I am very curious about this. Many seem to claim there could be an impending anti-trust case against the P5 if they tried to break away. Others start throwing crazy terms such as RICO and such. I am sure there are plenty of lawyers that post here.

So I am curious, in this thread......what would it take for a real anti trust case against the cartel? I am not interested in juvenile frat boy sarcastic responses simply discounting it. currently, I don't think there is any case unless there is certifiable proof of collusion within the committee to keep the G5 out, which would be next to impossible outside of having a wikileaks email dump.

Legally speaking, what would it take to happen to college football for some entity to have an antitrust case looked at?

Would the P5 turning into the P4 and breaking off completely make a case?

What about the whole non-profit status of athletic departments..... what would be the turning point of them being treated as for profit entities, and what would be the ramifications of that?

Once again, I am only asking for serious legal comments on here.

So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

Ok fratboy, the question was a realistic one. It was clearly too big of a question for you. I'll await an adult with some reading skills and legal knowledge to answer.

No lawyer here, but these are my thoughts.

1. What part did the G5 conferences and schools play in the setup of the CFP committee and guidelines?
2. When the G5 conferences and schools agreed to the autonomous 5 setup, are those rules still being followed, or have the autonomous 5 broken any of these?

These are basically for the CFP and committee. IMO, there are no grounds for lawsuits on the TV and non CFP bowl contracts. The only hope is there can be collusion found between ESPN and a couple conferences, which is highly unlikely.

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay. I dont even know if thats the best route. I think breach of contract may better. There is nothing wrong with the basic CFP concept. The issue is the P5 chosen to stack the committee with all P5 membership and then proceeded to create an "SOS criteria" that essentially says "if you dont play a P5 schedule you cant be considered for the playoff". Thats where you might prove anti-trust. I think it would be easier to prove that the P5 colluded to stack the committee to the detriment of the G5--thus failing to comply with the signed contract documents that required that all 10 conferences be treated fairly and equitably.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding on how anti-trust laws work with the concept being presented in this thread.

(01-03-2018 06:31 PM)leofrog Wrote:  No lawyer here, but these are my thoughts.

1. What part did the G5 conferences and schools play in the setup of the CFP committee and guidelines?
2. When the G5 conferences and schools agreed to the autonomous 5 setup, are those rules still being followed, or have the autonomous 5 broken any of these?

These are basically for the CFP and committee. IMO, there are no grounds for lawsuits on the TV and non CFP bowl contracts. The only hope is there can be collusion found between ESPN and a couple conferences, which is highly unlikely.

I can only assume, they have zero case if they are in a legally binding contract with the CFP through 2025. You make good points about the actual legal contract. Does anybody have access to it? It would be interesting to review the actual agreement. Within the next 7 years, outside of a Wikileaks dump, I just don't see how they have a case, unless there are some deeper stipulations in the actual contract that have not been followed, but then, that may simply fall under a suit for breach of contract and not anti trust.

Next contract go around, I could only assume that the case can be made if

A. The P5 or 4 try a formal break.

B. I can also only assume that since these are public institutions and publicly financed that it may actually support the antitrust or a court ordered breakup outside of any antitrust case because they are government institutions colluding against other government institutions. The court may order equal representation.

Once again, I am just guessing here and would really be interested in the legal aspect of all this.

For those with reading comprehension issues, I'm not interested in naive frat boys who burnt out too many brain cells on the keg stands.

(01-03-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay.

No it wouldn't be. There is the possibility of access if minimum requirements for membership at that level are set, and if there is permeability between the two classifications. Which means when schools reach a certain attendance requirement, endowment requirement, facilities standards, enrollment, and play a requisite number of required sports, they can apply to move up. And it is particularly true if those already in the upper tier fail to maintain the minimums and they move down.

Sports organizations all over this nation play within classifications based on these types of criteria.

It is not anti trust unless schools with mutual credentials are denied access.

(01-03-2018 06:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There is a fundamental misunderstanding on how anti-trust laws work with the concept being presented in this thread.

