(06-11-2014 04:11 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You seem to have forgotten about the concept of "freedom of association". If you and I set up a club, we aren't obligated to publish entry rules and make it open to the public, we can make it just our club on the ground that that is just the way we prefer to have it.

Nope
Private clubs can admit who they want as long as they play golf together, look at themselves in the mirror, or that sort of thing. If they open themselves up for business to the outside world, they come under the Commerce Clause, Anti-trust laws, Civil Rights Laws, etc.

So this must mean that Tulane has lawyers filing lawsuits against the ACC and SEC for not allowing you in, right? It must mean that was how you got into the Big East, you sued us and we were forced to let you in, right? Because keeping you out violates anti-trust laws, correct?

(06-11-2014 04:25 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:13 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:58 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  On what basis do you win a lawsuit *IF* Division 4 is created? What duty does the Division 4 members owe the rest of us that has been breached?

Question for you: Why should the G5 cave to the P5? Why not just make the P5 leave the NCAA altogether? That way the G5 could force the NCAA to sponsor a real playoff? And in turn wouldn't that force the P5 to call their playoff something other than the NCAA Playoff?

That is the legitimacy that the P5 is seeking, all the while trying to exclude other NCAA members. The P5 would come back if the left, because they wouldn't have the legitimacy that they wanted. This whole thing is a big bluff, but the G5 needs to call the P5 on it; because it doesn't seem fair that a bunch of public universities in different States can band together to ban a bunch of other public universities from playing for a national championship.

All that has been addressed above IMO --- the P5 doesn't need the G5. The G5 will lose money, TV, exposure if P5s leave their schedules. As to the rest -- I really don't see why it's so hard to understand that if Division 4 is created THAT will be the real National Championship Game --- so it really doesn't matter how the G5 structures it's 'play-off' -it'll be the G5 Play offs - not the National Championship Game.

You are a Voice of Reason i this discussion.

You are completely clueless.

Why don't you hold your breath until ECU wins a lawsuit against the ACC for excluding you Pirates, OK?

(06-11-2014 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You seem to have forgotten about the concept of "freedom of association". If you and I set up a club, we aren't obligated to publish entry rules and make it open to the public, we can make it just our club on the ground that that is just the way we prefer to have it.

That is true but you are forgetting the larger picture.

If your "club" prevented competition and/or created a monopoly you would be open to numerous lawsuits.

UH does not sue the B12 because "technically" we are all a part of the NCAA at the FBS level.

The NCAA has set the rules for FBS and not the B12. Within the NCAA there are conferences that choose to associate with other institutions of “higher" learning. They are not setting the standard of what constitutes FBS.

By default there is a glass ceiling but there are no “official” rules written down to be challenged.

Should the P5 break free of the NCAA all that changes and all that goes into writing that in turn could and would be challenged in court.

The reason that the SEC doesn't have "official written down entry rules" isn't because it is a part of the NCAA. It doesn't have them precisely because it wants control over its membership inclusion process. The SEC wants the freedom to include or exclude schools for no reason other than the private motivations of its members institutions.

And in that regard, the NCAA does not provide an "umbrella" protecting the SEC from federal lawsuits, as the NCAA is irrelevant from the POV of federal law.

There is absolutely no reason to think that federal law says it's OK for conferences within the NCAA to exclude other schools, but outside the NCAA they couldn't do that.

The reason there are no lawsuits by Houston against the Big 12 is because there is no federal issue in the Big 12 not wanting Houston as a member, quite the contrary, forcing the Big 12 to accept Houston would violate its freedom of association.

Incorrect but as always for the greater good we will just have to agree to disagree.

If the P5 go D4 everything that isn’t written down will be and that will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

The NCAA does provide an umbrella for this and many other issues. Just as any D4 would provide said umbrella (and a point of attack) to the individual P5 conferences.

