Obama administration requests legal review of BCS structure.......

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by cartman

The BCS is a separate entity from the NCAA.

This is operative point here. It's a cartel.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

This is operative point here. It's a cartel.

Here is the applicable definition of cartel here...
A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices

I don't post it because of the BCS being called one (which it really seems to be), I post it because the savior of all of this (that you apparently want to fix this) is without a doubt the world's largest cartel.

[cartman]

Funny that you call enforcing the rule of law a "savior" or a "cartel", where I'd call it what a government is supposed to do.

[molson]

I don't get at all what this has to do with the Sherman Act.

Where's the illegal restraint on competition? Has any competition to the BCS even been attempted?

I don't see how the Sherman Act requires parties to a private contract to allow other parties into that contract.

What right does Utah, Boise St. have to crash someone else's contract, any more so than I would with with 50 friends? Just because they're in a conference called "1-A", instead of a conference called "1-AA"? So call non-BCS conferences something else. How about the "non-BCS conference division".

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

Here is the applicable definition of cartel here...
A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices

I don't post it because of the BCS being called one (which it really seems to be), I post it because the savior of all of this (that you apparently want to fix this) is without a doubt the world's largest cartel.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

That ended this year. FCS moves to a 20 team tournament next season.

That I confess I did not know.

In any event, the conferences in FCS voluntarily chose to not have an automatic spot in the playoffs. For example, the Ivy League chooses not to participate at all in the post season, while the SWAC season usually doesn't end until much later than the other teams.

True for some, but not all, of the 6 non-automatic (at least that's always been my understanding of it).

There's a big difference between that scenario and the one in FBS. The BCS is a separate entity from the NCAA.

I disagree. The process of utilizing the BCS is the one that the NCAA has chosen, much as they have chosen the process for all of their other sports as well.

But hey, I'd be content with them simply eliminating the BCS and returning to the old system. But that wouldn't stop the whining either, since even fewer opportunities for paydays will exist for programs virtually no one gives a flying fuck about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

So call non-BCS conferences something else. How about the "non-BCS conference division".

I have to admit that the CNGAFFA Division is a bit unwieldly.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I disagree. The process of utilizing the BCS is the one that the NCAA has chosen, much as they have chosen the process for all of their other sports as well.

But hey, I'd be content with them simply eliminating the BCS and returning to the old system. But that wouldn't stop the whining either, since even fewer opportunities for paydays will exist for programs virtually no one gives a flying fuck about.

The NCAA as an overall organization has nothing to do with the BCS. The NCAA still does not recognize a national champion for the FBS. The BCS is an independent organization.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I don't get the comparisons your making. The universities are not "buying" anything from other companies or contracting out facilities. They are apart of the NCAA and have a say (big or small as it may be) in it.

The comparison was in reference to whether it was a private organization.

The reference to being a vendor or membership organization relates to it receiving no direct government funding (versus a "public school" funded by taxpayer dollars). I'm sure we could find a magazine subscription that is paid by more than one public college or university that confers "membership status" and certain benefits but that does not make the magazine publisher any less of a private enterprise.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Funny that you call enforcing the rule of law a "savior" or a "cartel", where I'd call it what a government is supposed to do.

When did I do that? I stated that a cartel like the US government enforcing laws against other entities being cartels is nonsensical. I realize that many people have come to expect this from national and even local government ("What do you expect, it's the government" "It doesn't make sense but what are you going to do?") but I am saddened that people go even one step further and buy into their monkey logic of why they should stop everyone else from doing what they do. How come the US government can fix interest rates, can create laws and rules so that no third party ever has a chance, make decisions based on helping out a few corporations and banks over the rest of the country, national health care, on and on and on... AND can also write laws telling other entities that they can't do the same?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

The NCAA as an overall organization has nothing to do with the BCS. The NCAA still does not recognize a national champion for the FBS. The BCS is an independent organization.

So if you're an independent organization, and you have a contract with a bunch of parties - who do you have to invite to participate in your contract under the Sherman Act? It just seems silly. I can't imagine the Act ever actually requires anyone to have contractual relationships with specific other entities.

Or is the NCAA the one violating the Sherman Act, because they don't have a championship? That seems even more silly.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

When did I do that? I stated that a cartel like the US government enforcing laws against other entities being cartels is nonsensical. I realize that many people have come to expect this from national and even local government ("What do you expect, it's the government" "It doesn't make sense but what are you going to do?") but I am saddened that people go even one step further and buy into their monkey logic of why they should stop everyone else from doing what they do. How come the US government can fix interest rates, can create laws and rules so that no third party ever has a chance, make decisions based on helping out a few corporations and banks over the rest of the country, national health care, on and on and on... AND can also write laws telling other entities that they can't do the same?