Ok, so enlighten us? While enlightening us on the fundamentals of antitrust, what do you think it would take to happen for a case to be viable?

Outside of antitrust, what are the legal ramifications of one publicly financed institution undercutting another......outside of antitrust?

(01-03-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay. I dont even know if thats the best route. I think breach of contract may better. There is nothing wrong with the basic CFP concept. The issue is the P5 chosen to stack the committee with all P5 membership and then proceeded to create an "SOS criteria" that essentially says "if you dont play a P5 schedule you cant be considered for the playoff". Thats where you might prove anti-trust. I think it would be easier to prove that the P5 colluded to stack the committee to the detriment of the G5--thus failing to comply with the signed contract documents that required that all 10 conferences be treated fairly and equitably.

If the G5 agreed to not have a say on who represents the committee, then I just don't see a case. They agreed to it. That's why I think the actual text of the contract is important.

(01-03-2018 06:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay.

No it wouldn't be. There is the possibility of access if minimum requirements for membership at that level are set, and if there is permeability between the two classifications. Which means when schools reach a certain attendance requirement, endowment requirement, facilities standards, enrollment, and play a requisite number of required sports, they can apply to move up. And it is particularly true if those already in the upper tier fail to maintain the minimums and they move down.

Sports organizations all over this nation play within classifications based on these types of criteria.

It is not anti trust unless schools with mutual credentials are denied access.

But there is no set criteria. What am I missing? Any one of the G5 can reach the whatever arbitrary line that is set and there is still no guarantee that a conference will accept them. In addition to that, even if the marketplace determines that they would be a good addition to a particular conference, state financed schools have the power and use that power to block other state financed schools.

(01-03-2018 06:47 PM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay. I dont even know if thats the best route. I think breach of contract may better. There is nothing wrong with the basic CFP concept. The issue is the P5 chosen to stack the committee with all P5 membership and then proceeded to create an "SOS criteria" that essentially says "if you dont play a P5 schedule you cant be considered for the playoff". Thats where you might prove anti-trust. I think it would be easier to prove that the P5 colluded to stack the committee to the detriment of the G5--thus failing to comply with the signed contract documents that required that all 10 conferences be treated fairly and equitably.

If the G5 agreed to not have a say on who represents the committee, then I just don't see a case. They agreed to it. That's why I think the actual text of the contract is important.

Perhaps. But I guarantee you the language in the deal doesnt allow the committee to treat them unfairly--which is what they have done. They have set a criteria that basically says--you have to play a P5 schedule or you cant be in the playoff.

(01-03-2018 06:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay.

No it wouldn't be. There is the possibility of access if minimum requirements for membership at that level are set, and if there is permeability between the two classifications. Which means when schools reach a certain attendance requirement, endowment requirement, facilities standards, enrollment, and play a requisite number of required sports, they can apply to move up. And it is particularly true if those already in the upper tier fail to maintain the minimums and they move down.

Sports organizations all over this nation play within classifications based on these types of criteria.

It is not anti trust unless schools with mutual credentials are denied access.

? They are all FBS.

(01-03-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay. I dont even know if thats the best route. I think breach of contract may better. There is nothing wrong with the basic CFP concept. The issue is the P5 chosen to stack the committee with all P5 membership and then proceeded to create an "SOS criteria" that essentially says "if you dont play a P5 schedule you cant be considered for the playoff". Thats where you might prove anti-trust. I think it would be easier to prove that the P5 colluded to stack the committee to the detriment of the G5--thus failing to comply with the signed contract documents that required that all 10 conferences be treated fairly and equitably.

1. How did the P5 stack the deck for committee members? I tried looking online, but couldn't find how committee members are chosen. I do know that the committee is governed by a Management Committee (all 10 conference commissioners). The Board of Managers (a university President from each conference and Notre Dame) oversee the entire CFP. So, it does look like equal representation on who chooses the committee.
2. The SOS criteria is written in several areas of the Protocol the committee members follow. This was unanimously approved by the group on 6/20/2012. So, this is not a made up metric, but something that is outlined in their bylaws. The issue is that this metric is highly subjective, but anything is when you have humans ranking teams.
3. How do you know that all 10 conferences aren't treated fairly and equitably? This is a very subjective opinion. They have a set of guidelines to go through, and while it probably wasn't unanimous, the committee as a whole thought UCF was #12 in the country. Heck, even the AP and Coaches poll thought UCF was 10th best, so they still wouldn't have made it.

