Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
Author Message
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,116
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1519
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #41
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-09-2020 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 07:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-07-2020 07:14 PM)McKinney Wrote:  Doesn't the federal government have bigger things to handle these days? Coronavirus? The recession that follows? Maybe even a supreme court confirmation? 07-coffee3

More to the point, as has been articulately explained elsewhere in this forum, there is no anti-trust action that could be brought in the event of a breakaway from what is already a monopolistic institution. That doesn't mean that someone won't initiate such a suit. Just that it would be quickly dismissed.

A far more likely cause for legal action, IMO, would result if conferences that break away try to "shed their deadweight" as has been suggested. Those conferences would most likely be violating their own bylaws, which are enforceable contractual obligations among all the members. The relevant question in that case would be what remedies would be available to the plaintiffs (the schools that are to be shed). Monetary damages? Injunctive relief?

Another possibility could be that individual state legislatures might try to prevent their state supported institutions from leaving little brothers behind by witholding financial support. That could lead the B1G to insist that the MAC be allowed to come along, which they may secretly want anyway because MAC teams are almost like FCS opponents for B1G teams in football.

1) Agree, there is zero anti-trust cause of action if P5 leaves G5.

2) Agree, conferences cannot shed members unless they follow their bylaws. But, they know this so won't try it, and the notion that conferences want to "shed" members is basically a fantasy of internet participants who think their school deserves a spot in a big conference that some other school doesn't deserve. E.g., many outsiders claim the Mississippi schools are "dead weight" in the SEC. Memphis fans or USF fans or Tulane fans might fantasize that the SEC would be stronger if the Mississippi schools were booted out and their schools let in, but nobody in the SEC thinks that.

3) State legislatures have some control but not a whole lot. Virginia did famously strong-arm VT in to the ACC, but that was a situation where they had leverage, because the state could pressure Virginia to advocate for that in ACC councils. But no state has control over what all the conferences decide to do. What can the state of Ohio do if the B1G votes anyway to leave the NCAA and the state wants Akron and Ohio to go too? Tell Ohio State they have to leave the B1G? Not happening.

Would they have a good case---probably not. Im not a lwayer, but from what I can gather, anti-trust law seems pretty open to interpretation. It seems to depend a lot on "fairness" and a it seemingly often depends on how one defines "the market" in any given instance. I mean---having a browser built into your computer operating system just sounds like a neat feature---yet it was considered to be an anti-trust violation. "Refusal to deal" is a concept where one group uses market dominance to limit the competitions ability to compete in a marketplace sounds like an area where an exclusive P5 break away might potentially be vulnerable.

Again, Im not a lawyer and Ive never thought the G5 had a great case on anti-trust issues. That said---the anti-trust option is not negligible, otherwise the P5 wouldnt be sending 90 million a year to the G5 so the G5 has enough to lose that they wont rock the boat.

First, I don't think the P5 throws the G5 anything to not rock the boat. The G5 gets $90 million because partially it is worth something, and also because despite the musings of forum posters, the P5 actually *wants* the G5 around and involved. They want to bill the CFP playoff champion as the "Champion of FBS" football, and to do that they have to include all FBS conferences. And a big reason the P5 wants that, is because as many of us have discussed, the P5 actually likes having the G5 around. The G5 provides 60 more teams for schools to compete against OOC, including mostly "winnable" games that help keep coaches and athletic admins in their jobs.

So the $90m isn't hostage money to keep the G5 from filing a frivolous lawsuit, it's the price the P5 is *willing* to pay to have the G5 involved in the same division.

Second, with the same caveat you made about not being a lawyer, I don't think anti-trust is about some squishy liberal notion of fairness. Especially with regards to college athletics, I think the 1984 case is again instructive, because in a lot of ways, the TV case was very similar to what a P5 breakaway would be: In 1984 a "cream" of about 60 football schools, the CFA, was seeking to "break away" from the other NCAA football schools to negotiate its own TV. One of the arguments the NCAA made was basically what you voiced above - if the big brands like Oklahoma and Georgia and USC and Michigan break away, there will be little TV interest in the remnant left-behinds, so the current NCAA model was "fair" in that it spread exposure and TV money to a lot of schools that otherwise would be SOL in a free market.

That argument was rejected by the courts of course. There's no law that says that a low-brand school has the right to ride on the coattails of high-brand schools, or that conversely high-brand schools have to affiliate with low-brand schools to help the latter stay economically viable. So I don't think that argument would get very far. Anti-Trust law is about preventing groups from keeping members "in" not preventing them from leaving. Just MO.

07-coffee3

I agree the 1984 case was instructive. I just think we take different lessons from it.
Whats the primary motivation for reducing the top level of football to 65 or so participants? Whats the primary motivation to exclude 65 or so smaller conferences? Its pretty clear its to eliminate the smaller schools and increase the take home pay of each school remaining in top level of football. Point being---depending on how you frame the argument--you can make a case. Can you win it? Who knows? Its worth noting that the USFL actually won their case against the NFL (I'd say the USFL would seemingly have had even a less reasonable basis for victory). Of course---one cant cite that case without pointing out the USFL was awarded essentially nothing in terms of damages. Its entirely possible the G5 could win a completely Pyrrhic victory that does nothing to improve their situation.

Id also add that I tend to agree that the P5 really are far less interested in leaving now that the have autonomous powers.
(This post was last modified: 05-09-2020 05:23 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-09-2020 05:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,574
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 720
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #42
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-09-2020 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 07:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  More to the point, as has been articulately explained elsewhere in this forum, there is no anti-trust action that could be brought in the event of a breakaway from what is already a monopolistic institution. That doesn't mean that someone won't initiate such a suit. Just that it would be quickly dismissed.

A far more likely cause for legal action, IMO, would result if conferences that break away try to "shed their deadweight" as has been suggested. Those conferences would most likely be violating their own bylaws, which are enforceable contractual obligations among all the members. The relevant question in that case would be what remedies would be available to the plaintiffs (the schools that are to be shed). Monetary damages? Injunctive relief?

Another possibility could be that individual state legislatures might try to prevent their state supported institutions from leaving little brothers behind by witholding financial support. That could lead the B1G to insist that the MAC be allowed to come along, which they may secretly want anyway because MAC teams are almost like FCS opponents for B1G teams in football.

1) Agree, there is zero anti-trust cause of action if P5 leaves G5.

2) Agree, conferences cannot shed members unless they follow their bylaws. But, they know this so won't try it, and the notion that conferences want to "shed" members is basically a fantasy of internet participants who think their school deserves a spot in a big conference that some other school doesn't deserve. E.g., many outsiders claim the Mississippi schools are "dead weight" in the SEC. Memphis fans or USF fans or Tulane fans might fantasize that the SEC would be stronger if the Mississippi schools were booted out and their schools let in, but nobody in the SEC thinks that.

3) State legislatures have some control but not a whole lot. Virginia did famously strong-arm VT in to the ACC, but that was a situation where they had leverage, because the state could pressure Virginia to advocate for that in ACC councils. But no state has control over what all the conferences decide to do. What can the state of Ohio do if the B1G votes anyway to leave the NCAA and the state wants Akron and Ohio to go too? Tell Ohio State they have to leave the B1G? Not happening.

Would they have a good case---probably not. Im not a lwayer, but from what I can gather, anti-trust law seems pretty open to interpretation. It seems to depend a lot on "fairness" and a it seemingly often depends on how one defines "the market" in any given instance. I mean---having a browser built into your computer operating system just sounds like a neat feature---yet it was considered to be an anti-trust violation. "Refusal to deal" is a concept where one group uses market dominance to limit the competitions ability to compete in a marketplace sounds like an area where an exclusive P5 break away might potentially be vulnerable.

Again, Im not a lawyer and Ive never thought the G5 had a great case on anti-trust issues. That said---the anti-trust option is not negligible, otherwise the P5 wouldnt be sending 90 million a year to the G5 so the G5 has enough to lose that they wont rock the boat.

