We'll never win the battle that says you can't draw any meaningful lines between levels of FBS football. That battle has been lost going back to 1998, and it will continue to be lost. That ship has sailed.

The argument we need to be focused on is where that "power" line is drawn. We're a lot closer to the edge of that circle than the other G5 conferences. All of our strategy should be to portray ourselves as P5 in all but name. That can be a very effective strategy over time.

Our fight should not be Georgia State and New Mexico State's fight. Let those schools argue for absolute egalitarianism. Our fight should be... "Hey, SEC, ACC, etc: We want everything that you want, and we alone have the resources to do it. Let us back in the house and we'll be unstoppable together."

(08-12-2014 07:59 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  No...let's be honest. Much of the G4 has no business in D-1.

ISWYDT

(08-13-2014 12:48 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  We'll never win the battle that says you can't draw any meaningful lines between levels of FBS football. That battle has been lost going back to 1998, and it will continue to be lost. That ship has sailed.

The argument we need to be focused on is where that "power" line is drawn. We're a lot closer to the edge of that circle than the other G5 conferences. All of our strategy should be to portray ourselves as P5 in all but name. That can be a very effective strategy over time.

Our fight should not be Georgia State and New Mexico State's fight. Let those schools argue for absolute egalitarianism. Our fight should be... "Hey, SEC, ACC, etc: We want everything that you want, and we alone have the resources to do it. Let us back in the house and we'll be unstoppable together."

Has it? Every previous time there were changes in where the lines were drawn, the schools were allowed to decide the level the school would compete at. The only time I can think a conference was forcibly demoted was the MAC. In the late 1970's the NCAA reorganized the top level of football creating the D1-A and D1-AA split. The MAC was demoted by the NCAA to the D1AA level (now called FCS). The MAC refused the demotion and basically ignored the designation. They continued to say they were D1A. The next year, the NCAA backed off and reclassified the MAC as D1A.

Is the basis of the lawsuit that the P5 make too much money, have too many fans and are too awesome?

Sherman Anti-Trust is what I'd allege. You have 65 business entities (universities) who are collectively intentionally agreeing in writing (conspiring) to exclude the remaining schools from the market. In fact, if they ever agreed to never play non-P5 schools in the future then the odds of winning the case would have skyrocketed. Actually have tried some federal anti-trust cases and there is a reason the NCAA keeps losing these cases time after time. They lost their TV rights case, student/assistant pay case, the O'Bannon advertising case, etc. Yes as I warned when it first happened the non-BCS schools actually did join "the conspiracy" by agreeing to be included in the BCS payout. But 2014 seems to be a whole new bridge they are crossing. The NCAA and P5 actually fit nicely within the cartel model and concerted refusal to deal model under federal law

(08-13-2014 02:16 PM)Stallion Wrote:  Sherman Anti-Trust is what I'd allege. You have 65 business entities (universities) who are collectively intentionally agreeing in writing (conspiring) to exclude the remaining schools from the market. In fact, if they ever agreed to never play non-P5 schools in the future then the odds of winning the case would have skyrocketed. Actually have tried some federal anti-trust cases and there is a reason the NCAA keeps losing these cases time after time. They lost their TV rights case, student/assistant pay case, the O'Bannon advertising case, etc. Yes as I warned when it first happened the non-BCS schools actually did join "the conspiracy" by agreeing to be included in the BCS payout. But 2014 seems to be a whole new bridge they are crossing. The NCAA and P5 actually fit nicely within the cartel model and concerted refusal to deal model under federal law

...and that's why it will not happen

They got their split and everything they wanted last week and nothing in writing. In fact you are free to raise $175M a year for your program if you want.

The Mafia doesnt write down their rules

90 million reasons - the annual payout to the G5 under the CFP.

(08-13-2014 02:30 PM)orangefan Wrote:  90 million reasons - the annual payout to the G5 under the CFP.

Which is less than the last go around with no shot at an nc. If you really believe that I would have to question that Syracuse education. That is unless it was in journalism in which case I have heard espn has openings. I'm sorry but there are a few schools that should be included that aren't.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

To be fair - the "have nots" talked about a lawsuit in 2003... Let by Tulane:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/sports...t-bcs.html

Guys the nuclear option is raising a ton of funds and hiring private investigators on all these cats.

