REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
G5 CFP distribution for 2019
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,151
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #61
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(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.
01-16-2019 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,472
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #62
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(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.

I don't think its entirely a coincidence that Utah got a P5 spot around that same time.
01-16-2019 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 28,319
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1217
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #63
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(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
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2019 01:19 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-17-2019 01:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,151
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #64
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(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.
01-17-2019 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 28,319
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1217
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #65
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(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.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2019 11:49 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-17-2019 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,151
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #66
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(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.
01-17-2019 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 28,319
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1217
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #67
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(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.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2019 03:55 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-17-2019 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,151
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #68
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 04:37 PM)usffan Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 03:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 12:00 PM)usffan Wrote:  The problem is that it's become the opposite - a built in crutch to ensure Alabama is able to get into the playoff. They play a tough conference schedule that they can't even win, but the purported schedule difficulty (I use purported because most SEC teams use the "SEC is so tough" argument for their scheduling difficulty rather than going on the road and playing tough opponents - there are occasional exceptions) gets them in like last year, rendering this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence my argument for an independent group making OOC schedules.

The thing is, using this year as an example, Georgia had a chance to demonstrate they were capable of beating Alabama and couldn't do it head to head. Ohio State didn't. So Ohio State was much more deserving of a playoff spot than Georgia. Thus, games on the field actually mattered. This is why conference champions need to be prioritized over an arbitrary assignment of 'best X number of teams."

USFFan

Well, neither Georgia nor Ohio State made the playoffs, so I'm not sure why they are being compared.

As for conference champions being prioritized, the CFP data suggests they are: Of the 20 teams that have made the playoffs so far, 17 of them have been conference champs, and one of the three that wasn't was Notre Dame, who you have to throw out because while they didn't win a conference they also didn't lose one either. Only Ohio State 2016 and Alabama 2017 have made the playoffs without being conference champs.

And as for Alabama specifically, they have made the playoff 5 times, and 4 of those times have been as conference champs, so it's not really fair to say that the playoffs have somehow become a crutch to get them in as not a champ.

As for SOS, I just looked at the final Sagarin rankings. Alabama's final SOS was #9, which was the highest of anyone in the final Sagarin top 10. Georgia SOS was #10, which was the second-best SOS among the top 10 teams. So the SEC doesn't seem to be skating by somehow with weaker SOS.

Georgia leapfrogged Ohio State in the final CFP standings - that's why I used that as an example.

And again, if SOS is 75% or more just based on conference games, it stays as a self-fulfilling prophecy. When Sagarin starts next year, the SEC will already be the top conference before a game is played.

USFFan

Sagarin will have the SEC #1 before the games are played because like most computers, Sagarin uses last year's data to begin the year, just so they can have rankings to publish.

It takes until about week 7 for last year's data to wash out, and from that point on the rankings are based solely on this year's data.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2019 04:08 PM by quo vadis.)
01-17-2019 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,218
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 211
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #69
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-17-2019 03:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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.

The NCAA argued that if OU didn't like the rules, it could withdraw. The Court agreed with OU it had no meaningful alternative.

You are suggesting that if the P5, and whoever else that goes with them, withdrew from the NCAA, the remaining members of the NCAA could raise as an argument to stop this that they have no meaningful alternative to an NCAA without the P5 as members. I don't agree that this has any merit. The P5 is not an organization equivalent to the NCAA, they are members of the organization. Their participation in the organization is entirely voluntary, as the NCAA argued.

Your argument appears to be based on the idea that the remaining members of the NCAA cannot exist without the P5 and legally, therefore, the P5 cannot leave because it would do financial harm to the other members. This is not an antitrust argument. The P5 is not preventing other schools and conferences from negotiating their own television and bowl deals today. Leaving the NCAA would not prevent them from negotiating arrangements in the future.
01-17-2019 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 28,319
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1217
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #70
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-17-2019 04:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  
(01-17-2019 03:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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.

The NCAA argued that if OU didn't like the rules, it could withdraw. The Court agreed with OU it had no meaningful alternative.