First, I don't think the P5 throws the G5 anything to not rock the boat. The G5 gets $90 million because partially it is worth something, and also because despite the musings of forum posters, the P5 actually *wants* the G5 around and involved. They want to bill the CFP playoff champion as the "Champion of FBS" football, and to do that they have to include all FBS conferences. And a big reason the P5 wants that, is because as many of us have discussed, the P5 actually likes having the G5 around. The G5 provides 60 more teams for schools to compete against OOC, including mostly "winnable" games that help keep coaches and athletic admins in their jobs.

So the $90m isn't hostage money to keep the G5 from filing a frivolous lawsuit, it's the price the P5 is *willing* to pay to have the G5 involved in the same division.

Second, with the same caveat you made about not being a lawyer, I don't think anti-trust is about some squishy liberal notion of fairness. Especially with regards to college athletics, I think the 1984 case is again instructive, because in a lot of ways, the TV case was very similar to what a P5 breakaway would be: In 1984 a "cream" of about 60 football schools, the CFA, was seeking to "break away" from the other NCAA football schools to negotiate its own TV. One of the arguments the NCAA made was basically what you voiced above - if the big brands like Oklahoma and Georgia and USC and Michigan break away, there will be little TV interest in the remnant left-behinds, so the current NCAA model was "fair" in that it spread exposure and TV money to a lot of schools that otherwise would be SOL in a free market.

That argument was rejected by the courts of course. There's no law that says that a low-brand school has the right to ride on the coattails of high-brand schools, or that conversely high-brand schools have to affiliate with low-brand schools to help the latter stay economically viable. So I don't think that argument would get very far. Anti-Trust law is about preventing groups from keeping members "in" not preventing them from leaving. Just MO.

07-coffee3

I agree the 1984 case was instructive. I just think we take different lessons from it.
Whats the primary motivation for reducing the top level of football to 65 or so participants? Whats the primary motivation to exclude 65 or so smaller conferences? Its pretty clear its to eliminate the smaller schools and increase the take home pay of each school remaining in top level of football. Point being---depending on how you frame the argument--you can make a case. Can you win it? Who knows? Its worth noting that the USFL actually won their case against the NFL (I'd say the USFL would seemingly have had even a less reasonable basis for victory). Of course---one cant cite that case without pointing out the USFL was awarded essentially nothing in terms of damages. Its entirely possible the G5 could win a completely Pyrrhic victory that does nothing to improve their situation.

Id also add that I tend to agree that the P5 really are far less interested in leaving now that the have autonomous powers.

Leaving the NCAA is not the same as excluding anyone. If leaving was illegal, then the NCAA would not be a voluntary organization, it would be a maximum-security prison.
05-09-2020 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,116
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1519
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #43
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-09-2020 10:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  1) Agree, there is zero anti-trust cause of action if P5 leaves G5.

2) Agree, conferences cannot shed members unless they follow their bylaws. But, they know this so won't try it, and the notion that conferences want to "shed" members is basically a fantasy of internet participants who think their school deserves a spot in a big conference that some other school doesn't deserve. E.g., many outsiders claim the Mississippi schools are "dead weight" in the SEC. Memphis fans or USF fans or Tulane fans might fantasize that the SEC would be stronger if the Mississippi schools were booted out and their schools let in, but nobody in the SEC thinks that.

3) State legislatures have some control but not a whole lot. Virginia did famously strong-arm VT in to the ACC, but that was a situation where they had leverage, because the state could pressure Virginia to advocate for that in ACC councils. But no state has control over what all the conferences decide to do. What can the state of Ohio do if the B1G votes anyway to leave the NCAA and the state wants Akron and Ohio to go too? Tell Ohio State they have to leave the B1G? Not happening.

Would they have a good case---probably not. Im not a lwayer, but from what I can gather, anti-trust law seems pretty open to interpretation. It seems to depend a lot on "fairness" and a it seemingly often depends on how one defines "the market" in any given instance. I mean---having a browser built into your computer operating system just sounds like a neat feature---yet it was considered to be an anti-trust violation. "Refusal to deal" is a concept where one group uses market dominance to limit the competitions ability to compete in a marketplace sounds like an area where an exclusive P5 break away might potentially be vulnerable.

Again, Im not a lawyer and Ive never thought the G5 had a great case on anti-trust issues. That said---the anti-trust option is not negligible, otherwise the P5 wouldnt be sending 90 million a year to the G5 so the G5 has enough to lose that they wont rock the boat.

First, I don't think the P5 throws the G5 anything to not rock the boat. The G5 gets $90 million because partially it is worth something, and also because despite the musings of forum posters, the P5 actually *wants* the G5 around and involved. They want to bill the CFP playoff champion as the "Champion of FBS" football, and to do that they have to include all FBS conferences. And a big reason the P5 wants that, is because as many of us have discussed, the P5 actually likes having the G5 around. The G5 provides 60 more teams for schools to compete against OOC, including mostly "winnable" games that help keep coaches and athletic admins in their jobs.

So the $90m isn't hostage money to keep the G5 from filing a frivolous lawsuit, it's the price the P5 is *willing* to pay to have the G5 involved in the same division.

Second, with the same caveat you made about not being a lawyer, I don't think anti-trust is about some squishy liberal notion of fairness. Especially with regards to college athletics, I think the 1984 case is again instructive, because in a lot of ways, the TV case was very similar to what a P5 breakaway would be: In 1984 a "cream" of about 60 football schools, the CFA, was seeking to "break away" from the other NCAA football schools to negotiate its own TV. One of the arguments the NCAA made was basically what you voiced above - if the big brands like Oklahoma and Georgia and USC and Michigan break away, there will be little TV interest in the remnant left-behinds, so the current NCAA model was "fair" in that it spread exposure and TV money to a lot of schools that otherwise would be SOL in a free market.

That argument was rejected by the courts of course. There's no law that says that a low-brand school has the right to ride on the coattails of high-brand schools, or that conversely high-brand schools have to affiliate with low-brand schools to help the latter stay economically viable. So I don't think that argument would get very far. Anti-Trust law is about preventing groups from keeping members "in" not preventing them from leaving. Just MO.

07-coffee3

I agree the 1984 case was instructive. I just think we take different lessons from it.
Whats the primary motivation for reducing the top level of football to 65 or so participants? Whats the primary motivation to exclude 65 or so smaller conferences? Its pretty clear its to eliminate the smaller schools and increase the take home pay of each school remaining in top level of football. Point being---depending on how you frame the argument--you can make a case. Can you win it? Who knows? Its worth noting that the USFL actually won their case against the NFL (I'd say the USFL would seemingly have had even a less reasonable basis for victory). Of course---one cant cite that case without pointing out the USFL was awarded essentially nothing in terms of damages. Its entirely possible the G5 could win a completely Pyrrhic victory that does nothing to improve their situation.

Id also add that I tend to agree that the P5 really are far less interested in leaving now that the have autonomous powers.

Leaving the NCAA is not the same as excluding anyone. If leaving was illegal, then the NCAA would not be a voluntary organization, it would be a maximum-security prison.

I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated. The G5 are really no more invested in the success of the NCAA than the P5. On the other hand, the G5 fortunes ARE DEFINITLY tied to competing for the same national championship as the P5. Without any tie to being part of the competition for the championship of the top level of football (even if it is largely theoretical), they essentially become FCS. That is important because Americans have never cared about any level of college football below the top level. Thats why you will never see the G5 create a a G5 playoff as long as they are part of the the CFP. A G5 playoff would damage that basic tie to the top level of football.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2020 10:04 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-10-2020 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,198
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 920
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #44
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated.

That doesn't resonate with me. Heck using that logic, you or I could start a pro basketball team, then demand the NBA admits us on the grounds that they are the only viable market for pro basketball or something else that would probably get laughed out of court. There just isn't any right for a Memphis or BYU or San Diego State to play football against Alabama or Notre Dame.

As to your other post - I think the motivation of the CFA in 1982 was similar to what you say the P5 motivation would be now, to maximize their revenue because they are higher-value schools/conferences and don't want to split/share revenue with lower value schools. Nothing wrong with that. It leaves the G5 conferences free to negotiate their own deals with advertisters, bowls, anyone based on their market value.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2020 10:03 AM by quo vadis.)
05-10-2020 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,116
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1519
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #45
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated.

