(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:07 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Nope but that's how they're going to continue selling it. Personally, I hope they get what they want so that all the lawsuits can begin.

Lawsuits by who? Athletes? That might have impact. G5 conferences? Dead on Arrival.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

I believe peopple are forgetting that many of these "Scholls" are in fact state institutions. Just think about that for a second. Those schools are under the same guidlines as any other school within the sate. Now Quebert gets all bent out of shape, let me give an example.

FSU, Miami and Florida are in the ACC and SEC respectively. Those two trott off to Div IV. UCF and USF meet the criteria but lack conference. However, they still wish inclusion in Div IV. Now by becoming included, they wold make vastly more money and the state would have to subsidise them less. You can bet that there will be pressure on FSU, Miami and Florida to except their kin.

Now they can claim saturation of market and what ever else they want. However, when those schools FSU, Miami and Florida receive subsidies from the state. You can bet those dollars will have strings attached.

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:07 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:50 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Does anyone really believe this has anything to with the welfare of student athletes?

Nope but that's how they're going to continue selling it. Personally, I hope they get what they want so that all the lawsuits can begin.

Lawsuits by who? Athletes? That might have impact. G5 conferences? Dead on Arrival.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against USF and Boise.

fify

we've beaten alabama and usc. we have home and aways with mississippi and ucla and play them this year and next. so back off chester. worry bouts your own back yard.

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Lawsuits by who? Athletes? That might have impact. G5 conferences? Dead on Arrival.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Does anyone think that the P5 wants to leave an umbrella organization where they have massive input into every decision in college sports...to go to a place where they have zero input on any schools/conferences/bowls but their own and where Federal judges and regulators are even keeping a close eye on what they decide for themselves?

That's why they keep on about Division IV rather than keep on about leaving.

(07-16-2014 05:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Does anyone think that the P5 wants to leave an umbrella organization where they have massive input into every decision in college sports...to go to a place where they have zero input on any schools/conferences/bowls but their own and where Federal judges and regulators are even keeping a close eye on what they decide for themselves?

That's why they keep on about Division IV rather than keep on about leaving.

For what it's worth, I believe you're correct. They want more authority and power but still want some one to point the finger at if something goes wrong. That's why my post was on Div IV.

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Lawsuits by who? Athletes? That might have impact. G5 conferences? Dead on Arrival.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Not again with that crap. I like you quo, you are consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Weren't you sufficiently embarrassed the first time you used this argument.

nothing was more liberal 30 years ago. definitely not the courts. dude, there is no way you can possibly be this obtuse.

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 12:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Lawsuits by who? Athletes? That might have impact. G5 conferences? Dead on Arrival.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Sorry Quo. Freedom of association is not absolute--it has limits. Even freedom of religion has limits. If a split happens there will be a antitrust lawsuit and the courts will decide it. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. The key will be to determine if upper level college football is a market. I think a legitimate argument can be made either way. However, given the differences in the media contracts awarded the top football conferences and the FCS conferences, I don't see how a court could determine that high level football isnt a separate market. At that point, its just about proving that the G5 have colluded to erect unreasonable barriers to entry in order to artificially decrease the number of high level college games to generate more money for themselves. That wont be hard to do. Unless there is some public good involved, the P5 could find themselves on the hook for massive monetary damages for the 65 demoted G5 schools.

I doubt they take that risk. In the past, the P5 have opted to instead pay 85 million dollars to the G5 schools rather can try to shut them out. That tells me the P5 has looked at the issues and believes there is a very significant chance that the P5 would lose if such a case ever went to court. They have determined it isnt worth the risk. All the P5 has to do is establish reasonable criteria for entry into the top division of college football and they likely don't have a problem.

(07-16-2014 05:57 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Does anyone think that the P5 wants to leave an umbrella organization where they have massive input into every decision in college sports...to go to a place where they have zero input on any schools/conferences/bowls but their own and where Federal judges and regulators are even keeping a close eye on what they decide for themselves?

That's why they keep on about Division IV rather than keep on about leaving.

For what it's worth, I believe you're correct. They want more authority and power but still want some one to point the finger at if something goes wrong. That's why my post was on Div IV.

Yeah, but if they failed to get the votes for autonomy what makes them think they can get the votes for a Division IV?

