"There's no judge or jury in the world," Delany said, "that can make you enter into an four-team, eight-team or 16-team playoff."
Amen. Keep on pressing the issue non-AQs...Boise State can their enjoy annual trips to the Las Vegas Bowl.
Don't necessarily disagree with him on the point re: where we land if the BCS is dismantled. I would like to see a playoff, but its a fair point that the BCS could be dismantled and we're back to a system that isn't very favorable to conferences outside of the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12.
And its not guaranteed that the Orange, Sugar or Fiesta would be willing to sacrifice an at-large spot to land Big East #1.
My point on a similar thread on the realignment forum:
This is the key quote:
Quote:"I know at the end of the day that we've operated in total good faith. I know that (the postseason) is better than it was. . . . And if it can't go forward, it can't go forward. But I also know that we can't be enjoined, we can't be directed or forced into something we don't think is the right thing for us to do."
Even if the BCS is considered to be in violation of antitrust laws, THE COURTS WILL NOT FORCE A PLAYOFF. Paying damages is one thing, but short of virtually criminal interference, a court is not going to order specific performance. This is the case of 99.999% of all lawsuits and even in cases much larger (and more important) than the college football system.
Besides, if the free market were to prevail (which is what antitrust law is addressing, NOT "fairness" or "equal access"), would any of the BCS bowls EVER have agreed to invite Boise State or TCU or Hawaii to their games? This is where the non-AQ schools face some real danger if they push too hard and it can backfire on them (just like the USFL when it went after the NFL in the 1980s). If the bowls never wanted the non-AQ schools, and the TV networks that are paying for everything never wanted the non-AQ schools, then how is the BCS system itself actually closing off access?! If anything, the BCS system is actually hurting the Big Ten and SEC more because if the free market was truly prevailing here, they'd be getting 3 or 4 BCS bids every year instead of the non-AQ schools. Don't laugh at that argument - this is exactly the economic argument (which is what matters in antitrust law) that will be advanced, and if anyone takes off the "BCS haterade"-colored glasses and actually looks at the legal and economic analysis that will be used, this is more likely to be a winning argument for the AQ schools than the non-AQ schools.
I have to admit that going back to the old system would be disastrous for the Big East. Wonder what kind of realignment could occur if the BCS ended.
(05-09-2011 12:49 PM)mattsarz Wrote: [ -> ]Don't necessarily disagree with him on the point re: where we land if the BCS is dismantled. I would like to see a playoff, but its a fair point that the BCS could be dismantled and we're back to a system that isn't very favorable to conferences outside of the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12.
And its not guaranteed that the Orange, Sugar or Fiesta would be willing to sacrifice an at-large spot to land Big East #1.
Here's one way to avoid further antitrust scrutiny: completely dismantle the BCS, return to the old bowl system, and then have a plus one national championship game where 50% of that revenue is shared by all of the FBS conferences and then 50% of that revenue is split between the two conferences participating.
The upside for the non-AQ conferences is that they get guaranteed national championship game money every year (whether or not they participate). The downside is that this means that all bowls are free to enter into contracts with whoever they want, and none of those top bowls have ever really wanted those non-AQ conferences.
I think a lot of non-AQ supporters are going into this thinking that they have nothing to lose and that's a *very* dangerous assumption on their part.
And the Big East could be baited into signing that w/out any hope of getting a Big East team into that plus 1 scenario.
The DOJ has put me in an uncomfortable position: On one hand, i strongly support the end of the bowl/BCS system and the implementation of an 8 or 16 team playoff.
But, i just as strongly oppose the US government intervening to try and force this. It has no business telling colleges how to structure their football championship format.
.. and what's ironic is that the BCS is clearly the BEST system ever for the non-AQ conferences. No was does TCU or Boise or Utah play in multiple major bowls in the pre-BCS era.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashP...lId=112255
Apparently most people approve DOJ's position to look into this BCS thing. I believe the current system is set up to favor certain teams. We don't have a true national champion nor will we ever have one in the current system. The questions is are there other/better systems out there that's more fair to all the schools playing in the FBS? If there are none, I think we have no choice but to stay with the current system. If there are ways to maximize revenue and have a playoff, by all means do it.
(05-09-2011 01:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashP...lId=112255
Apparently most people approve DOJ's position to look into this BCS thing. I believe the current system is set up to favor certain teams. We don't have a true national champion nor will we ever have one in the current system. The questions is are there other/better systems out there that's more fair to all the schools playing in the FBS? If there are none, I think we have no choice but to stay with the current system. If there are ways to maximize revenue and have a playoff, by all means do it.
The only major sports that can claim a legit true champions are MLB, NHL, NBA, College Baseball etc. Single elimination tourneys don't really solve the who is the best team in the land question either. I just wished the called it what it is, BCS Champion, March Madness Champion, Super Bowl Champion.