That doesn't resonate with me. Heck using that logic, you or I could start a pro basketball team, then demand the NBA admits us on the grounds that they are the only viable market for pro basketball or something else that would probably get laughed out of court. There just isn't any right for a Memphis or BYU or San Diego State to play football against Alabama or Notre Dame.

As to your other post - I think the motivation of the CFA in 1982 was similar to what you say the P5 motivation would be now, to maximize their revenue because they are higher-value schools/conferences and don't want to split/share revenue with lower value schools. Nothing wrong with that. It leaves the G5 conferences free to negotiate their own deals with advertisters, bowls, anyone based on their market value.

Thats pro sports. Different model. The NBA is literally one company who's actual business is selling franchises and marketing the entertainment product those franchises produce.

There really is no reasonably good comparison for college sports in the real world of business. In business, if you arrange a group of companies and openly agree as a group not to do business with other companies---you are wide open to being sued for anti-trust violations. Thats what is being proposed---yet its simply the exercise of voluntary association and not really different from what we see in the FBS vs D2 world. This is why Ive always said applying business law to the NCAA amateur athletics never really made sense to me---but thats exactly what has been done in every case since the 1984 Oklahoma case to the current Alston case. In virtually every case the "what we have always done" position has either lost or been forced to modify the way it operates. Thus, I dont find it unreasonable to think its possible the G5 could conjure up a case at least as good as the USFL had against the NFL.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2020 10:24 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-10-2020 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,574
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 720
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #46
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 10:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 11:17 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Would they have a good case---probably not. Im not a lwayer, but from what I can gather, anti-trust law seems pretty open to interpretation. It seems to depend a lot on "fairness" and a it seemingly often depends on how one defines "the market" in any given instance. I mean---having a browser built into your computer operating system just sounds like a neat feature---yet it was considered to be an anti-trust violation. "Refusal to deal" is a concept where one group uses market dominance to limit the competitions ability to compete in a marketplace sounds like an area where an exclusive P5 break away might potentially be vulnerable.

Again, Im not a lawyer and Ive never thought the G5 had a great case on anti-trust issues. That said---the anti-trust option is not negligible, otherwise the P5 wouldnt be sending 90 million a year to the G5 so the G5 has enough to lose that they wont rock the boat.

First, I don't think the P5 throws the G5 anything to not rock the boat. The G5 gets $90 million because partially it is worth something, and also because despite the musings of forum posters, the P5 actually *wants* the G5 around and involved. They want to bill the CFP playoff champion as the "Champion of FBS" football, and to do that they have to include all FBS conferences. And a big reason the P5 wants that, is because as many of us have discussed, the P5 actually likes having the G5 around. The G5 provides 60 more teams for schools to compete against OOC, including mostly "winnable" games that help keep coaches and athletic admins in their jobs.

So the $90m isn't hostage money to keep the G5 from filing a frivolous lawsuit, it's the price the P5 is *willing* to pay to have the G5 involved in the same division.

Second, with the same caveat you made about not being a lawyer, I don't think anti-trust is about some squishy liberal notion of fairness. Especially with regards to college athletics, I think the 1984 case is again instructive, because in a lot of ways, the TV case was very similar to what a P5 breakaway would be: In 1984 a "cream" of about 60 football schools, the CFA, was seeking to "break away" from the other NCAA football schools to negotiate its own TV. One of the arguments the NCAA made was basically what you voiced above - if the big brands like Oklahoma and Georgia and USC and Michigan break away, there will be little TV interest in the remnant left-behinds, so the current NCAA model was "fair" in that it spread exposure and TV money to a lot of schools that otherwise would be SOL in a free market.

That argument was rejected by the courts of course. There's no law that says that a low-brand school has the right to ride on the coattails of high-brand schools, or that conversely high-brand schools have to affiliate with low-brand schools to help the latter stay economically viable. So I don't think that argument would get very far. Anti-Trust law is about preventing groups from keeping members "in" not preventing them from leaving. Just MO.

07-coffee3

I agree the 1984 case was instructive. I just think we take different lessons from it.
Whats the primary motivation for reducing the top level of football to 65 or so participants? Whats the primary motivation to exclude 65 or so smaller conferences? Its pretty clear its to eliminate the smaller schools and increase the take home pay of each school remaining in top level of football. Point being---depending on how you frame the argument--you can make a case. Can you win it? Who knows? Its worth noting that the USFL actually won their case against the NFL (I'd say the USFL would seemingly have had even a less reasonable basis for victory). Of course---one cant cite that case without pointing out the USFL was awarded essentially nothing in terms of damages. Its entirely possible the G5 could win a completely Pyrrhic victory that does nothing to improve their situation.

Id also add that I tend to agree that the P5 really are far less interested in leaving now that the have autonomous powers.

Leaving the NCAA is not the same as excluding anyone. If leaving was illegal, then the NCAA would not be a voluntary organization, it would be a maximum-security prison.

I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated. The G5 are really no more invested in the success of the NCAA than the P5. On the other hand, the G5 fortunes ARE DEFINITLY tied to competing for the same national championship as the P5. Without any tie to being part of the competition for the championship of the top level of football (even if it is largely theoretical), they essentially become FCS. That is important because Americans have never cared about any level of college football below the top level. Thats why you will never see the G5 create a a G5 playoff as long as they are part of the the CFP. A G5 playoff would damage that basic tie to the top level of football.

OK, your new argument is that this mythical new organization has a "monopoly" on college football, and must let every university with a football team join, not because they are the only organization, because they definitely won't be, but just because they're perceived to be "the best" at college football by most people. If that was the rule, then every airline pilot not offered a job at "the best" airline could win a zillion dollars in a lawsuit because he was "unfairly excluded" from the best airline.

What about the dozen or so schools that applied to join the Big 12 a couple of years ago when the Big 12 didn't expand? Can they sue and win a bunch of money from the Big 12 for that? I doubt it.
05-10-2020 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,116
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1519
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #47
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 12:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 10:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-09-2020 12:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, I don't think the P5 throws the G5 anything to not rock the boat. The G5 gets $90 million because partially it is worth something, and also because despite the musings of forum posters, the P5 actually *wants* the G5 around and involved. They want to bill the CFP playoff champion as the "Champion of FBS" football, and to do that they have to include all FBS conferences. And a big reason the P5 wants that, is because as many of us have discussed, the P5 actually likes having the G5 around. The G5 provides 60 more teams for schools to compete against OOC, including mostly "winnable" games that help keep coaches and athletic admins in their jobs.

So the $90m isn't hostage money to keep the G5 from filing a frivolous lawsuit, it's the price the P5 is *willing* to pay to have the G5 involved in the same division.

Second, with the same caveat you made about not being a lawyer, I don't think anti-trust is about some squishy liberal notion of fairness. Especially with regards to college athletics, I think the 1984 case is again instructive, because in a lot of ways, the TV case was very similar to what a P5 breakaway would be: In 1984 a "cream" of about 60 football schools, the CFA, was seeking to "break away" from the other NCAA football schools to negotiate its own TV. One of the arguments the NCAA made was basically what you voiced above - if the big brands like Oklahoma and Georgia and USC and Michigan break away, there will be little TV interest in the remnant left-behinds, so the current NCAA model was "fair" in that it spread exposure and TV money to a lot of schools that otherwise would be SOL in a free market.

That argument was rejected by the courts of course. There's no law that says that a low-brand school has the right to ride on the coattails of high-brand schools, or that conversely high-brand schools have to affiliate with low-brand schools to help the latter stay economically viable. So I don't think that argument would get very far. Anti-Trust law is about preventing groups from keeping members "in" not preventing them from leaving. Just MO.

07-coffee3

I agree the 1984 case was instructive. I just think we take different lessons from it.
Whats the primary motivation for reducing the top level of football to 65 or so participants? Whats the primary motivation to exclude 65 or so smaller conferences? Its pretty clear its to eliminate the smaller schools and increase the take home pay of each school remaining in top level of football. Point being---depending on how you frame the argument--you can make a case. Can you win it? Who knows? Its worth noting that the USFL actually won their case against the NFL (I'd say the USFL would seemingly have had even a less reasonable basis for victory). Of course---one cant cite that case without pointing out the USFL was awarded essentially nothing in terms of damages. Its entirely possible the G5 could win a completely Pyrrhic victory that does nothing to improve their situation.

