(01-17-2019 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  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).

IIRC (and I'm not a lawyer so have no expertise) what you are referring to is called in anti-trust law a "group boycott". In the 1984 case, the NCAA told Oklahoma that if they signed their own TV deal no NCAA teams would play them athletically.

But crucially, a "group boycott" isn't by itself a violation. It's only a violation if it is used to enforce something that IS a violation. The problem the court had with the NCAA's threat was that it was used in the service of a practice the court found to be a violation - the NCAA having a monopoly on the negotiation of TV rights. Had the court found that this monopoly on the negotiation of TV rights was not itself a violation of anti-trust, then the group boycott threat would not have been problematic.

In this case, the P5 breaking away would not be to enforce such a policy.

Perhaps, but it could also be argued that the only reason for the P5 to break away would be to reduce the supply of games at the top level of football by reducing the suppliers. The enitre reason would be to restrict the supply in order to increase the value---which is not in the consumers interests. There are multiple ways to attack the move based on some of the arguments made in the 84 case. Essentially, the NCAA argued that if Oklahoma didnt like it, they could go join NAIA. The NCAA pointed out that the Oklahoma association with the NCAA was a voluntary association. The courts found that there was no reasonable alternative for the NCAA's top division. Its worth noting that the NCAA was a voluntary association of 100's of universities who had all agreed to work within the NCAA TV deal (understand---there really isnt some evil NCAA empire--its actually just a just proxy structure paid to carry out the wishes of its voting membership). So, the idea that a group of universities can set any criteria they wish for membership and associate with any university they wish clearly has limits. Would a court thus rule a P5 exit that excluded the G5 as a violation of anti-trust laws---who knows? But I think it could certainly be argued that it is.

Like I said---many thought the Alston case was in left field. Not anymore.