(07-16-2014 06:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:57 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Does anyone think that the P5 wants to leave an umbrella organization where they have massive input into every decision in college sports...to go to a place where they have zero input on any schools/conferences/bowls but their own and where Federal judges and regulators are even keeping a close eye on what they decide for themselves?

That's why they keep on about Division IV rather than keep on about leaving.

For what it's worth, I believe you're correct. They want more authority and power but still want some one to point the finger at if something goes wrong. That's why my post was on Div IV.

Yeah, but if they failed to get the votes for autonomy what makes them think they can get the votes for a Division IV?

They don't need the votes if they form their own organization that performs the same functions as the NCAA. That said, it would have to have open and reasonable criteria for membership or it could run afoul of antitrust laws.

(07-16-2014 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 06:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:57 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Does anyone think that the P5 wants to leave an umbrella organization where they have massive input into every decision in college sports...to go to a place where they have zero input on any schools/conferences/bowls but their own and where Federal judges and regulators are even keeping a close eye on what they decide for themselves?

That's why they keep on about Division IV rather than keep on about leaving.

For what it's worth, I believe you're correct. They want more authority and power but still want some one to point the finger at if something goes wrong. That's why my post was on Div IV.

Yeah, but if they failed to get the votes for autonomy what makes them think they can get the votes for a Division IV?

They don't need the votes if they form their own organization that performs the same functions as the NCAA. That said, it would have to have open and reasonable criteria for membership or it could run afoul of antitrust laws.

Ah, but that is not Division IV. That is a new competing org that has no input or influence anymore on the rest of college sports and would always be scrutinized for anticompetitive behavior. A much more risky venture than Division IV.

(07-16-2014 05:44 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  I believe peopple are forgetting that many of these "Scholls" are in fact state institutions. Just think about that for a second. Those schools are under the same guidlines as any other school within the sate. Now Quebert gets all bent out of shape, let me give an example.

FSU, Miami and Florida are in the ACC and SEC respectively. Those two trott off to Div IV. UCF and USF meet the criteria but lack conference. However, they still wish inclusion in Div IV. Now by becoming included, they wold make vastly more money and the state would have to subsidise them less. You can bet that there will be pressure on FSU, Miami and Florida to except their kin.

Now they can claim saturation of market and what ever else they want. However, when those schools FSU, Miami and Florida receive subsidies from the state. You can bet those dollars will have strings attached.

First, Miami is a private school so doesn't get state funding. Second, if the state legislature of Florida cares so much about what conference USF and UCF are in, why does it permit FSU and UF to be in the P5, and make 10x more money?

UF is the 800 pound gorilla of state politics and FSU his 500 pound litter brother. Do you seriously think a Florida legislature is going to make funding to UF and FSU contingent on including UCF and USF in some division, when they have never bothered with any of that before?

Doesn't seem likely ...

(07-16-2014 05:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Does anyone think that the P5 wants to leave an umbrella organization where they have massive input into every decision in college sports...to go to a place where they have zero input on any schools/conferences/bowls but their own and where Federal judges and regulators are even keeping a close eye on what they decide for themselves?

That's why they keep on about Division IV rather than keep on about leaving.

No question, the P5 would much prefer to remain within the NCAA. Their ideal outcome is getting their way on all their autonomy preferences within the auspices of the NCAA. The basketball tournament alone makes it preferable to them to be in the NCAA.

I was just commenting on their legal exposure should they decide to leave the NCAA.

(07-16-2014 05:59 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Not again with that crap. I like you quo, you are consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Weren't you sufficiently embarrassed the first time you used this argument.

You're kidding, right? I absolutely CRUSHED you with that argument. You had no coherent retort for it, and with good reason: Common sense says that Alabama has no obligation to play games versus Memphis, and legal precedent shows that 30 years ago, the SCOTUS said that the 64 CFA schools could break away from the NCAA and sign their own TV deal, and did NOT have to include any other schools in their membership.

You were obliterated, but if you actually think you can counter this, this space reserved:

(07-16-2014 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:44 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  I believe peopple are forgetting that many of these "Scholls" are in fact state institutions. Just think about that for a second. Those schools are under the same guidlines as any other school within the sate. Now Quebert gets all bent out of shape, let me give an example.

FSU, Miami and Florida are in the ACC and SEC respectively. Those two trott off to Div IV. UCF and USF meet the criteria but lack conference. However, they still wish inclusion in Div IV. Now by becoming included, they wold make vastly more money and the state would have to subsidise them less. You can bet that there will be pressure on FSU, Miami and Florida to except their kin.