Id also add that I tend to agree that the P5 really are far less interested in leaving now that the have autonomous powers.

Leaving the NCAA is not the same as excluding anyone. If leaving was illegal, then the NCAA would not be a voluntary organization, it would be a maximum-security prison.

I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated. The G5 are really no more invested in the success of the NCAA than the P5. On the other hand, the G5 fortunes ARE DEFINITLY tied to competing for the same national championship as the P5. Without any tie to being part of the competition for the championship of the top level of football (even if it is largely theoretical), they essentially become FCS. That is important because Americans have never cared about any level of college football below the top level. Thats why you will never see the G5 create a a G5 playoff as long as they are part of the the CFP. A G5 playoff would damage that basic tie to the top level of football.

OK, your new argument is that this mythical new organization has a "monopoly" on college football, and must let every university with a football team join, not because they are the only organization, because they definitely won't be, but just because they're perceived to be "the best" at college football by most people. If that was the rule, then every airline pilot not offered a job at "the best" airline could win a zillion dollars in a lawsuit because he was "unfairly excluded" from the best airline.

What about the dozen or so schools that applied to join the Big 12 a couple of years ago when the Big 12 didn't expand? Can they sue and win a bunch of money from the Big 12 for that? I doubt it.

Again--you keep wanting to argue with me. I have no idea what exact argument the G5 lawyers would craft. Im just throwing out examples of where there may be potential lines of attack. For instance, this particular line of reasoning is not my argument. Its basically what the Supreme Court said in part the 1984 case. One of the argument that the NCAA made was that the NCAA was a voluntary membership organization and that banning Oklahoma from the NCAA for refusal to agree with the group TV deal was not an anti-trust violation because other organizations (that did not have a group TV deal) like NAIA existed. The courts found that the NCAA represented such a dominant position in the marketplace that the NAIA did not represent a reasonable alternative to the NCAA. In other words---the courts did not buy the NCAA argument. I think it would be hard to argue that whatever organization the 65 top schools in the nation create would not immediately become the most important and most dominant college sports organization in the nation. Thus, I suspect the same line of reasoning could affect that organization--especially since the TV deals would be individual deals driven by conference contracts. There would be no reason to block access to the organization since each school builds its own schedule and the earnings of each confernece is based on their own individual deals. Since each school determines its own schedule---"not wanting to play those schools" is not a valid reason for denying access to the organization. Thus, the only other reason to block access is to artificially reduce the supply of games within that level of football.

Would such an argument find footing with a court? Who knows? Like you said before---clever lawyers can always find some basis for a suit. Im just throwing out a possible line of attack based on my limited laymans knowledge of anti-trust law.
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2020 01:06 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-10-2020 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,198
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 920
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #48
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated.

That doesn't resonate with me. Heck using that logic, you or I could start a pro basketball team, then demand the NBA admits us on the grounds that they are the only viable market for pro basketball or something else that would probably get laughed out of court. There just isn't any right for a Memphis or BYU or San Diego State to play football against Alabama or Notre Dame.

As to your other post - I think the motivation of the CFA in 1982 was similar to what you say the P5 motivation would be now, to maximize their revenue because they are higher-value schools/conferences and don't want to split/share revenue with lower value schools. Nothing wrong with that. It leaves the G5 conferences free to negotiate their own deals with advertisters, bowls, anyone based on their market value.

Thats pro sports. Different model. The NBA is literally one company who's actual business is selling franchises and marketing the entertainment product those franchises produce.

There really is no reasonably good comparison for college sports in the real world of business. In business, if you arrange a group of companies and openly agree as a group not to do business with other companies---you are wide open to being sued for anti-trust violations. Thats what is being proposed---yet its simply the exercise of voluntary association and not really different from what we see in the FBS vs D2 world. This is why Ive always said applying business law to the NCAA amateur athletics never really made sense to me---but thats exactly what has been done in every case since the 1984 Oklahoma case to the current Alston case. In virtually every case the "what we have always done" position has either lost or been forced to modify the way it operates. Thus, I dont find it unreasonable to think its possible the G5 could conjure up a case at least as good as the USFL had against the NFL.

I don't see how the USFL situation is relevant. The NFL was found guilty of specific predatory practices such as enticing USFL owners with NFL franchises if they did things to harm the USFL, conducting supplemental drafts of USFL players, and expanding rosters so as to sign more USFL players. It wasn't the mere existence of the NFL as a separate league consisting of the most popular pro football teams that was the problem.

I've said all along that if a breakaway P5 engaged in predatory actions, like threatening TV networks or advertisers, etc. with retaliation if they signed deals with NCAA/G5 entities, then the P5 league would be vulnerable to anti-trust.

But it's hard to fathom how just breaking away - like the CFA did from the NCAA TV deal in 1983 - could be related to anti-trust. There's no law that says you have to compete with schools you don't want to compete with. The NCAA/G5 would have their own organization with plenty of schools to compete against. The P5 couldn't stop that, or if they did try to, that would be anti-trust. But the G5 schools don't have an inherent right to piggy-back off the brand value created by P5 schools.

The Big 12 doesn't let USF join, Memphis doesn't schedule games with Division 3 or NAIA schools, the list goes on. Heck, using your logic, any school could start a football program then demand entry into the P5 organization, just because ... Makes zero sense to me.
05-10-2020 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 40,662
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1375
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #49
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 01:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated.

That doesn't resonate with me. Heck using that logic, you or I could start a pro basketball team, then demand the NBA admits us on the grounds that they are the only viable market for pro basketball or something else that would probably get laughed out of court. There just isn't any right for a Memphis or BYU or San Diego State to play football against Alabama or Notre Dame.

As to your other post - I think the motivation of the CFA in 1982 was similar to what you say the P5 motivation would be now, to maximize their revenue because they are higher-value schools/conferences and don't want to split/share revenue with lower value schools. Nothing wrong with that. It leaves the G5 conferences free to negotiate their own deals with advertisters, bowls, anyone based on their market value.

Thats pro sports. Different model. The NBA is literally one company who's actual business is selling franchises and marketing the entertainment product those franchises produce.

There really is no reasonably good comparison for college sports in the real world of business. In business, if you arrange a group of companies and openly agree as a group not to do business with other companies---you are wide open to being sued for anti-trust violations. Thats what is being proposed---yet its simply the exercise of voluntary association and not really different from what we see in the FBS vs D2 world. This is why Ive always said applying business law to the NCAA amateur athletics never really made sense to me---but thats exactly what has been done in every case since the 1984 Oklahoma case to the current Alston case. In virtually every case the "what we have always done" position has either lost or been forced to modify the way it operates. Thus, I dont find it unreasonable to think its possible the G5 could conjure up a case at least as good as the USFL had against the NFL.

I don't see how the USFL situation is relevant. The NFL was found guilty of specific predatory practices such as enticing USFL owners with NFL franchises if they did things to harm the USFL, conducting supplemental drafts of USFL players, and expanding rosters so as to sign more USFL players. It wasn't the mere existence of the NFL as a separate league consisting of the most popular pro football teams that was the problem.

I've said all along that if a breakaway P5 engaged in predatory actions, like threatening TV networks or advertisers, etc. with retaliation if they signed deals with NCAA/G5 entities, then the P5 league would be vulnerable to anti-trust.

But it's hard to fathom how just breaking away - like the CFA did from the NCAA TV deal in 1983 - could be related to anti-trust. There's no law that says you have to compete with schools you don't want to compete with. The NCAA/G5 would have their own organization with plenty of schools to compete against. The P5 couldn't stop that, or if they did try to, that would be anti-trust. But the G5 schools don't have an inherent right to piggy-back off the brand value created by P5 schools.

The Big 12 doesn't let USF join, Memphis doesn't schedule games with Division 3 or NAIA schools, the list goes on. Heck, using your logic, any school could start a football program then demand entry into the P5 organization, just because ... Makes zero sense to me.