The US government is a political organization, not a commercial or industrial one. The US Constitution is what gives the government the powers to do those things you mention.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Funny that you call enforcing the rule of law a "savior" or a "cartel", where I'd call it what a government is supposed to do.

And on a less political note the Longhorns have become so successful due in a large part to this system. They are a major player of the cartel. It doesn't bother me, I wish Mizzou someday could become one of the elite, but it really makes no sense whatsoever why it would bother you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

The NCAA as an overall organization has nothing to do with the BCS. The NCAA still does not recognize a national champion for the FBS. The BCS is an independent organization.

Fair point, I didn't word that well at all.

Even the NCAA points out the distinction
FOR THE RECORD: NCAA Corrects Inaccurate Coverage on the Relationship Between the NCAA and the BCS - NCAA.org

CNN.com’s William Amsby and Sasha Johnson in their January 9 story ‘Obama raps Bowl Championship Series: 'We need a playoff' incorrectly refer to the “NCAA’s Bowl Championship Series”. In fact, the NCAA has no role in determining the contenders in the FBS national championship game. That responsibility rests with the Presidents and Commissioners of the 11 FBS conferences and the University of Notre Dame who created and manage the BCS independently of the NCAA. A multi-poll formula developed and overseen by the BCS solely determines which teams play in the BCS games. ESPN the Magazine’s Rick Reilly was equally off the mark in his January 12 article “Oklahoma and Florida can battle for the BCS. But we've already crowned the true national champ” when he questioned whether NCAA President Myles Brand and university presidents would stand in defiance of President-Elect Obama’s desire to see a playoff. Again, the NCAA has no role in determining rankings or who plays in the BCS bowls. Additionally, the NCAA membership has not advanced legislation to create a FBS playoff system.

The bolding is mine, because it really highlights a big part of the stupidity with the whining. The BCS exists because of a contract voluntarily entered into by every conference taking part. They were under no requirement of any kind to participate. Any conference(s) unhappy with the arrangement was certainly free to shop their own deal to any potential buyer, but knew how limited their value would actually be. But Versus or someone would have surely given them a few dollars for the rights to their "championship", they were just smart enough to go with the best deal available.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

So if you're an independent organization, and you have a contract with a bunch of parties - who do you have to invite to participate in your contract under the Sherman Act? It just seems silly. I can't imagine the Act ever actually requires anyone to have contractual relationships with specific other entities.

Or is the NCAA the one violating the Sherman Act, because they don't have a championship? That seems even more silly.

If the contract specifically limits or artificially controls access to markets, then it sure does fall under Sherman Act review. That is why baseball (MLB) and football (NFL) have specific exemptions.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

The US government is a political organization, not a commercial or industrial one. The US Constitution is what gives the government the powers to do those things you mention.

We will never see eye to eye after this statement so I will just agree that you have a completely different opinion than I do on what the government is really allowed to do and what it is that they just do because they have so much power.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

And on a less political note the Longhorns have become so successful due in a large part to this system. They are a major player of the cartel. It doesn't bother me, I wish Mizzou someday could become one of the elite, but it really makes no sense whatsoever why it would bother you.

The AD and coach Mack Brown are on record as supporting a playoff system.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

If the contract specifically limits or artificially controls access to markets, then it sure does fall under Sherman Act review. That is why baseball and football have specific exemptions.

Baseball/football is a completely different situation though. The restraint of trade there is that the MLB/NFL can prevent teams from moving to other cities at will. Under the exemption, they can do that.

With the BCS, you have an organization that has a contract with certain colleges, but not others. There's lots of schools that aren't in the contract. The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

What would make the BCS "legal" - if they provided equal access to a subgroup of colleges as they happen to be defined by some other entity (the NCAA)? That makes no sense. What if the NCAA lets in 300 schools into its "top division"? (like it does in basketball) Does the BCS then have to legally provide equal access to all of them to crash their contract?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

With the BCS, you have an organization that has a contract with certain colleges, but not others. There's lots of schools that aren't in the contract. The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

I imagine the government will find a way to force them to allow Joe's Truck Driving School to field a team with automatic entry into the 5,467 team tournament once they've won by forfeit over Glenda's School of Nail Technology.