(08-13-2014 12:59 PM)panama Wrote:  Is the basis of the lawsuit that the P5 make too much money, have too many fans and are too awesome?

If it's money and power that we're talking about then the argument could be the collusion of ESPN (and others) locking out the G5 conferences in big time bowl money while only getting the bone of an Access bowl.

If NCAA basketball can share money fairly in a true playoff fashion, why not NCAA football. Utah (beating 'Bama), Boise, and TCU winning BCS games, from the outside BCS conferences, looking in then why not expand the playoff to be more opportunity to find possible "sleepers" like Butler (in basketball) got to show they belonged.

(08-13-2014 12:48 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  We'll never win the battle that says you can't draw any meaningful lines between levels of FBS football. That battle has been lost going back to 1998, and it will continue to be lost. That ship has sailed.

The argument we need to be focused on is where that "power" line is drawn. We're a lot closer to the edge of that circle than the other G5 conferences. All of our strategy should be to portray ourselves as P5 in all but name. That can be a very effective strategy over time.

Our fight should not be Georgia State and New Mexico State's fight. Let those schools argue for absolute egalitarianism. Our fight should be... "Hey, SEC, ACC, etc: We want everything that you want, and we alone have the resources to do it. Let us back in the house and we'll be unstoppable together."

I fully agree. The AAC should NEVER say or do anything publicly which insinuates ("admits" if you prefer) that we are not a "power" member. It appears that Aresco is following that policy.

(08-12-2014 07:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC has the most legit argument, especially schools like Cincy, USF & UConn. They were just cut out of the in crowd for no reason.

You could say the same thing about UH at the formation of the BCS.

(08-17-2014 08:21 AM)J Coog Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 07:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC has the most legit argument, especially schools like Cincy, USF & UConn. They were just cut out of the in crowd for no reason.

You could say the same thing about UH at the formation of the BCS.

Cincinnati, UConn, USF, Temple, Houston, SMU, and Tulane all spent time major conferences. ECU, Navy, Memphis and Tulsa were historical major independents. UCF already has done more in a fraction of the time than most power five programs have done in their entire football history.

(08-13-2014 11:44 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Hard to win a lawsuit over an issue you just voted to support.

Amazing how everyone forgets this very basic part. The G5 just (a) signed a College Football Playoff contract that cemented the financial part of the equation and (b) passed NCAA rules changes that cemented the autonomy part of the equation. Any suit would be dismissed immediately just on that basis.

I also see a lot of people continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of antitrust law. Apply simple market analysis: how much would a G5-only playoff be worth compared to a P5-only playoff? If the answer is that the G5-only playoff is worth much less, and even further, that the G5 would receive less money from a G5-only playoff compared to the new "imbalanced" CFP system, then the G5 can't show damages even if the P5 are technically in violation of antitrust law. (This is exactly what happened to the old USFL - they "won" an antitrust case against the NFL, but they didn't get any damages because the market analysis showed that the USFL wouldn't have made money regardless of what the NFL did. The legal costs from that "victory" bankrupted the league and they promptly folded.)

Finally, there are only 3 schools that really have a legitimate gripe about anything in college football: UConn, USF and Cincinnati. Those are the ONLY 3 schools that are making less money in the new environment compared to the old one.

The rest of the G5 are actually making 5 times more money in the new CFP system compared to the BCS system. They understand that they're getting a good deal compared to what they would otherwise get in a market where they didn't go along with the P5, so that's why they don't want to upset the apple cart AT ALL. Many AAC fans (who thought that they were in or joining a "power conference" with the old Big East) are not very representative of the rest of the G5 - they generally don't care about the P5 autonomy or CFP money split because they're actually making more money than ever before and never harbored any allusions that they'd ever be treated as a "power" conference. That's why the question of "WHY DON'T THE G5 CONFERENCES SUE THE P5?!!!!" that gets asked on this board every few weeks is followed up by silence from the rest of the G5. They aren't touching that with a 10,000-foot pole because they're actually getting a much better deal today than before (and they need the P5 to be happy in order for that to continue).

Winner

(08-18-2014 11:03 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 11:44 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Hard to win a lawsuit over an issue you just voted to support.