Note that the CFA was 63-65 schools and didn't include the Big 10 and Pac 10 who didn't want to join. So the number of "top" schools was in the 80s and included more than just the power conferences (Big 10, Pac 10, SEC, Big 8, SWC, maybe ACC).
05-10-2020 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,116
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1519
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #50
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 01:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated.

That doesn't resonate with me. Heck using that logic, you or I could start a pro basketball team, then demand the NBA admits us on the grounds that they are the only viable market for pro basketball or something else that would probably get laughed out of court. There just isn't any right for a Memphis or BYU or San Diego State to play football against Alabama or Notre Dame.

As to your other post - I think the motivation of the CFA in 1982 was similar to what you say the P5 motivation would be now, to maximize their revenue because they are higher-value schools/conferences and don't want to split/share revenue with lower value schools. Nothing wrong with that. It leaves the G5 conferences free to negotiate their own deals with advertisters, bowls, anyone based on their market value.

Thats pro sports. Different model. The NBA is literally one company who's actual business is selling franchises and marketing the entertainment product those franchises produce.

There really is no reasonably good comparison for college sports in the real world of business. In business, if you arrange a group of companies and openly agree as a group not to do business with other companies---you are wide open to being sued for anti-trust violations. Thats what is being proposed---yet its simply the exercise of voluntary association and not really different from what we see in the FBS vs D2 world. This is why Ive always said applying business law to the NCAA amateur athletics never really made sense to me---but thats exactly what has been done in every case since the 1984 Oklahoma case to the current Alston case. In virtually every case the "what we have always done" position has either lost or been forced to modify the way it operates. Thus, I dont find it unreasonable to think its possible the G5 could conjure up a case at least as good as the USFL had against the NFL.

I don't see how the USFL situation is relevant. The NFL was found guilty of specific predatory practices such as enticing USFL owners with NFL franchises if they did things to harm the USFL, conducting supplemental drafts of USFL players, and expanding rosters so as to sign more USFL players. It wasn't the mere existence of the NFL as a separate league consisting of the most popular pro football teams that was the problem.

I've said all along that if a breakaway P5 engaged in predatory actions, like threatening TV networks or advertisers, etc. with retaliation if they signed deals with NCAA/G5 entities, then the P5 league would be vulnerable to anti-trust.

But it's hard to fathom how just breaking away - like the CFA did from the NCAA TV deal in 1983 - could be related to anti-trust. There's no law that says you have to compete with schools you don't want to compete with. The NCAA/G5 would have their own organization with plenty of schools to compete against. The P5 couldn't stop that, or if they did try to, that would be anti-trust. But the G5 schools don't have an inherent right to piggy-back off the brand value created by P5 schools.

The Big 12 doesn't let USF join, Memphis doesn't schedule games with Division 3 or NAIA schools, the list goes on. Heck, using your logic, any school could start a football program then demand entry into the P5 organization, just because ... Makes zero sense to me.

Correct. Its ok if a P5 school does not want to schedule a G5 school. Simply dont schedule them. The option for any individual school to not schedule a G5 is not necessarily the same thing as an agreement between 65 individual schools to not to play G5 schools and barring them from competing within the organization. Maybe that distinction doesnt matter to the courts--maybe it does.

With respect to the Big12 comment---Now your being silly. The Big-12 doesnt have to add USF---but the courts might have an issue if they actually bar their teams from from playing USF. Memphis doesnt schedule games with NIAI schools, but the NCAA or the AAC does not mandate that they dont. I will say this---if a school or schools sued the NCAA over being prevented from moving up to FBS from FCS without a conference invite---there is a better than even chance the NCAA would lose that case. Liberty made noises about doing that and the NCAA granted a waiver. Now--I do think Liberty had additional things in the their favor---but you'll notice the NCAA has never gone to court on this issue (not even when the MAC refused to be relegated to D1AA and continued to claim they were D1A---it was the NCAA who eventually caved). Its clear to me the NCAA has little confidence they would win a challenge to this rule.

Again---I have no idea if any of this would give the G5 a case. But reading about these cases tells me anti-trust law is very unpredictable and often open to surprisingly broad interpretation.
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2020 01:07 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-10-2020 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
puck swami Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 371
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Denver
Location:
Post: #51
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
Under this pull-away scenario, I would certainly fear for my school, the University of Denver, with it 33 D-I championships (top 10 overall) - 24 in skiing, 8 in ice hockey (latest 2017), and 1 in men's lacrosse (2015). The school was also top 4 in gymnastics in 2019, top 4 in m soccer (2016), top 8 in w lacrosse in 2019 plus a variety of other recent NCAA qualifiers. The school has proven that it can play very effectively nationally vs P5 schools in sports other than football and basketball.
05-10-2020 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,644
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 109
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #52
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 08:23 PM)puck swami Wrote:  Under this pull-away scenario, I would certainly fear for my school, the University of Denver, with it 33 D-I championships (top 10 overall) - 24 in skiing, 8 in ice hockey (latest 2017), and 1 in men's lacrosse (2015). The school was also top 4 in gymnastics in 2019, top 4 in m soccer (2016), top 8 in w lacrosse in 2019 plus a variety of other recent NCAA qualifiers. The school has proven that it can play very effectively nationally vs P5 schools in sports other than football and basketball.

From what little I know about the academics and athletics of the UofD ... I give full credit and respect.
05-10-2020 10:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,163
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 32
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #53
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-08-2020 04:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 12:28 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-08-2020 07:58 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-07-2020 07:14 PM)McKinney Wrote:  Doesn't the federal government have bigger things to handle these days? Coronavirus? The recession that follows? Maybe even a supreme court confirmation? 07-coffee3

More to the point, as has been articulately explained elsewhere in this forum, there is no anti-trust action that could be brought in the event of a breakaway from what is already a monopolistic institution. That doesn't mean that someone won't initiate such a suit. Just that it would be quickly dismissed.

A far more likely cause for legal action, IMO, would result if conferences that break away try to "shed their deadweight" as has been suggested. Those conferences would most likely be violating their own bylaws, which are enforceable contractual obligations among all the members. The relevant question in that case would be what remedies would be available to the plaintiffs (the schools that are to be shed). Monetary damages? Injunctive relief?

Another possibility could be that individual state legislatures might try to prevent their state supported institutions from leaving little brothers behind by witholding financial support. That could lead the B1G to insist that the MAC be allowed to come along, which they may secretly want anyway because MAC teams are almost like FCS opponents for B1G teams in football.

1) Agree, there is zero anti-trust cause of action if P5 leaves G5.

2) Agree, conferences cannot shed members unless they follow their bylaws. But, they know this so won't try it, and the notion that conferences want to "shed" members is basically a fantasy of internet participants who think their school deserves a spot in a big conference that some other school doesn't deserve. E.g., many outsiders claim the Mississippi schools are "dead weight" in the SEC. Memphis fans or USF fans or Tulane fans might fantasize that the SEC would be stronger if the Mississippi schools were booted out and their schools let in, but nobody in the SEC thinks that.

3) State legislatures have some control but not a whole lot. Virginia did famously strong-arm VT in to the ACC, but that was a situation where they had leverage, because the state could pressure Virginia to advocate for that in ACC councils. But no state has control over what all the conferences decide to do. What can the state of Ohio do if the B1G votes anyway to leave the NCAA and the state wants Akron and Ohio to go too? Tell Ohio State they have to leave the B1G? Not happening.

Its not about OSU and the other schools athletically. That is like comparing the military might of the US with central american countries.

What it is about is backyard support and that is what MAC gives to the B1G as they do a lot cost sharing together and vote together on regional issues.

I would not under estimate either a different mood of cooperation between the P5 and those in the G5 out of the pandemic

Remember, I do *not* think the P5 is leaving the NCAA and G5 and one reason is what you mention here - the P5 sees benefits in having G5 schools in the same division/organization with them, so have no desire to break away.

I was just talking "what if" the P5 do decide to leave, what could be done to stop them. IMO, not much.

Yes and I am just making a couple points that the P5 could just as easily move in a different direction.