Among this and the 1,000 other reasons UH does not sue the B12 is the fact that why poke the bear when you want to be a part of the club. If it meant survival of your program versus pissing off the upper crust of FBS you would see plenty of lawsuits and not just UH vs B12.

A difference of opinion but either way they are not splitting so this is all academic.

(06-11-2014 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  OK, so why hasn't Houston sued the Big 12 for entry, on the grounds that whatever rules the Big 12 has that they've used not to admit Houston are "anti-competitive" or whatever?

You seem to have forgotten about the concept of "freedom of association". If you and I set up a club, we aren't obligated to publish entry rules and make it open to the public, we can make it just our club on the ground that that is just the way we prefer to have it.

Houston would not have a case against the Big 12.

But, if the P5 monopolize college football to the point that they are using exclusive dealing tactics (like expressly excluding G5 schools or taking away ANY chance for Houston to participate in the CFP or access bowls) and college football fans are being hurt because they are forced to the P5, then the case would be much stronger.

This is precisely the reason why the BCS created the rule that a top-12 non-BCS champ received an automatic bid to the BCS - to fend off the anti-trust claims.

And, we have seen the new CFP take it to an even more anti-trust friendly position, by providing a reserved seat for a G5 champ and providing a selection committee to choose the CFP Four. (we all know that the chance of Houston to be picked by the selection committee is pretty remote - but at least they conceivably could be chosen.)

(06-11-2014 04:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why don't you hold your breath until ECU wins a lawsuit against the ACC for excluding you Pirates, OK?

I would love to see one example of where you actually agree with another’s opinion.

All you do is come on here (at times justfully so....I admit) and sling your vitriol. There are times when the discussion needs to come back to reality and those few times your shtick is warranted.

Just because people have different opinions doesn’t not mean you’re are always right and the world is always wrong.

(06-11-2014 04:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:25 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:13 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Question for you: Why should the G5 cave to the P5? Why not just make the P5 leave the NCAA altogether? That way the G5 could force the NCAA to sponsor a real playoff? And in turn wouldn't that force the P5 to call their playoff something other than the NCAA Playoff?

That is the legitimacy that the P5 is seeking, all the while trying to exclude other NCAA members. The P5 would come back if the left, because they wouldn't have the legitimacy that they wanted. This whole thing is a big bluff, but the G5 needs to call the P5 on it; because it doesn't seem fair that a bunch of public universities in different States can band together to ban a bunch of other public universities from playing for a national championship.

All that has been addressed above IMO --- the P5 doesn't need the G5. The G5 will lose money, TV, exposure if P5s leave their schedules. As to the rest -- I really don't see why it's so hard to understand that if Division 4 is created THAT will be the real National Championship Game --- so it really doesn't matter how the G5 structures it's 'play-off' -it'll be the G5 Play offs - not the National Championship Game.

You are a Voice of Reason i this discussion.

You are completely clueless.

Why don't you hold your breath until ECU wins a lawsuit against the ACC for excluding you Pirates, OK?

ECU doesn't have to fight to join the ACC, because the banner of the real national championship game will rest with the NCAA. If the P5 opts out of the NCAA (which is what the G5 should be pushing), rather than pushing a new division within the NCAA for the P5; then ECU can play for the real national championship sponsored by the NCAA. The P5 is powerless to stop the NCAA from sponsoring a national championship game, which is why they are trying to change the process to favor themselves. It is time that they were called on their threat to leave, because looking at rules that they are pushing it is obvious that they are no longer pushing amateur athletics; while the G5 on the other hand continues to push them. The P5 will crumble if the G5 holds to their guns, because the P5 is threading into the territory of professionalism.

I have already read you genius insight on private clubs, so I am satisfied with my earlier statement.

(06-11-2014 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:13 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:58 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  On what basis do you win a lawsuit *IF* Division 4 is created? What duty does the Division 4 members owe the rest of us that has been breached?