Amazing how everyone forgets this very basic part. The G5 just (a) signed a College Football Playoff contract that cemented the financial part of the equation and (b) passed NCAA rules changes that cemented the autonomy part of the equation. Any suit would be dismissed immediately just on that basis.

I also see a lot of people continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of antitrust law. Apply simple market analysis: how much would a G5-only playoff be worth compared to a P5-only playoff? If the answer is that the G5-only playoff is worth much less, and even further, that the G5 would receive less money from a G5-only playoff compared to the new "imbalanced" CFP system, then the G5 can't show damages even if the P5 are technically in violation of antitrust law. (This is exactly what happened to the old USFL - they "won" an antitrust case against the NFL, but they didn't get any damages because the market analysis showed that the USFL wouldn't have made money regardless of what the NFL did. The legal costs from that "victory" bankrupted the league and they promptly folded.)

Finally, there are only 3 schools that really have a legitimate gripe about anything in college football: UConn, USF and Cincinnati. Those are the ONLY 3 schools that are making less money in the new environment compared to the old one.

The rest of the G5 are actually making 5 times more money in the new CFP system compared to the BCS system. They understand that they're getting a good deal compared to what they would otherwise get in a market where they didn't go along with the P5, so that's why they don't want to upset the apple cart AT ALL. Many AAC fans (who thought that they were in or joining a "power conference" with the old Big East) are not very representative of the rest of the G5 - they generally don't care about the P5 autonomy or CFP money split because they're actually making more money than ever before and never harbored any allusions that they'd ever be treated as a "power" conference. That's why the question of "WHY DON'T THE G5 CONFERENCES SUE THE P5?!!!!" that gets asked on this board every few weeks is followed up by silence from the rest of the G5. They aren't touching that with a 10,000-foot pole because they're actually getting a much better deal today than before (and they need the P5 to be happy in order for that to continue).

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, we're all getting better money than we would without either the BCS or the new playoff format. I don't see any basis for a suit based on the current situation.

However, there is a real risk should the P5 act on the discussions around scheduling only other P5 conference members. There should not be a requirement to play X amount of non-P5 games, but a requirement to not play any non-P5 games is a whole different situation.

Old Tiger, how is it any different now than the requirement that you can only play 1 FCS team. Does that mean the FCS has a right to sue the FBS now?

(08-18-2014 12:44 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, we're all getting better money than we would without either the BCS or the new playoff format. I don't see any basis for a suit based on the current situation.

However, there is a real risk should the P5 act on the discussions around scheduling only other P5 conference members. There should not be a requirement to play X amount of non-P5 games, but a requirement to not play any non-P5 games is a whole different situation.

No doubt. The P5 definitely cannot decide *together* that they won't be playing any more G5 schools. That would explicitly be collusion. However, if every conference in the P5 individually on their own comes to the conclusion that they require everyone to play at least one P5 non-conference team or the free market is demanding more P5 vs. P5 and is paying for them (whether in the form of TV rights or higher ticket sales), then that isn't collusion despite having a similar overall effect. There's a fine line there.

To be sure, the P5 aren't stupid - they have everything that they say or do vetted by the top antitrust lawyers in the business. Note that leagues like the Big Ten "highly encourage" their members to schedule other P5 schools or not schedule FCS schools, but there isn't any punishment for not following it. There have been squabbles, complaints, politicians whining and saber rattling for many years about the power/non-power conference divide, but it's instructive that not a single actual legal complaint has EVER been filed against the power leagues on this matter (despite the fact that we live in a massively litigious world, as I know well as a lawyer). The P5 have engaged in plenty of legal CYA on these issues - they aren't just grabbing all of the money that they can without fully knowing that it's completely legal first.

Sadly, I am to to the point that I don't give a $^it anymore.

I will watch my conference, my team, and that is it. I live in the heart of SEC/ACC country and I was invited to the Thursday night TAMU/USC game by a fellow lawyer at my company and I promptly said no thanks.

I will focus much more on the NFL, where every team has a legit shot at making the playoffs...where collusion doesn't exist among the powerful teams...where on any given sunday team x can beat team y.

The P5 money grab has soured my taste on most of college football. I'm not trying to make a political statement by not going to P5 games or watching P5vs P5 games - I simply hate everything cfb now stands for.