(05-09-2011 01:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashP...lId=112255
Apparently most people approve DOJ's position to look into this BCS thing. I believe the current system is set up to favor certain teams. We don't have a true national champion nor will we ever have one in the current system. The questions is are there other/better systems out there that's more fair to all the schools playing in the FBS? If there are none, I think we have no choice but to stay with the current system. If there are ways to maximize revenue and have a playoff, by all means do it.
That looks like a fan poll, not a scientific poll (random sample drawn from the whole population of adults).
In any event, i don't think 'being fair' is a viable criterion, because 'fair' will depend on your POV. E.g., to a non-AQ school like Memphis, 'fair' might mean their conference getting the same percentage of overall post-season football revenue as they get in post-season basketball revenue. To an AQ-school, it might mean "well, we generate 90% of the revenue, so we deserve 90% of the revenue".
Just about all of us want an 8 or 16 team playoff, but to get it we're going to have to talk with our dollars (refuse to support the current system by not attending or watching bowls, etc.). Otherwise ...
To be honest, it might behoove the cartel to keep the Big East in the loop. If you relegate the Big East to upper midmajor status then the # of nonpowers is larger than the cartel and the midmajors could outvote the cartel.
(05-09-2011 01:25 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashP...lId=112255
Apparently most people approve DOJ's position to look into this BCS thing. I believe the current system is set up to favor certain teams. We don't have a true national champion nor will we ever have one in the current system. The questions is are there other/better systems out there that's more fair to all the schools playing in the FBS? If there are none, I think we have no choice but to stay with the current system. If there are ways to maximize revenue and have a playoff, by all means do it.
Just because something is unpopular doesn't mean that it's either (1) illegal or (2) government intervention is appropriate.
In order to have a proper discussion about this topic, we HAVE to put aside notions of what's "fair" or "logical" or "better". Those are all subjective opinions that have no bearing on a lawsuit itself. The BCS system might be the worst system in the entire world to determine a national championship, but that has NOTHING to do with whether it's illegal or not.
For there to be an antitrust violation, there has to be (A) a restraint on trade AND (B) a harm to consumers. Lots of people can show that the BCS fulfills requirement A, but the problem is requirement B, since there's just as much evidence that if the BCS didn't exist, the power conferences would have even MORE money and access than under today's BCS system. The standard is to look at what the world would look like without the BCS system. Would the Rose Bowl have ever taken TCU? Would ESPN be paying a premium for bowls involving non-AQ teams over ones with AQ teams? THAT'S where the legal analysis is going to be focused upon, NOT whether this is the best way to determine a national champion.
What I don't believe that most people realize is that the NCAA Tournament (and thereby, a hypothetical college football playoff system) is every bit of a restraint of trade as the BCS system. Just because the revenue is distributed differently doesn't make it less of a restraint of trade - in fact, it is arguably even MORE of a restraint of trade. A true free market allows TV networks and bowls decide for themselves who would be the best 2 teams to draw the highest ratings possible. There's absolutely no legal requirement that just because you play a sport that you have to have a playoff of some sort. If the NFL decided tomorrow that it just wants the Cowboys and Steelers to play in the Super Bowl every year because those are the 2 most popular teams, it's absolutely free to do so. (And because I'm sure it will be brought up, the fact that many universities are publicly funded has NO bearing on the antitrust analysis.)
Look, if I could wave a magic wand, I'd create an 8-team playoff immediately. That's my personal preference. However, that doesn't mean that the BCS system is illegal and it's infuriating to me that the government is using its unpopularity to wedge itself in on an issue where it has absolutely no business dealing with.
If there's one thing that's GUARANTEED to be worse than the BCS system, it's whatever f*ked up system that the House and Senate come up with.
(05-09-2011 01:38 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]To be honest, it might behoove the cartel to keep the Big East in the loop. If you relegate the Big East to upper midmajor status then the # of nonpowers is larger than the cartel and the midmajors could outvote the cartel.
Problem is, the cartel won't let the midmajors vote on anything that matters to them.
(05-09-2011 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The DOJ has put me in an uncomfortable position: On one hand, i strongly support the end of the bowl/BCS system and the implementation of an 8 or 16 team playoff.
But, i just as strongly oppose the US government intervening to try and force this. It has no business telling colleges how to structure their football championship format.
.. and what's ironic is that the BCS is clearly the BEST system ever for the non-AQ conferences. No was does TCU or Boise or Utah play in multiple major bowls in the pre-BCS era.
Yes it does. The institutions receive millions of dollars a year to those schools, if the Government said "Playoffs or we'll cut funding" we'd have a playoff system yesterday. Which, IMO, is what the government should be doing instead of this DOJ tactic. Why drag it out and spend oodles of government time and effort on this? Just put a motion into the Senate Committee on Appropriations regarding this and watch how quickly the Big Ten changes it's tune.