Question for you: Why should the G5 cave to the P5? Why not just make the P5 leave the NCAA altogether? That way the G5 could force the NCAA to sponsor a real playoff? And in turn wouldn't that force the P5 to call their playoff something other than the NCAA Playoff?

That is the legitimacy that the P5 is seeking, all the while trying to exclude other NCAA members. The P5 would come back if the left, because they wouldn't have the legitimacy that they wanted. This whole thing is a big bluff, but the G5 needs to call the P5 on it; because it doesn't seem fair that a bunch of public universities in different States can band together to ban a bunch of other public universities from playing for a national championship.

All that has been addressed above IMO --- the P5 doesn't need the G5. The G5 will lose money, TV, exposure if P5s leave their schedules. As to the rest -- I really don't see why it's so hard to understand that if Division 4 is created THAT will be the real National Championship Game --- so it really doesn't matter how the G5 structures it's 'play-off' -it'll be the G5 Play offs - not the National Championship Game.

You are a Voice of Reason i this discussion.

LMAO! Voice of Reason and Devil's Advocate are far from the same thing.

But whatever... You'll always be a fluffer.

(06-11-2014 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  ECU doesn't have to fight to join the ACC, because the banner of the real national championship game will rest with the NCAA.

ECU doesn't have any right to join the ACC or the P5. The ACC and P5 have the right to add or remove whoever they want. Is the NFL required to add a team because Mark Cuban wants one? No.

HOWEVER, if the ACC or P5 use collusion or exclusive dealing tactics and ECU can show that college football fans are being harmed, then ECU has a great case.

Example, if the AP, Harris Polls, and college football fan polls unanimously voted ECU as the #1 team in the country, but the P5 have changed the system such that #1 ECU has absolutely no chance to play for the CFP = strong case. College football fans (ie, consumers) would be harmed by the P5's tactics.

This is why the CFP is brilliant to have a selection committee. The P5 can blame the (technically) unaffiliated committee members for any unsavory outcomes.

Another example, taking the NFL and Mark Cuban scenario. So, Cuban goes and starts his own football league with 20 teams. If the NFL goes to ESPN, FOX, CBS, and NBC and pays them off for not showing any CubanFL games, then there would be a decent case for anti-trust violations, because that hurts consumers.

(06-11-2014 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  ECU doesn't have to fight to join the ACC, because the banner of the real national championship game will rest with the NCAA.

Note that if the P5 create their own national championship game (outside the NCAA), the banner of the real Natty will move with them and will leave the NCAA in a heartbeat.

The NCAA basketball tournament might be a more difficult scenario, because the "NCAA Tournament" and "March Madness" are trademarked brands with enormous value.

(06-11-2014 01:47 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:45 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:37 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:22 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:13 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Really? Why can't they?

Because it would be an illegal, that's why. Can they bar a D3 team from becoming a D2 school. No...provided they meet all the criteria, they can move up. Life is full of this. If someone is willing/able to meet and does meet the criteria for any organization, they can't be barred from joining for no apparent reason. I could give hundreds of examples of this.

What's "illegal" about it? If I don't want you at my party you don't get an invite. I don't care if you are wearing the required shirt and shoes.

This isn't a party. It's an organization which must abide by federal laws. Huge difference.

OK - what Federal laws are broken?

The arguments are based on association, freedom of association and discrimination precedents. Basically precedents have been set that state that you can't keep somebody out of the club "just because". There has to be a tangible criteria however that must be met and if you meet that criteria, viola, you can't be denied membership. I REALLY don't think the P5 could use $$$$ as a criteria b/c that opens the door for the IRS BUT I do think they could come up with some other criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
^^^Start your research here^^^

I don't claim to be a lawyer but I've read the arguments before. No clue how it would actually stand up in court. I think there's probably SOME good arguments / parallels in the cases but not sure if they'd be enough to kick the door down if the P5 broke away.