My guess is the OP thinks Georgia Tech would be more competitive with a small FBS. I didn't think they were feeling recruiting pressure from below but from above due to the top heavy 4 team playoff sending all the top recruits to just a handful of schools.

An expanded playoff is an equalizer and is player endorsements because you can't take a chance sitting 3rd string on the bench at Alabama when you can start and earn endorsement money at Georgia Tech.

Think about all the cheating that has been done by SWC/AAC schools in the form of payments and gifts to players. It made SMU into a powerhouse in the 80's. The endorsement model has potential in the future with the AAC since they have a nice TV deal with ABC so perceived media value.

Higher finish in the conference standings also will drive media value. App State bigger endorsements than Coastal.
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2020 12:02 AM by Kit-Cat.)
05-11-2020 12:02 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 16,574
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 720
I Root For: California
Location: TROS
Post: #54
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 08:23 PM)puck swami Wrote:  Under this pull-away scenario, I would certainly fear for my school, the University of Denver, with it 33 D-I championships (top 10 overall) - 24 in skiing, 8 in ice hockey (latest 2017), and 1 in men's lacrosse (2015). The school was also top 4 in gymnastics in 2019, top 4 in m soccer (2016), top 8 in w lacrosse in 2019 plus a variety of other recent NCAA qualifiers. The school has proven that it can play very effectively nationally vs P5 schools in sports other than football and basketball.

I've said it here before, I'll say it again:

Each "olympic" sport in college should be administered not by the NCAA, but by that sport's national governing body. Each participating school would pay an annual fee to cover the cost of administering the sport and conducting a national championship tournament. USA Hockey would be the governing body for college ice hockey, US Ski & Snowboard for college skiing, US Soccer for college soccer, etc., etc.
05-11-2020 12:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,721
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 200
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #55
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-11-2020 12:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 08:23 PM)puck swami Wrote:  Under this pull-away scenario, I would certainly fear for my school, the University of Denver, with it 33 D-I championships (top 10 overall) - 24 in skiing, 8 in ice hockey (latest 2017), and 1 in men's lacrosse (2015). The school was also top 4 in gymnastics in 2019, top 4 in m soccer (2016), top 8 in w lacrosse in 2019 plus a variety of other recent NCAA qualifiers. The school has proven that it can play very effectively nationally vs P5 schools in sports other than football and basketball.

I've said it here before, I'll say it again:

Each "olympic" sport in college should be administered not by the NCAA, but by that sport's national governing body. Each participating school would pay an annual fee to cover the cost of administering the sport and conducting a national championship tournament. USA Hockey would be the governing body for college ice hockey, US Ski & Snowboard for college skiing, US Soccer for college soccer, etc., etc.

I could see the value in that approach. I'm concerned about how complex it could be though.

If you have a different governing body for each sport then you likely have a different set of rules for each sport as it pertains to eligibility, scholarship costs, and probably other things I'm not thinking of.

To me, it seems likely each school would have to massively increase their compliance staff and its budget in order to make sure they're juggling all the varying rules adequately. Then you've got the cost of the operation of the sport itself which only in rare cases are these sports not losing money as it stands.

I certainly see the benefit of removing the NCAA from the picture, but I'm not sure this is best alternative.
05-11-2020 01:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,721
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 200
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #56
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-07-2020 10:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... who else is coming along for the ride in basketball? There will for sure be additional conferences for hoops. Will there be others for football? Will there be a system of relegation to call up the best of the rest and send down those who can't hack it?

Coming along in hoops:
- American
- Atlantic 10
- Big East
- Mountain West
- West Coast

Coming along in football too:
- American
- Mountain West



Regarding whether the premise is the P5 leaving the NCAA is plausible, ask yourself this: Will the ACC be tempted to kill the NCAA to get its hands on the tournament money which will almost certainly disproportionately enhance the revenue of the ACC relative to its competition? Well we have five ACC members with in state SEC rivals who would love to do that. Pitt can look east and come to a similar conclusion. As a private in an area of declining wealth and population Syracuse is probably on board as well. Just pissing off UCONN makes BC another yes. You're at 7 pretty easy yes votes right there. The question becomes can you whittle away enough outside of the Triangle to get enough votes. I'm not sure if the Triangle would be on board. Chapel Hill loves those Title IX sport titles and the Capital One Cup. So does Duke. The act of taking basketball away from the NCAA means some of those sports may not make the jump since the NCAA greatly inflates sport requirements in Division 1.

To me, the only real criteria for separation is going to have to be financial.

Can certain schools or leagues compete or are they willing to compete at the highest level?

We're moving towards pay-for-play it looks like, and then something has to change in regards to scholarship expenditures. Does everyone get a 4 year guaranteed deal? Does everyone get a full ride? Does everyone get paid and how much?

Of course, all of these costs will vary from school to school and market to market to some degree. So with that in mind, who is willing to put their best foot forward? Much of the G5 and even the stronger Mid-Major basketball leagues will have a tough time keeping up. Heck, some in the P5 aren't going to necessarily embrace this future.

I think we have to answer these questions before we can really get down to who goes along with a separation and who doesn't.
05-11-2020 01:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,198
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 920
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #57
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-10-2020 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 01:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 09:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization. Like I said, based on what I can tell, these cases tend to hinge on how the argument is framed and how one defines "the market" in the specific situation being litigated.

That doesn't resonate with me. Heck using that logic, you or I could start a pro basketball team, then demand the NBA admits us on the grounds that they are the only viable market for pro basketball or something else that would probably get laughed out of court. There just isn't any right for a Memphis or BYU or San Diego State to play football against Alabama or Notre Dame.

As to your other post - I think the motivation of the CFA in 1982 was similar to what you say the P5 motivation would be now, to maximize their revenue because they are higher-value schools/conferences and don't want to split/share revenue with lower value schools. Nothing wrong with that. It leaves the G5 conferences free to negotiate their own deals with advertisters, bowls, anyone based on their market value.

Thats pro sports. Different model. The NBA is literally one company who's actual business is selling franchises and marketing the entertainment product those franchises produce.

There really is no reasonably good comparison for college sports in the real world of business. In business, if you arrange a group of companies and openly agree as a group not to do business with other companies---you are wide open to being sued for anti-trust violations. Thats what is being proposed---yet its simply the exercise of voluntary association and not really different from what we see in the FBS vs D2 world. This is why Ive always said applying business law to the NCAA amateur athletics never really made sense to me---but thats exactly what has been done in every case since the 1984 Oklahoma case to the current Alston case. In virtually every case the "what we have always done" position has either lost or been forced to modify the way it operates. Thus, I dont find it unreasonable to think its possible the G5 could conjure up a case at least as good as the USFL had against the NFL.

I don't see how the USFL situation is relevant. The NFL was found guilty of specific predatory practices such as enticing USFL owners with NFL franchises if they did things to harm the USFL, conducting supplemental drafts of USFL players, and expanding rosters so as to sign more USFL players. It wasn't the mere existence of the NFL as a separate league consisting of the most popular pro football teams that was the problem.

I've said all along that if a breakaway P5 engaged in predatory actions, like threatening TV networks or advertisers, etc. with retaliation if they signed deals with NCAA/G5 entities, then the P5 league would be vulnerable to anti-trust.

But it's hard to fathom how just breaking away - like the CFA did from the NCAA TV deal in 1983 - could be related to anti-trust. There's no law that says you have to compete with schools you don't want to compete with. The NCAA/G5 would have their own organization with plenty of schools to compete against. The P5 couldn't stop that, or if they did try to, that would be anti-trust. But the G5 schools don't have an inherent right to piggy-back off the brand value created by P5 schools.

The Big 12 doesn't let USF join, Memphis doesn't schedule games with Division 3 or NAIA schools, the list goes on. Heck, using your logic, any school could start a football program then demand entry into the P5 organization, just because ... Makes zero sense to me.

Correct. Its ok if a P5 school does not want to schedule a G5 school. Simply dont schedule them. The option for any individual school to not schedule a G5 is not necessarily the same thing as an agreement between 65 individual schools to not to play G5 schools and barring them from competing within the organization. Maybe that distinction doesnt matter to the courts--maybe it does.