Now they can claim saturation of market and what ever else they want. However, when those schools FSU, Miami and Florida receive subsidies from the state. You can bet those dollars will have strings attached.

First, Miami is a private school so doesn't get state funding. Second, if the state legislature of Florida cares so much about what conference USF and UCF are in, why does it permit FSU and UF to be in the P5, and make 10x more money?

UF is the 800 pound gorilla of state politics and FSU his 500 pound litter brother. Do you seriously think a Florida legislature is going to make funding to UF and FSU contingent on including UCF and USF in some division, when they have never bothered with any of that before?

Doesn't seem likely ...

The P5 schools have a lot of political power. But it's not absolute. They would indeed face political blowback. It's not as if state legislatures have never interfered with mandated scheduling before for instance. You also have states with no P5 representation whose Senators and Reps would cause problems at the national level.

Could they overcome it? Sure. But its still a risk, and a fight they don't need.

(07-16-2014 06:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:59 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Not again with that crap. I like you quo, you are consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Weren't you sufficiently embarrassed the first time you used this argument.

You're kidding, right? I absolutely CRUSHED you with that argument. You had no coherent retort for it, and with good reason: Common sense says that Alabama has no obligation to play games versus Memphis, and legal precedent shows that 30 years ago, the SCOTUS said that the 64 CFA schools could break away from the NCAA and sign their own TV deal, and did NOT have to include any other schools in their membership.

You were obliterated, but if you actually think you can counter this, this space reserved:

nice try but remember who you are talking to, i am not one of these little fishes that jumps in the boat.

(07-16-2014 06:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Wrong, anyone and everyone. The G5 can and will file monopoly lawsuits. Cause I actually believe that universities are going to spend hundreds millions on campus upgrades and sport facilities but then completely lie down bc the P5 says so.

We will need extraordinary good luck to find a judge willing to opine that Alabama and USC are obligated to compete against Memphis and Boise.

Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Sorry Quo. Freedom of association is not absolute--it has limits. Even freedom of religion has limits. If a split happens there will be a antitrust lawsuit and the courts will decide it. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. The key will be to determine if upper level college football is a market. I think a legitimate argument can be made either way. However, given the differences in the media contracts awarded the top football conferences and the FCS conferences, I don't see how a court could determine that high level football isnt a separate market.

Seriously - good luck finding any federal judge willing to rule that Alabama must compete athletically with Tulsa. There is no basis in law for this.

Yes, freedom of association has its limits: A group of mobsters plotting a heist can't claim it to avoid conspiracy charges. But your market argument makes little sense: If Alabama refusing to play Tulsa means that Tulsa is being denied access to upper-level football, but Tulsa refusing to play Alabama does NOT mean that Alabama is being denied access to upper-level football, then it must mean that as of now, Tulsa is not actually upper level football and therefore a lawsuit by Tulsa to compel Alabama to let them play would merely be Tulsa trying to free-ride on Alabama's market value. No judge would find anything compelling in that.

Thus,for your "market" argument to be correct, it would have to true that Alabama is compelled by law to play Tulsa, they cannot form a separate organization without them, BUT Tulsa can indeed form a separate organization without Alabama, and there is not antitrust violation.

That is legally impossible.

(07-16-2014 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 06:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:57 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:54 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Does anyone think that the P5 wants to leave an umbrella organization where they have massive input into every decision in college sports...to go to a place where they have zero input on any schools/conferences/bowls but their own and where Federal judges and regulators are even keeping a close eye on what they decide for themselves?

That's why they keep on about Division IV rather than keep on about leaving.

For what it's worth, I believe you're correct. They want more authority and power but still want some one to point the finger at if something goes wrong. That's why my post was on Div IV.

Yeah, but if they failed to get the votes for autonomy what makes them think they can get the votes for a Division IV?

They don't need the votes if they form their own organization that performs the same functions as the NCAA. That said, it would have to have open and reasonable criteria for membership or it could run afoul of antitrust laws.

Isn't this the place where I ask you that if this were true, that a P5 would have to have "open and reasonable" criteria for membership, then why hasn't USF sued the SEC, because the SEC does not have such criteria, and by not allowing USF to join, the SEC is behaving in a collusive manner that is denying USF tens of millions a year?

(07-15-2014 07:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:27 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:47 PM)Ghis Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 01:30 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  You can bet the P5 have an army of lawyers already working on how they can get this through as trouble free as they possibly can.