Ultimately I think there could be a criteria for G5 schools to continue at the "highest level". However, that presents a Catch-22 as it would be VERY difficult to construct a criteria (besides revenue $$$$$) to play at the "highest level" that every P5 school would also meet. Again, using $$$$ as a criteria seems to beg the IRS to start poking around.

No clue how it would work out legally but there's certainly arguments for both sides. What's interesting is the fact that a lot of the precedent laws have revolved around labor disputes and unions of some kind. Now we're seeing that talk show up in college sports.

(06-11-2014 04:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  ECU doesn't have to fight to join the ACC, because the banner of the real national championship game will rest with the NCAA.

The ECU doesn't have any right to join the ACC or the P5. The ACC and P5 have the right to add or remove whoever they want. Is the NFL required to add a team because Mark Cuban wants one? No.

HOWEVER, if the ACC or P5 use collusion or exclusive dealing tactics and ECU can show that college football fans are being harmed, then ECU has a great case.

Example, if the AP, Harris Polls, and college football fan polls unanimously voted ECU as the #1 team in the country, but the P5 have changed the system such that #1 ECU has absolutely no chance to play for the CFP = strong case. College football fans (ie, consumers) would be harmed by the P5's tactics.

This is why the CFP is brilliant to have a selection committee. The P5 can blame the (technically) unaffiliated committee members for any unsavory outcomes.

Another example, taking the NFL and Mark Cuban scenario. So, Cuban goes and starts his own football league with 20 teams. If the NFL goes to ESPN, FOX, CBS, and NBC and pays them off for not showing any CubanFL games, then there would be a decent case for anti-trust violations, because that hurts consumers.

The P5 does not have the right to add or remove anyone. That is why the P5 is asking the G5 to vote for concessions, with the threat os succeeding being the hammer if concessions are not granted.

(06-11-2014 02:13 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:04 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:58 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  On what basis do you win a lawsuit *IF* Division 4 is created? What duty does the Division 4 members owe the rest of us that has been breached?

Question for you: Why should the G5 cave to the P5? Why not just make the P5 leave the NCAA altogether? That way the G5 could force the NCAA to sponsor a real playoff? And in turn wouldn't that force the P5 to call their playoff something other than the NCAA Playoff?

That is the legitimacy that the P5 is seeking, all the while trying to exclude other NCAA members. The P5 would come back if the left, because they wouldn't have the legitimacy that they wanted. This whole thing is a big bluff, but the G5 needs to call the P5 on it; because it doesn't seem fair that a bunch of public universities in different States can band together to ban a bunch of other public universities from playing for a national championship.

All that has been addressed above IMO --- the P5 doesn't need the G5. The G5 will lose money, TV, exposure if P5s leave their schedules. As to the rest -- I really don't see why it's so hard to understand that if Division 4 is created THAT will be the real National Championship Game --- so it really doesn't matter how the G5 structures it's 'play-off' -it'll be the G5 Play offs - not the National Championship Game.

What money does the g5 lose? If they want to separate make them separate. The NCAA itself is hamstrung because the bball tourney would lose big names. However with the big east schools etc there are enough good bball schools to lose the p5. It's a net loss for the p5 unless they were allowed a d4. Why should the other schools do so


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken · 1h
Emmert alluded to it but from what I've heard out of today's meeting, transfer rules being part of autonomy is still a sticking point


Dan Wolken ‏@DanWolken · 1h
Which brings up my story from a couple weeks ago on why the Group of 5 want transfer rules in shared governance: http://usat.ly/1nKDkzV

(06-11-2014 05:00 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:47 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:45 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:37 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:22 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Because it would be an illegal, that's why. Can they bar a D3 team from becoming a D2 school. No...provided they meet all the criteria, they can move up. Life is full of this. If someone is willing/able to meet and does meet the criteria for any organization, they can't be barred from joining for no apparent reason. I could give hundreds of examples of this.