(05-09-2011 01:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2011 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The DOJ has put me in an uncomfortable position: On one hand, i strongly support the end of the bowl/BCS system and the implementation of an 8 or 16 team playoff.
But, i just as strongly oppose the US government intervening to try and force this. It has no business telling colleges how to structure their football championship format.
.. and what's ironic is that the BCS is clearly the BEST system ever for the non-AQ conferences. No was does TCU or Boise or Utah play in multiple major bowls in the pre-BCS era.
Yes it does. The institutions receive millions of dollars a year to those schools, if the Government said "Playoffs or we'll cut funding" we'd have a playoff system yesterday. Which, IMO, is what the government should be doing instead of this DOJ tactic. Why drag it out and spend oodles of government time and effort on this? Just put a motion into the Senate Committee on Appropriations regarding this and watch how quickly the Big Ten changes it's tune.
But why do this today instead of 10, 20 years ago. Right now our Government is completely broke and possibly facing default. I think our Gov needs to get its house in order before it tells everyone else to run their business.
(05-09-2011 01:56 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2011 01:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2011 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The DOJ has put me in an uncomfortable position: On one hand, i strongly support the end of the bowl/BCS system and the implementation of an 8 or 16 team playoff.
But, i just as strongly oppose the US government intervening to try and force this. It has no business telling colleges how to structure their football championship format.
.. and what's ironic is that the BCS is clearly the BEST system ever for the non-AQ conferences. No was does TCU or Boise or Utah play in multiple major bowls in the pre-BCS era.
Yes it does. The institutions receive millions of dollars a year to those schools, if the Government said "Playoffs or we'll cut funding" we'd have a playoff system yesterday. Which, IMO, is what the government should be doing instead of this DOJ tactic. Why drag it out and spend oodles of government time and effort on this? Just put a motion into the Senate Committee on Appropriations regarding this and watch how quickly the Big Ten changes it's tune.
But why do this today instead of 10, 20 years ago. Right now our Government is completely broke and possibly facing default. I think our Gov needs to get its house in order before it tells everyone else to run their business.
God I don't know how many times I have to say this but there literally is *NO* time that the government doesn't have better things to do than this. Never. It will never come about that the most pressing matter that the government should attend to will concern the playoff system or lack thereof in College Football. Not 10 years ago, not 20 years from now.
Never. But you know what? That's true of ~85% of everything the government does. At least this is a legitimate issue concerning a lot of money and a lot of government funded organizations (every school in the NCAA receives large amounts of federal funding).
Furthermore, the amount of time and effort this would take on the part of the Senate would be minute. Hell, the threat alone would be enough to enact change.
(05-09-2011 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2011 01:56 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2011 01:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2011 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The DOJ has put me in an uncomfortable position: On one hand, i strongly support the end of the bowl/BCS system and the implementation of an 8 or 16 team playoff.
But, i just as strongly oppose the US government intervening to try and force this. It has no business telling colleges how to structure their football championship format.
.. and what's ironic is that the BCS is clearly the BEST system ever for the non-AQ conferences. No was does TCU or Boise or Utah play in multiple major bowls in the pre-BCS era.
Yes it does. The institutions receive millions of dollars a year to those schools, if the Government said "Playoffs or we'll cut funding" we'd have a playoff system yesterday. Which, IMO, is what the government should be doing instead of this DOJ tactic. Why drag it out and spend oodles of government time and effort on this? Just put a motion into the Senate Committee on Appropriations regarding this and watch how quickly the Big Ten changes it's tune.
But why do this today instead of 10, 20 years ago. Right now our Government is completely broke and possibly facing default. I think our Gov needs to get its house in order before it tells everyone else to run their business.
God I don't know how many times I have to say this but there literally is *NO* time that the government doesn't have better things to do than this. Never. It will never come about that the most pressing matter that the government should attend to will concern the playoff system or lack thereof in College Football. Not 10 years ago, not 20 years from now. Never. But you know what? That's true of ~85% of everything the government does. At least this is a legitimate issue concerning a lot of money and a lot of government funded organizations (every school in the NCAA receives large amounts of federal funding).
Furthermore, the amount of time and effort this would take on the part of the Senate would be minute. Hell, the threat alone would be enough to enact change.
LOL I'm sure the congressmen of Texas, Ohio, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, ect would love to commit political suicide for the sake of the Byus, Fresno states, and UABs of the world.
(05-09-2011 01:03 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]I have to admit that going back to the old system would be disastrous for the Big East. Wonder what kind of realignment could occur if the BCS ended.
This is a very good question. TCU's invitation to the Big East was 99% BCS motivated. Would CUSA East schools still have an interest in the BIG East the Big East champ was guaranteed what the CUSA champ is????
Good luck getting a Congressional consensus to cut funding to institutions.