With respect to the Big12 comment---Now your being silly. The Big-12 doesnt have to add USF---but they might have an issue if they actually bar their teams from from playing USF. Memphis doesnt schedule games with NIAI schools, but the NCAA or the AAC does not mandate that they dont.

You seem to be doing a "bait and switch" here or at least a conflation. When using terms like "not competing against", I thought we were talking about organizational membership, meaning a P5 league not admitting a G5 league in to their organization, not "individually", like a rule banning particular P5 schools from playing games against G5 schools. E.g., you said:

"I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization."

I agree, if say a P5 league adopted a rule banning its members from scheduling NCAA/G5 schools for games, that could very well be regarded as an anti-trust action. But, the legal victim here might not be the G5 school, it would be the P5 school that would be subject to sanctions by the P5 league for playing a G5 school. The complaint would take the form of say Alabama, which wants to play a game vs Memphis, being told by the P5 league that if you do that, we will punish you in some way, suing its own P5 league for anti-trust. Memphis wouldn't have any standing as they wouldn't be the one being subject to constraints. IIRC, NCAA and NAIA teams do play each other, and we could expect the same in terms of the new P5 league teams playing games against NCAA/G5 (or FCS, etc.) teams.

But that's a different kettle of fish from what you said above, which is a claim that the new P5 league would have to have a mechanism for allowing NCAA/G5 schools or conferences to join. There seems to be zero anti-trust implications in not having that at all. Again, that would be tantamount to saying that P5 schools have to share their brand value, etc. with G5 schools and conferences. That has no basis.

And you seem to admit as much above, when you agree that the Big 12 doesn't have to admit USF, it just can't ban Big 12 teams from scheduling USF. But it has no obligation to admit USF to the Big 12, allow USF to compete for Big 12 titles, share in Big 12 revenues, etc. And *that* is the big issue here of course, that is what G5 conferences would want to do, the individual-scheduling issue is of minor concern by comparison.

But if there was just some confusion here about what I was saying about "compete", then to clarify, I agree that a ban by the new P5 league against its teams scheduling individual "OOC" or "OOL" (out of league) games vs G5 teams would likely be very problematic in an anti-trust sense, so I wouldn't expect any such rules to exist, just like the NAIA and NCAA do not ban their teams from scheduling games vs each other.
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2020 09:35 AM by quo vadis.)
05-11-2020 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,929
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 519
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #58
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-11-2020 12:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 08:23 PM)puck swami Wrote:  Under this pull-away scenario, I would certainly fear for my school, the University of Denver, with it 33 D-I championships (top 10 overall) - 24 in skiing, 8 in ice hockey (latest 2017), and 1 in men's lacrosse (2015). The school was also top 4 in gymnastics in 2019, top 4 in m soccer (2016), top 8 in w lacrosse in 2019 plus a variety of other recent NCAA qualifiers. The school has proven that it can play very effectively nationally vs P5 schools in sports other than football and basketball.

I've said it here before, I'll say it again:

Each "olympic" sport in college should be administered not by the NCAA, but by that sport's national governing body. Each participating school would pay an annual fee to cover the cost of administering the sport and conducting a national championship tournament. USA Hockey would be the governing body for college ice hockey, US Ski & Snowboard for college skiing, US Soccer for college soccer, etc., etc.

I would go a little beyond your suggestion. But first, I believe there needs to be some congressional involvement in college sports. Before people start getting all political about why that's a bad thing, let me explain what I mean.

First of all, we have had congressional involvement for some time now through Title IX. That legislation has had a major impact on college sports, and opinions differ whether that impact has been good or bad. Secondly, I believe even the NCAA is now convinced that there will soon be federal legislation regarding compensation for NIL. So that ship has sailed as well.

Existing labor laws and tax laws are already at cross purposes with each other when it comes to making intercollegiate athletics more sane and rational. Some of these issues could be resolved with new legislation. I would propose that Congress pass legislation that explicitly states that college athletes, whether paid directly by their school or indirectly by boosters or other surrogates, are not employees of the schools, but rather independent contractors.

I would further propose that language requiring college athletics to be exempt from taxation provided that they are amateur activities be removed from existing IRS regulations, and that the value of full cost of attendance awarded in scholarships be explicitly exempt from taxation. And lastly, I propose that compensation received by athletes over and above their scholarship regardless of the source of that compensation be deemed outside the scope of Title IX legislation and compliance.

Once all these things are in place the need for a single governing body for all college sports does not exist, and the NCAA can be dissolved in favor of sport specific organizations. I have lots of suggestions for what to do about football and basketball once that happens.
05-11-2020 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,116
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1519
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #59
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-11-2020 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 01:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That doesn't resonate with me. Heck using that logic, you or I could start a pro basketball team, then demand the NBA admits us on the grounds that they are the only viable market for pro basketball or something else that would probably get laughed out of court. There just isn't any right for a Memphis or BYU or San Diego State to play football against Alabama or Notre Dame.

As to your other post - I think the motivation of the CFA in 1982 was similar to what you say the P5 motivation would be now, to maximize their revenue because they are higher-value schools/conferences and don't want to split/share revenue with lower value schools. Nothing wrong with that. It leaves the G5 conferences free to negotiate their own deals with advertisters, bowls, anyone based on their market value.

Thats pro sports. Different model. The NBA is literally one company who's actual business is selling franchises and marketing the entertainment product those franchises produce.

There really is no reasonably good comparison for college sports in the real world of business. In business, if you arrange a group of companies and openly agree as a group not to do business with other companies---you are wide open to being sued for anti-trust violations. Thats what is being proposed---yet its simply the exercise of voluntary association and not really different from what we see in the FBS vs D2 world. This is why Ive always said applying business law to the NCAA amateur athletics never really made sense to me---but thats exactly what has been done in every case since the 1984 Oklahoma case to the current Alston case. In virtually every case the "what we have always done" position has either lost or been forced to modify the way it operates. Thus, I dont find it unreasonable to think its possible the G5 could conjure up a case at least as good as the USFL had against the NFL.

I don't see how the USFL situation is relevant. The NFL was found guilty of specific predatory practices such as enticing USFL owners with NFL franchises if they did things to harm the USFL, conducting supplemental drafts of USFL players, and expanding rosters so as to sign more USFL players. It wasn't the mere existence of the NFL as a separate league consisting of the most popular pro football teams that was the problem.

I've said all along that if a breakaway P5 engaged in predatory actions, like threatening TV networks or advertisers, etc. with retaliation if they signed deals with NCAA/G5 entities, then the P5 league would be vulnerable to anti-trust.

But it's hard to fathom how just breaking away - like the CFA did from the NCAA TV deal in 1983 - could be related to anti-trust. There's no law that says you have to compete with schools you don't want to compete with. The NCAA/G5 would have their own organization with plenty of schools to compete against. The P5 couldn't stop that, or if they did try to, that would be anti-trust. But the G5 schools don't have an inherent right to piggy-back off the brand value created by P5 schools.

The Big 12 doesn't let USF join, Memphis doesn't schedule games with Division 3 or NAIA schools, the list goes on. Heck, using your logic, any school could start a football program then demand entry into the P5 organization, just because ... Makes zero sense to me.

Correct. Its ok if a P5 school does not want to schedule a G5 school. Simply dont schedule them. The option for any individual school to not schedule a G5 is not necessarily the same thing as an agreement between 65 individual schools to not to play G5 schools and barring them from competing within the organization. Maybe that distinction doesnt matter to the courts--maybe it does.

With respect to the Big12 comment---Now your being silly. The Big-12 doesnt have to add USF---but they might have an issue if they actually bar their teams from from playing USF. Memphis doesnt schedule games with NIAI schools, but the NCAA or the AAC does not mandate that they dont.

You seem to be doing a "bait and switch" here or at least a conflation. When using terms like "not competing against", I thought we were talking about organizational membership, meaning a P5 league not admitting a G5 league in to their organization, not "individually", like a rule banning particular P5 schools from playing games against G5 schools. E.g., you said:

"I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization."