After all, we wouldn't want the JTDS Gear Grinders to feel bad about themselves.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

You are correct, it doesn't. It is the actions of a group that would cause the Sherman Act to come into effect.

On second thought, maybe it does. I know that there was FTC review of the upcoming agreement with TicketMaster and LiveNation. However, I'm not sure if that was just a working arrangement or a merger.

[molson]

At the end of the day, I think legal analysis of this is ridiculous, but this coming up in the news every few months definitely wins some votes/campaign contributions for Hatch. And it gets fans riled up. And it gets the media riled up. And all of those things could possibly lead to playoff system of some type (though not through legal force)

[Galaxy]

Or it some deep-pocketed guy wanted too, start a pro league (or a minor league) drafting players straight out of H.S.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Or it some deep-pocketed guy wanted too, start a pro league (or a minor league) drafting players straight out of H.S.

Or even a rich guy approaching the NCAA with a playoff proposal. But ya, until I hear something about how that kind of proposal, or a professional alternative to college football, are unlawfully restricted by the NCAA/BCS, the legal arguments are ridiculous.

[Young Drachma]

Some light reading from last year on the subject:

Is BCS Violating Antitrust Laws? Yes, If It Actually Existed -- NCAAFB FanHouse

The Problem With Utah's Bcs Antitrust Claim | The New Republic

And one from 2005 from a sports law blog: http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/...e-illegal.html

[miked]

I'm still confused by the title. Is this Obama's doing, or a senator at the request of a school that feels left out?

[fantom1979]

I don't really care about the politics, I just care about the sports.

For me, it all comes down to this:

If you go undefeated in College Football, there is a chance that you didn't even play in the national championship game.

If you go undefeated in any other major US sport, you have won your sport's championship.

To me, this is unacceptable. I just think of teams like Gonzaga, UNLV, George Mason, and Indiana State...... those stories do not happen in football.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Wrong again (I'm sensing a trend with you here).

Not all conferences have automatic qualifying bids, and that extends further than college basketall. But thanks for trying I guess.

There is about 10 teams that don't have the ability to win an automatic qualifier (the Great West and independents). They are the only ones required to earn an at-large bid and make up 3% of the teams. There is a long history of independents making the NCAA tournament which has shown that those teams without an automatic qualifier have a fair shot at making the NCAA tournament.

Fact is that if you win all your games in college basketball, you will be National Champions. Everyone has the opportunity going into the season to be the National Champion. Only around 60% of football teams are eligible.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edited to adjust above & add below:
Ultimately there's a criteria that varies for inclusion from sport to sport. If you destroy college football then why not go all the way & simply declare all teams to have automatic post-season eligibility in all sports? Football happens to have the most exclusive criteria, basketball perhaps the weakest but why not extend the same absurd logic to all sports and just make 'em all eligible. The current argument boils down to "it's unfair to not let everybody in" because {insert joke conference team A here} has as much business being anywhere near the college football national championship as a 6-6 team from the Big 10 or a 4-8 team from the SEC ... but I don't hear anyone crying for them yet. Hell, let's just eliminate the crying, eliminate the regular season altogether and then have a big tournament each year so the simple minded short attention span crowd can comprehend it before rushing off to watch American Idol.

No one is saying that everyone has to get in or that you need a gigantic tournament. Just that every team should have an opportunity to play in the National Championship game. Every team should be allowed to get into BCS games if they are good enough. The current system is "fixed" so that crummy teams get in based solely on image and potential ratings. That's fine, but change it from being a sport to sports entertainment and go the WWE route.

Being exclusive isn't the issue, it's how it's done. Footballs exclusivity is not based on on-field actions but on pre-determined relationships to exclude competition. It's why the ACC gets into a BCS bowl game while continuing to be the laughing stock of it. You are trying to give the illusion that football picks the best teams for their bowls and is just real exclusive about how many get in, when I'm saying that they aren't picking the best teams because of a barrier of competition.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I just wish to all that is Holy that the NCAA would either reorganize their division structure or even simply withdraw recognition from these meaningless fucking conferences in football & be done with them. But then these whiners would cry about that too.

That's fine too. The funny thing is that the ACC should go along with them as they've shown they have no business competing with the other BCS conferences. In fact, those meaningless fucking conferences have a signifigantly better record in BCS bowl games than the ACC.

I understand as an ACC fan you are defensive as any change in the system hurts you and your team since they'd actually have to make games based on merits on the field.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

I'm still confused by the title. Is this Obama's doing, or a senator at the request of a school that feels left out?

