Question for Boneyard lawyers

[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.

 

[Dooley]

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.

Yup. A lawsuit all but guarantees UCONN will be forever bumped to the bottom of every P5 expansion list. It would and should only be used as a last ditch effort to secure millions and millions of dollars to keep our AD and university afloat for as long as possible. A lawsuit would only be about money, not about getting into a P5.

 

[itgoeslike]

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 P5 chose to segment the G5 to help ensure the passage of initiatives that won't impact non FBS schools (and perhaps reward them) but marginalize G5 schools to create separation. However the proposed supermajority requirement could be the fly in the ointment, which is why some of the P5 commissioners are irate about it (or perhaps it is just for show).

Edit: Apparently you can't type the word t-h-e a-t-e-r.

 

[upstater]

The P5 chose to segment the G5 to help ensure the passage of initiatives that won't impact non FBS schools (and perhaps reward them) but marginalize G5 schools to create separation. However the proposed supermajority requirement could be the fly in the ointment, which is why some of the P5 commissioners are irate about it (or perhaps it is just for show).

Edit: Apparently you can't type the word t-h-e a-t-e-r.

In any negotiation, you ask for more than you need.

Theater.

 

[UConnJim]

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.

In the NFL vs USFL case, there was no direct relationship between the two leagues as they never played games against each other. That is different compared with the P5 and G5. Although I am not an anti-trust expert, it seems to me that having conferences openly state that they HAVE to treat G5 schools differently from P5 schools when scheduling football games creates financial damages. Basically, some conferences are openly saying that their schools need to schedule P5 schools out of conference. Since a home and home with a P5 school is a big moneymaker for G5 schools as are one and dones, there are financial damages that can easily be measured based on past financial performance. (I think the P5 decided to still play FCS schools because they can get home only games as well as to avoid political pressure from eliminating pay day games for local FCS schools as these games basically fund the football program.) In addition, declining to schedule bowl games against G5 schools creates another measurable financial loss.

Let's hope none of this ever goes to trial as it could help destroy college sports. Let's hope that everyone comes to their senses, allows the P5 to change some rules for athletes, and then remains committed to allowing schools to continue to compete and improve their situation over time.

 

[frankthetank]

In the NFL vs USFL case, there was no direct relationship between the two leagues as they never played games against each other. That is different compared with the P5 and G5. Although I am not an anti-trust expert, it seems to me that having conferences openly state that they HAVE to treat G5 schools differently from P5 schools when scheduling football games creates financial damages. Basically, some conferences are openly saying that their schools need to schedule P5 schools out of conference. Since a home and home with a P5 school is a big moneymaker for G5 schools as are one and dones, there are financial damages that can easily be measured based on past financial performance. (I think the P5 decided to still play FCS schools because they can get home only games as well as to avoid political pressure from eliminating pay day games for local FCS schools as these games basically fund the football program.) In addition, declining to schedule bowl games against G5 schools creates another measurable financial loss.

Let's hope none of this ever goes to trial as it could help destroy college sports. Let's hope that everyone comes to their senses, allows the P5 to change some rules for athletes, and then remains committed to allowing schools to continue to compete and improve their situation over time.

If it were that simple, then there would have been lawsuits against every exclusionary practice by the power conferences, ranging from the BCS system to bowl agreements, many years ago. People have been barking about the inequities in college sports for years and years and years... AND NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT HAS EVER BEEN FILED. I understand that G5 fans are attempting to find a legal solution to a financial problem, but that in and of itself is why the attempted legal argument fails.

If the P5/G5 distinction were erased, would ESPN pay a single cent more for the AAC than they do today? Would the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl suddenly want to enter into agreements with the AAC or the rest of the G5? Would ticket sales increase for an Alabama vs. Tulane game? The point is that the G5 can't ever show that and, in fact, they're almost certainly making more under the new CFP system than they would on their own. Until the G5 can actually show that the P5 is *taking away* money from the G5, as opposed to the P5 simply being worth exponentially more compared to the G5 (and there's a major distinction between the two), then litigation would be a foolhardy exercise. Once again, the proof is in the pudding when we live in the most litigious society on Earth and the non-power conferences haven't ever dared actually following through on filing a lawsuit against the power conferences despite the use of politicians (i.e. Orrin Hatch and the Utah AG a few years ago back when the Utes were on the outside looking in) doing some sabre-rattling from time-to-time.

