really ugly games.

And, basketball is not football. Having a P5 only tournament would exclude many of the top basketball markets in the US and be skewed heavily towards football markets. For example, only one New England team (BC, which nobody cares about in New England) would be eligible. And only 1 school in NY and New Jersey. No Philadelphia or DC schools. But, we would have 2 schools each from Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Although a P5 football league may not attract political challenges, I would GUARANTEE that an exclusionary basketball tournament would attract tremendous political pressure. Just think about this: Harvard - out. Penn - out. Princeton - out. Georgetown - out. Villanova - out. Temple - out. Memphis - out. Providence College - out. UConn - out. UMass - out. All SUNYs - out. Virtually all religion affiliated schools - out. Think about this: the alma maters' of the President, VP, Attorney General, Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House are out!

In the past 11 years, the non-P5 schools have placed 12 schools in the Final 4, has had 3 champions and 3 runners up.

I guess you could have the NCAA Tournament and the NIT like we had in the past, but I would think it would dilute the product for everyone. Yes, you are correct in that the NCAA derives 90% of their revenues, or $500 million from the basketball tournament. But, it basically means that college basketball, not football is subsidizing all sports in the NCAA.

 

[Pat125]

Also, remember that the NCAA Tournament is subsidizing ALL levels of the NCAA - Division I through Division III.

It is true the NCAA Tournament subsidizes Divisions II and III. But to put things in perspective this is about 5% total for both divisions.

 

[06029]

UCONN is, very easily, a Top 5 basketball program in the country. Anyone who debates otherwise dislikes UCONN for some reason or isn't paying attention (or both). That kind of resume belongs in the P5 model, one way or the other. Kentucky, Indiana, UNC, Duke, Syracuse, etc have all fancied themselves in P5 conferences being basketball first schools. UCONN has more success than all of them in the past 20 years. UCONN football has had just as much or more success than all of them in the past 10 years, depending on the program. If UCONN is locked out of the P5 on a permanent basis 5 years from now, then I want someone or a bunch of someones to sit on a stand, under oath, and tell us why. And I better hear something more than the "oh well, they've been playing football since 1867 so that's why they got in" BS.

Every program you listed except Syracuse were founding/long term members of their conference. None of those conferences has ever removed a member. Members have left and they have expanded but they never kicked anyone out. They get to stay and be in a P5 because they are there and have been there for a long time. Syracuse got lucky with their invite when it came although the ACC had them on their radar for almost a decade.

People need to get past the point of why wasn't Uconn selected and accept the answer you give kids when they ask why the sky is blue, blood red and grass green. The answers are technical and it just is that way. Uconn is outside right now because they were not asked to join because of (list the technical and statistical and revenue reasons here). If there is further expansion and Uconn is not asked to join an expanded P5, the answer will once again be they were not asked to join because of (list the technical and statistical and revenue reasons here). There is no way to force a conference to invite Uconn if Uconn does not fit into their grand plan. Uconn needs to make itself viable for the P5 conferences grand plan. It starts with increasing the value of Uconn FB and that means sell outs, winning and upsetting anyone from a P5 conference. It also means getting all of the other pieces in place whether it be AAU, TV market share, carriage rights, pay per view, bribery, whatever. And even with that, there is no 100% sure fire way to be invited.

 

[upstater]

Every program you listed except Syracuse were founding/long term members of their conference. None of those conferences has ever removed a member. Members have left and they have expanded but they never kicked anyone out. They get to stay and be in a P5 because they are there and have been there for a long time. Syracuse got lucky with their invite when it came although the ACC had them on their radar for almost a decade.

People need to get past the point of why wasn't Uconn selected and accept the answer you give kids when they ask why the sky is blue, blood red and grass green. The answers are technical and it just is that way. Uconn is outside right now because they were not asked to join because of (list the technical and statistical and revenue reasons here). If there is further expansion and Uconn is not asked to join an expanded P5, the answer will once again be they were not asked to join because of (list the technical and statistical and revenue reasons here). There is no way to force a conference to invite Uconn if Uconn does not fit into their grand plan. Uconn needs to make itself viable for the P5 conferences grand plan. It starts with increasing the value of Uconn FB and that means sell outs, winning and upsetting anyone from a P5 conference. It also means getting all of the other pieces in place whether it be AAU, TV market share, carriage rights, pay per view, bribery, whatever. And even with that, there is no 100% sure fire way to be invited.

I think we all reason that a lawsuit is a nothing to lose scenario that would forever incur the enmity of the P5.

It has nothing to do with forcing the P5s hand.

It has to do with money.

The G5 have a lot to lose over the next decade.