You are suggesting that if the P5, and whoever else that goes with them, withdrew from the NCAA, the remaining members of the NCAA could raise as an argument to stop this that they have no meaningful alternative to an NCAA without the P5 as members. I don't agree that this has any merit. The P5 is not an organization equivalent to the NCAA, they are members of the organization. Their participation in the organization is entirely voluntary, as the NCAA argued.

Your argument appears to be based on the idea that the remaining members of the NCAA cannot exist without the P5 and legally, therefore, the P5 cannot leave because it would do financial harm to the other members. This is not an antitrust argument. The P5 is not preventing other schools and conferences from negotiating their own television and bowl deals today. Leaving the NCAA would not prevent them from negotiating arrangements in the future.

No, Im not arguing that the G5 could stop the P5 from leaving the NCAA. I dont think they can. What Im suggesting is that the P5 might run into legal problems attempting to exclude the G5 from their new organization if a G5 wishes to join. I think a G5 could argue there is no similar college football organization beyond the P5's new division. If those G5 schools are willing to compete against the P5 schools, despite a disadvantage in resources, then the only real reason to keep them out of the organization is a desire to restrict the supply of the top level games in order to push up their price.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2019 12:56 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-17-2019 07:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,151
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #71
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-17-2019 03:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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.

About the bolded part: while lots of arguments and counterarguments were made during the various court proceedings, my understanding of the supreme court ruling, which is the one that counts (as opposed to lower court rulings) was that there was nothing wrong with the NCAA's "group boycott" per se, including its severity.

IOW's, had the NCAA's practice of negotiating a single TV deal for all of football been legal, than the group boycott would have been legal and the NCAA wasn't obligated to provide Oklahoma with a "soft landing spot" or prove that a soft landing spot existed for them someplace else. Heck, that would mitigate the effectiveness of the sanction itself, which is nonsensical. E.g., the NBA negotiates league-wide TV deals, and it could kick out franchises that refuse to sign on, even if that meant that those franchises would have no viable or reasonable place to go outside the NBA. That's of no concern as long as the reason for that boycott/sanction is itself legal, because the point of the sanction is to compel a legal action.

And in this case, that wouldn't even apply, as the P5 would be leaving not to try and compel the G5 to do anything like sign over rights.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2019 09:08 AM by quo vadis.)
01-18-2019 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,151
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #72
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-17-2019 07:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No, Im not arguing that the G5 could stop the P5 from leaving the NCAA. I dont think they can. What Im suggesting is that the P5 might run into legal problems attempting to exclude the G5 from their new organization if a G5 wishes to join. I think a G5 could argue there is no similar college football organization beyond the P5's new division. If those G5 schools are willing to compete against the P5 schools, despite a disadvantage in resources, then the only real reason to keep them out of the organization is a desire to restrict the supply of the top level games in order to push up their price.

The obvious question that the G5 conference or team that made that argument would face is "why isn't the remaining G5 league a similar college football organization"?

There is a contradiction in your argument: If the G5 teams are top-level, such that if the P5 teams refuse to play them they are reducing the supply of games amongst top-level programs, then there is no harm done by a split, because the games among the G5 teams in the new G5-only league would be top-level games too, meaning the consumer still has access to the same number of top level games. A split would be like the AFL and NFL were in the 1960s before the merger, or NBA and ABA were before the ABA went out of business. Two separate top level leagues.

On the other hand, if a P5 split would mean that the remaining G5 league isn't top level, then that destroys the notion that the split itself would reduce the number of top level games, because it would mean that currently, when a P5 and a G5 play each other, that isn't a game between top level teams.

It would mean that in reality, the G5 leagues are only top level if they are affiliated with the P5 leagues, while the P5 leagues remain top level even if they don't affiliate with the G5 leagues, which means the G5 leagues are seeking a legal right to piggy-back on the market value of the P5 leagues and there is no such right.