It's the Department of Justics doing at the request of a Senator (which they can ignore). Most likely has little to do with Obama outside of it being the Department of Justice he put in place. Congress is the one that got the ball rolling last year on this.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by cartman

You are correct, it doesn't. It is the actions of a group that would cause the Sherman Act to come into effect.

On second thought, maybe it does. I know that there was FTC review of the upcoming agreement with TicketMaster and LiveNation. However, I'm not sure if that was just a working arrangement or a merger.

All transactions (stock or asset sales) of a certain size (thresholds can vary) have to get FTC approval under the Hart Scott Rodino Act.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Baseball/football is a completely different situation though. The restraint of trade there is that the MLB/NFL can prevent teams from moving to other cities at will. Under the exemption, they can do that.

With the BCS, you have an organization that has a contract with certain colleges, but not others. There's lots of schools that aren't in the contract. The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

What would make the BCS "legal" - if they provided equal access to a subgroup of colleges as they happen to be defined by some other entity (the NCAA)? That makes no sense. What if the NCAA lets in 300 schools into its "top division"? (like it does in basketball) Does the BCS then have to legally provide equal access to all of them to crash their contract?

I believe the issue is equal access to everyone in the market. You can't control an entire market and block out a percent of it. Essentially holding a monopoly on it. Remember that this is the same Act that was used by the major college teams against the NCAA in the early 1980's to get access to television rights.

The problems from what I see is two-fold. One that teams that win every game have no chance at ever playing in the Championship. The other that teams who finish higher in the BCS standings are being left out for teams farther back simply based on alternative criteria.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Some light reading from last year on the subject:

Is BCS Violating Antitrust Laws? Yes, If It Actually Existed -- NCAAFB FanHouse

The Problem With Utah's Bcs Antitrust Claim | The New Republic

And one from 2005 from a sports law blog: Sports Law Blog

Clay Travis is a hack, and I'd discourage you from putting too much stock in his piece. The New Republic article lays out the issues very well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's fine too. The funny thing is that the ACC should go along with them as they've shown they have no business competing with the other BCS conferences. In fact, those meaningless fucking conferences have a signifigantly better record in BCS bowl games than the ACC.

I understand as an ACC fan you are defensive as any change in the system hurts you and your team since they'd actually have to make games based on merits on the field.

Has nothing to do with it, at least half the teams in the ACC should be playing at the mid-major (whatever we'd call it) level. I count Georgia Tech in the number reasonably easily frankly. We don't put butts in seats, we don't draw on TV, assuming that everyone were judged on the same criteria for realignment I'd find little issue to take with a move. Having the GTs, the Vandys, the Wake Forests, the Stanfords of the world try to compete on the same football scale as the Oklahomas, the Floridas, the Nebraskas, the USCs is pretty absurd anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I just think of teams like Gonzaga, UNLV, George Mason, and Indiana State...... those stories do not happen in football.

By and large, I can only say thank goodness.

Check the ratings for the more modern era examples you used, the appeal of those teams as anything more than a novelty is limited.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

By and large, I can only say thank goodness.

Check the ratings for the more modern era examples you used, the appeal of those teams as anything more than a novelty is limited.

Check the ratings for how college football bowl games compare against NFL playoff games.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Check the ratings for how college football bowl games compare against NFL playoff games.

There's no shortage of easily amused people in the world, check the ratings for American Idol.

The inexplicable appetite for the NFL aside, we've seen what happens when college teams that have an undersized (and that's putting it mildly) fan base are put into the spotlight, they underperform their more attractive counterpoints.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Has nothing to do with it, at least half the teams in the ACC should be playing at the mid-major (whatever we'd call it) level. I count Georgia Tech in the number reasonably easily frankly. We don't put butts in seats, we don't draw on TV, assuming that everyone were judged on the same criteria for realignment I'd find little issue to take with a move. Having the GTs, the Vandys, the Wake Forests, the Stanfords of the world try to compete on the same football scale as the Oklahomas, the Floridas, the Nebraskas, the USCs is pretty absurd anyway.

Not many teams out there can compete on the same football scale as those teams mentioned. There are only a handful in the country. Is your idea to have a 15 team league with these teams? Would be kind of tough since most are afraid to play each other.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's no shortage of easily amused people in the world, check the ratings for American Idol.