 

[upstater]

If it were that simple, then there would have been lawsuits against every exclusionary practice by the power conferences, ranging from the BCS system to bowl agreements, many years ago. People have been barking about the inequities in college sports for years and years and years... AND NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT HAS EVER BEEN FILED. I understand that G5 fans are attempting to find a legal solution to a financial problem, but that in and of itself is why the attempted legal argument fails.

If the P5/G5 distinction were erased, would ESPN pay a single cent more for the AAC than they do today? Would the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl suddenly want to enter into agreements with the AAC or the rest of the G5? Would ticket sales increase for an Alabama vs. Tulane game? The point is that the G5 can't ever show that and, in fact, they're almost certainly making more under the new CFP system than they would on their own. Until the G5 can actually show that the P5 is *taking away* money from the G5, as opposed to the P5 simply being worth exponentially more compared to the G5 (and there's a major distinction between the two), then litigation would be a foolhardy exercise. Once again, the proof is in the pudding when we live in the most litigious society on Earth and the non-power conferences haven't ever dared actually following through on filing a lawsuit against the power conferences despite the use of politicians (i.e. Orrin Hatch and the Utah AG a few years ago back when the Utes were on the outside looking in) doing some sabre-rattling from time-to-time.

You could actually sue the NCAA and show damages.

UConn didn't go to NCAA tournament last year because of a NCAA ban. It was damaged because of that.

 

[itgoeslike]

If it were that simple, then there would have been lawsuits against every exclusionary practice by the power conferences, ranging from the BCS system to bowl agreements, many years ago. People have been barking about the inequities in college sports for years and years and years... AND NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT HAS EVER BEEN FILED. I understand that G5 fans are attempting to find a legal solution to a financial problem, but that in and of itself is why the attempted legal argument fails.

If the P5/G5 distinction were erased, would ESPN pay a single cent more for the AAC than they do today? Would the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl suddenly want to enter into agreements with the AAC or the rest of the G5? Would ticket sales increase for an Alabama vs. Tulane game? The point is that the G5 can't ever show that and, in fact, they're almost certainly making more under the new CFP system than they would on their own. Until the G5 can actually show that the P5 is *taking away* money from the G5, as opposed to the P5 simply being worth exponentially more compared to the G5 (and there's a major distinction between the two), then litigation would be a foolhardy exercise. Once again, the proof is in the pudding when we live in the most litigious society on Earth and the non-power conferences haven't ever dared actually following through on filing a lawsuit against the power conferences despite the use of politicians (i.e. Orrin Hatch and the Utah AG a few years ago back when the Utes were on the outside looking in) doing some sabre-rattling from time-to-time.

The reason that there aren't more lawsuits has more to do with politics than the legality of it.

It's still to soon consider this, but depending upon how things unfold, G5 schools could argue that the P5 have created an unfair advantage resulting economic hardship for schools willing to play by the exact same rules. Perhaps they will demonstrate that by "blackballing" and isolating them the P5 has diminished the value of their schools and sports programs by damaging their reputation, visibility, enrollment, marketability, research, faculty, etc. It may take a while to demonstrate this but most people recognize that it's entirely plausible.

 

[CL82]

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

I hope that you are right. I think the lure of big time TV money will keep them interested.

 

[CL82]

If the P5/G5 distinction were erased ....

You do realize that this "distinction" is a very arbitrary device that isn't even a year old that is being used to exclude certain public institution from profiting from television revenue (an industry that is publicly regulated) while other private institutions with lesser resumes are reaping multi-million dollar rewards? You don't see a vulnerability there?

 

[itgoeslike]

The benefits of winning a high profile national championship in basketball or football have been widely documented. Arbitrarily excluding and disadvantaging peer institutions from this benefit could be problematic for the P5. As CL82 pointed out, what, aside from conference affiliation, is the distinction between Wake Forest, Mississippi State, or Colorado and the University of Connecticut when it comes to Division 1 athletics.