What's "illegal" about it? If I don't want you at my party you don't get an invite. I don't care if you are wearing the required shirt and shoes.

This isn't a party. It's an organization which must abide by federal laws. Huge difference.

OK - what Federal laws are broken?

The arguments are based on association, freedom of association and discrimination precedents. Basically precedents have been set that state that you can't keep somebody out of the club "just because". There has to be a tangible criteria however that must be met and if you meet that criteria, viola, you can't be denied membership. I REALLY don't think the P5 could use $$$$ as a criteria b/c that opens the door for the IRS BUT I do think they could come up with some other criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
^^^Start your research here^^^

I don't claim to be a lawyer but I've read the arguments before. No clue how it would actually stand up in court. I think there's probably SOME good arguments / parallels in the cases but not sure if they'd be enough to kick the door down if the P5 broke away.

Ultimately I think there could be a criteria for G5 schools to continue at the "highest level". However, that presents a Catch-22 as it would be VERY difficult to construct a criteria (besides revenue $$$$$) to play at the "highest level" that every P5 school would also meet. Again, using $$$$ as a criteria seems to beg the IRS to start poking around.

No clue how it would work out legally but there's certainly arguments for both sides. What's interesting is the fact that a lot of the precedent laws have revolved around labor disputes and unions of some kind. Now we're seeing that talk show up in college sports.

Welp there are political considerations as these schools are mostly public universities.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-11-2014 03:19 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 01:47 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  OK - what Federal laws are broken?

The Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and FTC Act of 1914.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...itrust_law

"These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power."

See also Oligopoly and Tacit Collusion.

See also NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) 7 to 2, held that the NCAA's restriction of television of games, to encourage live attendance, was restricting supply, and therefore unlawful.

How does the Anti-Trust Law even apply? I mean does this restrict the G5 from selling their TV rights just like they did before. Or selling tickets just like before. Or operating just like they did before in any way? But assuming for arguments sake that it does apply --- what are the G5 damages? I don't see any.

They could be sued for "collusion" as long a the G5 do not go along with them, Collusion definition- "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. Collusion can include secret price or wage fixing, secret rebates, or pretending to be independent of each other when actually conspiring together for their joint ends. It can range from small-town shopkeepers or heirs to a grandma's estate, to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners" or big league college football conferences in this case if suit is brought.

(06-11-2014 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:11 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You seem to have forgotten about the concept of "freedom of association". If you and I set up a club, we aren't obligated to publish entry rules and make it open to the public, we can make it just our club on the ground that that is just the way we prefer to have it.

Nope
Private clubs can admit who they want as long as they play golf together, look at themselves in the mirror, or that sort of thing. If they open themselves up for business to the outside world, they come under the Commerce Clause, Anti-trust laws, Civil Rights Laws, etc.

So this must mean that Tulane has lawyers filing lawsuits against the ACC and SEC for not allowing you in, right? It must mean that was how you got into the Big East, you sued us and we were forced to let you in, right? Because keeping you out violates anti-trust laws, correct?

No- under the rules pre, say, 1997 or so, everyone could freely compete, to a large extent.. Didn't matter what conference you were in. They tightened things up severely since then, with things such as giving a conference an auto bid to what was a effectively a playoff bowl, regardless of how well you did on the field. Just because you can sue, doesn't mean you should or will.
And don't forget the other little nugget in all of this: the tax deductibility of donations and tax exemption of the earnings of the booster clubs themselves. The charitable and civic purpose gets harder and harder to find.
Nobody wants to file suit.
But I ask you really, what is the big complaint right now of the P5. How are they so aggrieved that they feel compelled to essentially write the rules for everyone else? What are they being deprived of? My guess: they want total control over eventual 16 team playoff. And maybe even wrest control over the NCAA tournament (which, not coincidentally, is the most successful NCAA endeavor there is, despite being the most inclusive).

