(01-17-2019 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 04:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The current access only exists because the power structure at the time feared the justice department was going to investigate the BCS for anti-trust issues. The BCS immediately added Utah and added non-power access to blunt that move. So it would appear the power structure has some serious concerns about their vulnerability from that type of attack. A law suit filed by non-power schools essentially does the same thing through via the civil courts.

The BCS changed its formula in 2004 because of Senator Orrin Hatch. Hatch mattered because he was a powerful senator, the judiciary committee chair, with the ability to possibly *change anti-trust law* to make the BCS unlawful. It wasn't a judge the BCS was afraid of, it was a politician.

And even that power can change. E.g, in 2009, after unbeaten Utah was passed over for the BCS title game, Hatch raised another stink about the BCS, but this time things were different - there was a democrat in the White House who could not be counted on to sign a GOP-inspired bill, and Hatch was now in the Senate minority, and the majority chairman made it clear he had little interest in what Hatch wanted to do. So it went nowhere and the BCS didn't change anything then.

Since the formula was changed in 2004 - and a very mild change it was, as it did not even guarantee non-AQ a spot in a BCS bowl, much less the BCS title game - there hasn't been any threat to the structure of the post season from Congress.

The BCS worried less in 2009 becasue it had protected itself significantly with its earler actions and because it would be expiring in a few years anyway. That said, here is a link that explains at least 2 ways the BCS could still be attacked. Never underestimate the ability of a lawyer to find a place to attack and institution that is fairly crooked. My guess is loading the Selection Committee with P5 reps and setting judging criteria that eliminate G5 teams from the playoff before the season even begins would also be as problematic as anything discussed in the paper below. Again---no idea if these sorts of attacks would be successful---but folks saying the CFP has nothing to fear from a anti-trust suit sounds a lot like the folks that at one time thought the Alston suit demanding payment for players was a joke.


http://harvardjsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2.pdf

That's an interesting paper, but (a) it applies to the BCS, not the CFP, (b) the authors admit their approach is novel, that most commentators (i.e., law professors) agree that the 2004 reforms removed any credible anti-trust claims, and © as I agree with you that we have tons of lawyers in the USA who are always trying to devise novel arguments for new lawsuits, particularly when a potential target has 'deep pockets', this leads me to believe that (d) if there was any plausible basis for a lawsuit against the CFP, we would have seen one by now.

But regarding that 2011 paper, it seems to me that the authors hinge a lot of their argument on the disparate payments, that is, when a BCS conference team made a BCS bowl, their conference got $19m whereas when a non-AQ conference did so, they received a lesser amount. That's not true of the CFP, in that if a team from any conference makes the playoffs or an Access Bowl, the amount received is the same (e.g., the SEC and AAC both got the same amount for LSU and UCF playing in the Fiesta Bowl).

The only difference is that G5 conferences do not receive payments from the Orange, Sugar, and Rose Bowls, as they are ineligible to play in them. But that is by the choice of the bowls, not the CFP, and that applies to the P5 themselves as well (e.g., the SEC has no more eligibility to play in the Rose Bowl than does the MAC - both can only play in it if it is a playoff bowl).

BTW, as I've said, I do agree with you that the selection committee should be balanced between selectors with a P5 and G5 background, or else consist solely of selectors without any such background. But truth is, no group of selectors would have ever put a G5 team in any of the playoffs that have ever been held.

With regards to the paper--again, I have no idea if either attack would be successful. Yes, it says they are novel arguments. That said, the 1984 NCAA case vs the Board of Regents was a novel argument since the rights Oklahoma sought to regain were available to Oklahoma by simply withdrawing from their voluntary association with the NCAA. What the courts said was that there was no similar organization that would be equal to the NCAA available to Oklahoma. I see it as fairly likely that schools playing with the P5 in 2019 and suddenly told they could no longer associate with them in 2020 could probably make a similar argument (remember, the original premise was that a split would result in an antitrust suit).

I maintain that the reason you have seen no suit is because the G5 still have quite a bit to lose. They are part of the top division of football, receive a large payment from the CFP, and have access to at least one major bowl each year. I think there is a decent chance the G5 will end up will real legit access to the actual playoff in the next version of the playoff if it expands to 8 teams. So, if you file a suit---and lose---you've opened the door for the P5 to go on their own and eliminate the G5. At this point, the more prudent course is to not poison the well and hope that public pressure caused by watching the top G5 programs perform well in the post season creates enough momentum for expanded G5 access to the actual playoff when the CFP expands to 8 teams.