The inexplicable appetite for the NFL aside, we've seen what happens when college teams that have an undersized (and that's putting it mildly) fan base are put into the spotlight, they underperform their more attractive counterpoints.

So why shouldn't the BCS games just be based on the teams that will draw the biggest ratings each year? What you are saying is on-field doesn't matter, TV ratings do. That's fine but Notre Dame and Michigan should be in the BCS every year by that criteria.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So why shouldn't the BCS games just be based on the teams that will draw the biggest ratings each year? What you are saying is on-field doesn't matter, TV ratings do. That's fine but Notre Dame and Michigan should be in the BCS every year by that criteria.

Obviously its a blended criteria, on-field/ratings/traveling fans are all considered. Just like they would be in any sports/entertainment "one off" kind of event, that isn't part of an official season structure.

Why shouldn't a company be allowed to contract with football teams and have them play each other? Who cares what their reason is? Maybe they want to setup a game between the best two schools that start with vowels. It's silly, that doesn't make it illegal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I believe the issue is equal access to everyone in the market. You can't control an entire market and block out a percent of it. Essentially holding a monopoly on it. Remember that this is the same Act that was used by the major college teams against the NCAA in the early 1980's to get access to television rights.

The problems from what I see is two-fold. One that teams that win every game have no chance at ever playing in the Championship. The other that teams who finish higher in the BCS standings are being left out for teams farther back simply based on alternative criteria.

And three is the BCS money is sent to every BCS conference, but rarely to non-BCS conferences (if a team from their conference doesn't make the BCS title game).

The "Championship" may not be a big of a problem as the other BCS games, which are far, far easier for BCS conference teams to get in compared to non-BCS conference teams.

[sterlingice]

Some of the ratings concerns issues brought up by JIMGA fall into the camp that insist the Yankees and Red Sox *should* get an inherent advantage because it's good for the sport and it's total bunk.

But what major television household does Oklahoma play to? I guess you could say Dallas, but not really as it splits that with Texas. Ohio State? Yeah, there are a couple of big cities in Ohio but it's not as if Columbus is a top 10 media market and the other cities OSU is not close to. Same with Penn State. Or some other traditional powers who have drawn well when they are successful (Tennessee, Nebraska, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M, or to a lesser extent Wisconsin, Arkansas, Arizona State, Oregon, etc).

It's prolonged success that makes a program look like a power, not where it's located.

How were the rating for USC in the 90s when they weren't that good? Or Oklahoma or Texas, again, when they weren't national powers? How about Nebraska and Notre Dame now, compared to 20 years ago? My point is that these things ebb and flow. Bob Stoops leaves and Oklahoma could be back to where they are in the 90s, happy to be in the Sun Bowl.

Why should Florida or Penn State or Virginia Tech or these other current powers be the only schools with the chance to actually build their programs into a national power? Florida has gone from 35K to 50K students since Steve Spurrier started in the early 90s. Meanwhile, Nebraska has actually lost a handful of students over that time frame as they have lost stature.
(interesting table: Selected statistics for degree-granting institutions enrolling more than 15,000 students in 2006: Selected years, 1990 through 2007 )

So, again, why insist on giving up possible significant long term gains for some of these schools at the expense of some very short term ones (i.e. one year tv ratings)? Why give these traditional powers the built in advantage? Don't they already have it? And, most importantly, how is it to the benefit of the system to have the power always consolidated in the same place?

(addendum)
I don't think Peyton Manning is unknown because he plays in Indy or Lebron James would be *more* known in New York City. If you're the best and transcend the sport, people know who you are (you could make an argument that semi-stars like, say, Andy Pettite benefit from being in a larger media market because he's basically Brad Radke on better teams but we're not talking about that). Again, this is basically the same rant I make every time someone argues that parity is bad for sports, the largest media markets should always have an advantage, and that it's good for the sport.

SI

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's no shortage of easily amused people in the world, check the ratings for American Idol.

The inexplicable appetite for the NFL aside, we've seen what happens when college teams that have an undersized (and that's putting it mildly) fan base are put into the spotlight, they underperform their more attractive counterpoints.

That's right, I do seem to remember Oklahoma wiping the field with Boise a few seasons ago. And Oregon (or State) destroyed them opening day this season.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

That's right, I do seem to remember Oklahoma wiping the field with Boise a few seasons ago. And Oregon (or State) destroyed them opening day this season.

Come on. If you're going to use an example of how crappy these small schools are, at least use the best football conference in the country. The SEC manhandled Utah last year in that game, right?