Heck, if there was, any group could start a basketball team and then demand entry to the NBA on the grounds that we aspire to play in a top level league and there is no alternative to the NBA, so it would be 'restraint of trade' for the NBA to refuse us. That would be nonsensical on its face.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2019 09:14 AM by quo vadis.)
01-18-2019 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoustonCajun Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 674
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #73
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-16-2019 08:56 PM)bullet 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.

I don't think its entirely a coincidence that Utah got a P5 spot around that same time.

And, did he drop it when Utah joined a P5 conference? Was the Anti-Trust threat just a means to get Utah to a higher level? Haven't heard much, if anything, since then.
01-18-2019 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,383
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 130
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #74
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-17-2019 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... (d) if there was any plausible basis for a lawsuit against the CFP, we would have seen one by now.

Now, IANDL, but AFAIU, that depends in part on who has standing for a lawsuit on that basis. If there is a credible basis but none of the parties with standing wish to risk the lawsuit at this time, then there it lies as a dormant threat.
01-18-2019 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,151
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #75
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-18-2019 09:28 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  
(01-16-2019 08:56 PM)bullet 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.

I don't think its entirely a coincidence that Utah got a P5 spot around that same time.

And, did he drop it when Utah joined a P5 conference? Was the Anti-Trust threat just a means to get Utah to a higher level? Haven't heard much, if anything, since then.

Hatch continued to threaten the BCS even after Utah joined the PAC:

https://www.newsday.com/sports/college/o...-1.2860223
01-18-2019 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #76
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
(01-18-2019 09:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-17-2019 07:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No, Im not arguing that the G5 could stop the P5 from leaving the NCAA. I dont think they can. What Im suggesting is that the P5 might run into legal problems attempting to exclude the G5 from their new organization if a G5 wishes to join. I think a G5 could argue there is no similar college football organization beyond the P5's new division. If those G5 schools are willing to compete against the P5 schools, despite a disadvantage in resources, then the only real reason to keep them out of the organization is a desire to restrict the supply of the top level games in order to push up their price.

The obvious question that the G5 conference or team that made that argument would face is "why isn't the remaining G5 league a similar college football organization"?

There is a contradiction in your argument: If the G5 teams are top-level, such that if the P5 teams refuse to play them they are reducing the supply of games amongst top-level programs, then there is no harm done by a split, because the games among the G5 teams in the new G5-only league would be top-level games too, meaning the consumer still has access to the same number of top level games. A split would be like the AFL and NFL were in the 1960s before the merger, or NBA and ABA were before the ABA went out of business. Two separate top level leagues.

On the other hand, if a P5 split would mean that the remaining G5 league isn't top level, then that destroys the notion that the split itself would reduce the number of top level games, because it would mean that currently, when a P5 and a G5 play each other, that isn't a game between top level teams.

It would mean that in reality, the G5 leagues are only top level if they are affiliated with the P5 leagues, while the P5 leagues remain top level even if they don't affiliate with the G5 leagues, which means the G5 leagues are seeking a legal right to piggy-back on the market value of the P5 leagues and there is no such right.

That sounds right to me.

How would a split be settled? Would the P5 say see ya, we are leaving and having an 8 team playoff under a new college association but what does that do to the bowl system?

If the settlement is the NCAA can keep its 64 team tournament and the G5 can keep the bowl system aside from the NY6 which goes to the P5 then does it help the G5 ultimately?

The P5 would probably have to go with Fox to make a renegade move. That will upset ESPN and the TV contracts they have right now, leaving behind the ability to play off ESPN and Fox in negotiations.

I guess I'm not seeing what the G5 should fear from a split rather what the could negotiate for if it were to happen. A split could be a good thing. For one it would put G5 programs in a position to win D1 championships in a way they can't now competing with high resource schools.
01-18-2019 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,472
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #77
RE: G5 CFP distribution for 2019
And one thing you G5 fans should understand is that the presidents are all from one club. Many of them went to the same colleges for their Phd and many wouldn't mind being employed by one of the P5. Attacking the P5 is not in their long term job interests.
01-18-2019 01:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.