(06-11-2014 04:29 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:05 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You seem to have forgotten about the concept of "freedom of association". If you and I set up a club, we aren't obligated to publish entry rules and make it open to the public, we can make it just our club on the ground that that is just the way we prefer to have it.

That is true but you are forgetting the larger picture.

If your "club" prevented competition and/or created a monopoly you would be open to numerous lawsuits.

UH does not sue the B12 because "technically" we are all a part of the NCAA at the FBS level.

The NCAA has set the rules for FBS and not the B12. Within the NCAA there are conferences that choose to associate with other institutions of “higher" learning. They are not setting the standard of what constitutes FBS.

By default there is a glass ceiling but there are no “official” rules written down to be challenged.

Should the P5 break free of the NCAA all that changes and all that goes into writing that in turn could and would be challenged in court.

The reason that the SEC doesn't have "official written down entry rules" isn't because it is a part of the NCAA. It doesn't have them precisely because it wants control over its membership inclusion process. The SEC wants the freedom to include or exclude schools for no reason other than the private motivations of its members institutions.

And in that regard, the NCAA does not provide an "umbrella" protecting the SEC from federal lawsuits, as the NCAA is irrelevant from the POV of federal law.

There is absolutely no reason to think that federal law says it's OK for conferences within the NCAA to exclude other schools, but outside the NCAA they couldn't do that.

The reason there are no lawsuits by Houston against the Big 12 is because there is no federal issue in the Big 12 not wanting Houston as a member, quite the contrary, forcing the Big 12 to accept Houston would violate its freedom of association.

Incorrect but as always for the greater good we will just have to agree to disagree.

You do realize that in 1984, the SCOTUS ruled that the NCAA was itself engaged in restraint of trade when it tried to prevent the CFA schools from negotiating their own TV deals, right?

So how on earth can an organization that was itself guilty of antitrust violations provide antitrust protection for conferences? That makes no sense.

Whether an NCAA institution or not, the SEC has the right to determine its members. Likewise, P5 organization would have the same right vis-a-vis other conferences. Neither would be required by federal law to publish entry requirements.

(06-11-2014 04:32 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 03:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  OK, so why hasn't Houston sued the Big 12 for entry, on the grounds that whatever rules the Big 12 has that they've used not to admit Houston are "anti-competitive" or whatever?

You seem to have forgotten about the concept of "freedom of association". If you and I set up a club, we aren't obligated to publish entry rules and make it open to the public, we can make it just our club on the ground that that is just the way we prefer to have it.

Houston would not have a case against the Big 12.

But, if the P5 monopolize college football to the point that they are using exclusive dealing tactics (like expressly excluding G5 schools or taking away ANY chance for Houston to participate in the CFP or access bowls) and college football fans are being hurt because they are forced to the P5, then the case would be much stronger.

This is precisely the reason why the BCS created the rule that a top-12 non-BCS champ received an automatic bid to the BCS - to fend off the anti-trust claims.

Back in 2004, there was no existing anti-trust basis from which to challenge the BCS. What motivated the BCS-AQ conferences to relax the rules and thus allow more non-AQ schools a shot at a BCS bowl was the threat of a change in the law. Senators like Orin Hatch were threatening to pass new laws that would make the BCS in violation of antitrust. Some even argue that's a reason Utah was given a PAC invite, to mollify him.

So if you are arguing that a P5 breakaway would prompt lawmakers to pass NEW laws that would make them in violation, that's fine. I don't agree, but it's possible.

But there's no way that existing antitrust laws would prevent or make illegal a P5 break.

(06-11-2014 04:33 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 04:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why don't you hold your breath until ECU wins a lawsuit against the ACC for excluding you Pirates, OK?

I would love to see one example of where you actually agree with another’s opinion.

All you do is come on here (at times justfully so....I admit) and sling your vitriol.

Remember, the clown I replied to said I was "clueless". But that doesn't seem to offend your dislike of "vitriol", does it?