So tell me, how will their lawyers restore the tax exempt status the schools will lose after leaving NCAA?

Short answer: they won't. Hence, threat to leave and form own association is hollow and a non-starter. Slive and his cohorts need to stop their bull...t threats and negotiate better.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the schools tax exempt status. Most all were tax exempt educational entities from the start. Joining the NCAA doesn't make you tax exempt and leaving the NCAA doesn't make you lose your tax exempt status. There are all universities--most of which are government owned--their tax exempt status is not in danger.

You are correct for academics but not academics. Also to limit risk many athletic programs are legally their own entity. The schools wouldn't loose it but the athletic revenue would


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I assume you meant athletics are not tax exempt. Again, not true. The athletics are just a arm of the university. The fact is, athletics LOSE money for most schools. Since you don't pay taxes if you dont make money---the tax issue is irrelevant for most P5 schools. Even if the school makes money, that excess money is funneled back to the university and used for academic purposes. Like I said, athletics are just another arm of the university. The schools are tax exempt.

what are your thoughts on athletic facilities and property taxes? they dont support directly the educational mission

(07-16-2014 06:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:44 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  I believe peopple are forgetting that many of these "Scholls" are in fact state institutions. Just think about that for a second. Those schools are under the same guidlines as any other school within the sate. Now Quebert gets all bent out of shape, let me give an example.

FSU, Miami and Florida are in the ACC and SEC respectively. Those two trott off to Div IV. UCF and USF meet the criteria but lack conference. However, they still wish inclusion in Div IV. Now by becoming included, they wold make vastly more money and the state would have to subsidise them less. You can bet that there will be pressure on FSU, Miami and Florida to except their kin.

Now they can claim saturation of market and what ever else they want. However, when those schools FSU, Miami and Florida receive subsidies from the state. You can bet those dollars will have strings attached.

First, Miami is a private school so doesn't get state funding. Second, if the state legislature of Florida cares so much about what conference USF and UCF are in, why does it permit FSU and UF to be in the P5, and make 10x more money?

UF is the 800 pound gorilla of state politics and FSU his 500 pound litter brother. Do you seriously think a Florida legislature is going to make funding to UF and FSU contingent on including UCF and USF in some division, when they have never bothered with any of that before?

Doesn't seem likely ...

The P5 schools have a lot of political power. But it's not absolute. They would indeed face political blowback. It's not as if state legislatures have never interfered with mandated scheduling before for instance. You also have states with no P5 representation whose Senators and Reps would cause problems at the national level.

Could they overcome it? Sure. But its still a risk, and a fight they don't need.

I don't think they fear a fight that probably would never happen and that they'd be 97.88% likely to win. But for other reasons, I agree the P5 would much prefer to remain in the NCAA.

(07-16-2014 06:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 06:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:59 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 05:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Antitrust judges do not care if you are Microsoft, Ma Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Alabama, or USC.

All they care about is, do you have monopoly power over the market? Have you used that power in an anticompetitive way?

Breaking away is possible, but once you break away...no using monopoly power as a competitive advantage or suppress others ability to freely compete and gain market share. No exclusionary practices.

True, if the P5 formed their own organization, they could not do things like use their market power to lean on TV networks to not sign media deals with the G5, or put G5 games on at bad times, or lean on bowls to not sign with G5 schools. That would be anti-competitive.

But merely not allowing a G5 school to join their organization? That's not an antitrust violation, that's freedom of association. No G5 school has any inherent constitutional right to play football games versus P5 schools that don't want to play them.

Heck the SCOTUS, a much more liberal court than today's, settled that 30 years ago.

Not again with that crap. I like you quo, you are consistent. Wrong, but consistent. Weren't you sufficiently embarrassed the first time you used this argument.

You're kidding, right? I absolutely CRUSHED you with that argument. You had no coherent retort for it, and with good reason: Common sense says that Alabama has no obligation to play games versus Memphis, and legal precedent shows that 30 years ago, the SCOTUS said that the 64 CFA schools could break away from the NCAA and sign their own TV deal, and did NOT have to include any other schools in their membership.

You were obliterated, but if you actually think you can counter this, this space reserved:

nice try but remember who you are talking to, i am not one of these little fishes that jumps in the boat.

Apparently, you're a 'big' fish that forgot that it got netted and fricasseed the last time around.