Personally, I did not think UCF was one of the best 4 teams in the country.
1. My subjective reasoning is that I don't think they would have gone undefeated (2-3 losses at least), in a P5 conference. I know that shouldn't matter, but anytime you have subjective metrics, that plays a part.
2. Also, I don't think they played as tough of a schedule as the other teams, and that is a metric used by the committee.
3. Just because a team is undefeated doesn't mean they are one of the best. Again, I use my previous two points on this. When selecting the best 4 teams, and when there are only 12-13 data points for 120+ teams, these subjective metrics matter.

Now, I will admit that I didn't think Alabama should have been in, and they proved me wrong on Monday.

For antitrust you would have to prove the new P5 organization was doing something to suppress the other schools. Just saying that the P5 is more popular does not prove they are doing something illegal.

Schools would have the option to stay in the NCAA, join another organization like the NAIA, or create a new organization. Otherwise they would have to prove the P5 did something to prevent it.

UCF having a football team doesn't mean the SEC has to accept them. You can meet all the requirements for AAU but that doesn't mean they have to accept you.

(01-03-2018 07:22 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  UCF having a football team doesn't mean the SEC has to accept them. You can meet all the requirements for AAU but that doesn't mean they have to accept you.

UCF has two (2) major bowl wins over a full or divisional P5 champion in 5 seasons, and three (3) out of five (5) wins against top 10 teams in the same period.

How many P5 programs have that resume in the same period? Even with more attempts? Stop putting asterisks on UCF's accomplishments.

Heck, even Boise State fans pointed out that UCF dominated Baylor in 2014, and surely made Auburn look like they couldn't handle UCF in 2018!

(01-03-2018 07:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:47 PM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  So you would be suing the P5 because ESPN doesn't wish to offer the MAC the same money as the B1G?

Well....

Good luck with that!

The case would be about access not media pay. I dont even know if thats the best route. I think breach of contract may better. There is nothing wrong with the basic CFP concept. The issue is the P5 chosen to stack the committee with all P5 membership and then proceeded to create an "SOS criteria" that essentially says "if you dont play a P5 schedule you cant be considered for the playoff". Thats where you might prove anti-trust. I think it would be easier to prove that the P5 colluded to stack the committee to the detriment of the G5--thus failing to comply with the signed contract documents that required that all 10 conferences be treated fairly and equitably.

If the G5 agreed to not have a say on who represents the committee, then I just don't see a case. They agreed to it. That's why I think the actual text of the contract is important.

Perhaps. But I guarantee you the language in the deal doesnt allow the committee to treat them unfairly--which is what they have done. They have set a criteria that basically says--you have to play a P5 schedule or you cant be in the playoff.

There are no anti-trust issues and no collusion. The P5 and CFP can simply point to the respected resumes and experience of the selection committee members. No way to dispute a subjective committee of experts. And, the committee has plenty of ammo to justify their selections. No need to worry about computer rankings, changing formula, etc. One of the power conferences will always be left out - this year it's two. Brilliant strategy.

Don't need court, Just need to make em look stupid in court of public opinion.

Ok, so what about if they decided to break away? Anti-trust then?

I am also interested in the legal ramifications of state financed public institutions forming public non profit business ventures that are not equally inclusive of other state financed public institutions. There is a lot of media money on the table that benefits only certain communities and not others due to being shut out of these business ventures. And by benefits, I am talking about construction on campus athletic facilities, economic impact of the big games, etc.

I would assume there would be no case if the majority of schools in these conferences were private, in which the conference can claim that its majority privately owned..... but we know that isn't the case.

Freedom of association

The University of Georgia is not required to associate with Georgia State or Georgia Southern just because they are public schools in the same state