I agree, if say a P5 league adopted a rule banning its members from scheduling NCAA/G5 schools for games, that could very well be regarded as an anti-trust action. But, the legal victim here might not be the G5 school, it would be the P5 school that would be subject to sanctions by the P5 league for playing a G5 school. The complaint would take the form of say Alabama, which wants to play a game vs Memphis, being told by the P5 league that if you do that, we will punish you in some way, suing its own P5 league for anti-trust. Memphis wouldn't have any standing as they wouldn't be the one being subject to constraints. IIRC, NCAA and NAIA teams do play each other, and we could expect the same in terms of the new P5 league teams playing games against NCAA/G5 (or FCS, etc.) teams.

But that's a different kettle of fish from what you said above, which is a claim that the new P5 league would have to have a mechanism for allowing NCAA/G5 schools or conferences to join. There seems to be zero anti-trust implications in not having that at all. Again, that would be tantamount to saying that P5 schools have to share their brand value, etc. with G5 schools and conferences. That has no basis.

And you seem to admit as much above, when you agree that the Big 12 doesn't have to admit USF, it just can't ban Big 12 teams from scheduling USF. But it has no obligation to admit USF to the Big 12, allow USF to compete for Big 12 titles, share in Big 12 revenues, etc. And *that* is the big issue here of course, that is what G5 conferences would want to do, the individual-scheduling issue is of minor concern by comparison.

But if there was just some confusion here about what I was saying about "compete", then to clarify, I agree that a ban by the new P5 league against its teams scheduling individual "OOC" or "OOL" (out of league) games vs G5 teams would likely be very problematic in an anti-trust sense, so I wouldn't expect any such rules to exist, just like the NAIA and NCAA do not ban their teams from scheduling games vs each other.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. From what I can tell, anti-trust law often hinges on how one defines “the marketplace”. In my example, the Big 12 does not need to just let anyone in the Big12, allowing access to FBS is adequate for a fair and reasonable marketplace to function properly. Best I can tell—defining what constitutes “the marketplace” is likely to be the real battle if any court case were to emerge. In such a case—it wouldn’t matter what you or I think—there would be a dispute and it would be a crap shoot as to where the judges happen to come down on that viewpoint.
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2020 10:24 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-11-2020 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,198
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 920
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #60
RE: If the P5 does secede from the NCAA a better question is
(05-11-2020 10:20 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-11-2020 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 05:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 01:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2020 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats pro sports. Different model. The NBA is literally one company who's actual business is selling franchises and marketing the entertainment product those franchises produce.

There really is no reasonably good comparison for college sports in the real world of business. In business, if you arrange a group of companies and openly agree as a group not to do business with other companies---you are wide open to being sued for anti-trust violations. Thats what is being proposed---yet its simply the exercise of voluntary association and not really different from what we see in the FBS vs D2 world. This is why Ive always said applying business law to the NCAA amateur athletics never really made sense to me---but thats exactly what has been done in every case since the 1984 Oklahoma case to the current Alston case. In virtually every case the "what we have always done" position has either lost or been forced to modify the way it operates. Thus, I dont find it unreasonable to think its possible the G5 could conjure up a case at least as good as the USFL had against the NFL.

I don't see how the USFL situation is relevant. The NFL was found guilty of specific predatory practices such as enticing USFL owners with NFL franchises if they did things to harm the USFL, conducting supplemental drafts of USFL players, and expanding rosters so as to sign more USFL players. It wasn't the mere existence of the NFL as a separate league consisting of the most popular pro football teams that was the problem.

I've said all along that if a breakaway P5 engaged in predatory actions, like threatening TV networks or advertisers, etc. with retaliation if they signed deals with NCAA/G5 entities, then the P5 league would be vulnerable to anti-trust.

But it's hard to fathom how just breaking away - like the CFA did from the NCAA TV deal in 1983 - could be related to anti-trust. There's no law that says you have to compete with schools you don't want to compete with. The NCAA/G5 would have their own organization with plenty of schools to compete against. The P5 couldn't stop that, or if they did try to, that would be anti-trust. But the G5 schools don't have an inherent right to piggy-back off the brand value created by P5 schools.

The Big 12 doesn't let USF join, Memphis doesn't schedule games with Division 3 or NAIA schools, the list goes on. Heck, using your logic, any school could start a football program then demand entry into the P5 organization, just because ... Makes zero sense to me.

Correct. Its ok if a P5 school does not want to schedule a G5 school. Simply dont schedule them. The option for any individual school to not schedule a G5 is not necessarily the same thing as an agreement between 65 individual schools to not to play G5 schools and barring them from competing within the organization. Maybe that distinction doesnt matter to the courts--maybe it does.

With respect to the Big12 comment---Now your being silly. The Big-12 doesnt have to add USF---but they might have an issue if they actually bar their teams from from playing USF. Memphis doesnt schedule games with NIAI schools, but the NCAA or the AAC does not mandate that they dont.

You seem to be doing a "bait and switch" here or at least a conflation. When using terms like "not competing against", I thought we were talking about organizational membership, meaning a P5 league not admitting a G5 league in to their organization, not "individually", like a rule banning particular P5 schools from playing games against G5 schools. E.g., you said:

"I dont think the battle would be fought over leaving. The battle would likely be over the exclusion of those that wish to join the new organization."

I agree, if say a P5 league adopted a rule banning its members from scheduling NCAA/G5 schools for games, that could very well be regarded as an anti-trust action. But, the legal victim here might not be the G5 school, it would be the P5 school that would be subject to sanctions by the P5 league for playing a G5 school. The complaint would take the form of say Alabama, which wants to play a game vs Memphis, being told by the P5 league that if you do that, we will punish you in some way, suing its own P5 league for anti-trust. Memphis wouldn't have any standing as they wouldn't be the one being subject to constraints. IIRC, NCAA and NAIA teams do play each other, and we could expect the same in terms of the new P5 league teams playing games against NCAA/G5 (or FCS, etc.) teams.

But that's a different kettle of fish from what you said above, which is a claim that the new P5 league would have to have a mechanism for allowing NCAA/G5 schools or conferences to join. There seems to be zero anti-trust implications in not having that at all. Again, that would be tantamount to saying that P5 schools have to share their brand value, etc. with G5 schools and conferences. That has no basis.

And you seem to admit as much above, when you agree that the Big 12 doesn't have to admit USF, it just can't ban Big 12 teams from scheduling USF. But it has no obligation to admit USF to the Big 12, allow USF to compete for Big 12 titles, share in Big 12 revenues, etc. And *that* is the big issue here of course, that is what G5 conferences would want to do, the individual-scheduling issue is of minor concern by comparison.

But if there was just some confusion here about what I was saying about "compete", then to clarify, I agree that a ban by the new P5 league against its teams scheduling individual "OOC" or "OOL" (out of league) games vs G5 teams would likely be very problematic in an anti-trust sense, so I wouldn't expect any such rules to exist, just like the NAIA and NCAA do not ban their teams from scheduling games vs each other.

This is what I’ve been saying all along. From what I can tell, anti-trust law often hinges on how one defines “the marketplace”. In my example, the Big 12 does not need to just let anyone in the Big12, allowing access to FBS is adequate for a fair and reasonable marketplace to function properly. Best I can tell—defining what constitutes “the marketplace” is likely to be the real battle if any court case were to emerge. In such a case—it wouldn’t matter what you or I think—there would be a dispute and it would be a crap shoot as to where the judges happen to come down on that viewpoint.

You do use the term "marketplace" a lot, but I am not sure what you mean in this context. There is no way that a P5 league could legally deny G5 conferences and schools the right to try and create a market for their college athletics. G5 leagues/conferences would be free to play games against each other (and possibly P5 teams as discussed above), set up their own championships, sign their own TV and merchandising deals, etc. Just as NAIA conferences and schools compete amongst each other, D3 schools do the same, etc.

As we've agreed, any attempt by the P5 to try and interfere with the G5 doing those things would very likely be a violation of some kind, and it would surprise me if a P5 league tried anything like that.
(This post was last modified: 05-11-2020 10:37 AM by quo vadis.)
05-11-2020 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.