Good grief... If that's how it worked, the SEC would have been sued long, long ago.

[This message has been edited by jabberwalkie09 (edited 9/7/2011 2:33a).]

Go ask the Utah AG about antitrust & college sports.

quote:

---

It's been like that for a long time Theo.

Why haven't there been suits already???

---

What are you laughing at? I'm sorry, have you missed the litigation threats over the BCS in the past? The Utah AG threatening to sue?

A four conference, 64 team mega deal increases the likelihood. The BCS had to put in place all kinds of rules to calm the anti-trust fears. I'm not sure those are possible with 4 mega conferences.

No, just no. If the number drops to 90, there is still an equal chance for all. I think your use of the words "Anti Trust" may be a little off.

Sounds pretty competitive to me...when they NFl teams cut there rosters down from 85 to 53 man rosters, the cut players don't sue the NFL, why, because it is not a right. There is no right to play in a 64 team FBS...my daughter didn't make the only Select softball team in our region, we didn't sue the softball league because there is only one team in our region...there is a limited number of spots for the league, either you're good enough to make it or not, its just life

quote:

---

And if Slive sees the chain of events unfolding he might want protection right now against any future action by any team in the Big 12 in the future should they be left out of the 64 team pot.

---

But he's not going to get that protection. From anyone. I can't imagine any of the B12 schools agreed to permanently forsake all possible future causes of action against the SEC. The current agreement can only cover the issues relating to A&M's move to the SEC.

If, say, ISU gets screwed in realignment, and later wants to sue the SEC (and other superconferences), I can't imagine the current agreement would provide a shred of protection.

Then maybe there should be another division. Some schools just can't compete. They should be in the same division. The NCAA already does this.

You even have it in each sport.

[This message has been edited by Stump02 (edited 9/7/2011 2:39a).]

What equal chance to win the title will the teams cut out of a 64 team deal have if there is a simple +1? Why would the teams in the mega conferences agree to anything but a +1? Hell if you run that guantlet you want your title without having to answer to Baylor.

But Baylor has a legit claim about being the victim of an anticompetitive agreement.

Where have you guys been for all this during the BCS era?

quote:

---

But he's not going to get that protection. From anyone. I can't imagine any of the B12 schools agreed to permanently forsake all possible future causes of action against the SEC. The current agreement can only cover the issues relating to A&M's move to the SEC.

If, say, ISU gets screwed in realignment, and later wants to sue the SEC (and other superconferences), I can't imagine the current agreement would provide a shred of protection.

---

You can agree to waive whatever claims you want.

quote:

---

when they NFl teams cut there rosters down from 85 to 53 man rosters, the cut players don't sue the NFL, why, because it is not a right.

---

They have a CBA.

have you been to Waco? They have no claim. Fill your stands and make some money. Then talk about being competitive. They never should have been in the big 12 anyway.

quote:

---

have you been to Waco? They have no claim. Fill your stands and make some money. Then talk about being competitive. They never should have been in the big 12 anyway.

---

Look, I'm with you on the practical aspects of this. But it is anticompetitive.

Everyone has access to the same recruiting pool across the United States. How effectively they use it, and how attractive they make it is up to the school. Baylor has had some good talent come through it, but on average it has been below the average, and their records reflect as such.

Now explain to me, how is it not fair?

What sort of guarantee do the 117 teams not among the 64 have for remaining FBS teams?

Saying its anti-competitive its way too black and white. Couldn't it be said that damages weren't mitigated by dropping to FCS?

Their biggest gripe has been money. How is it anyone's fault but theirs that they don't have the money that some schools do. It's not.

Your view is very liberal in nature. Not surprising.

Theo, you're missing the point...we are not stopping them from being competitive, they can go be competitive in any other league that may arise from the 64 team superconference, we aren't saying they can't ever play football again. Teams 65-117 can start their own league, and they can go be competitive in that league...I'll say it again, they do not have a constitutional right to play in a 64 team superconference, its a competitive league, either you're good enough to make it or your not. Why don't the teams that get left out of March Madness every year sue for the same reason?

quote:

---

You can agree to waive whatever claims you want.

---

Sure you can. But no school has done this. No school has agreed to a blanket waiver of all possible future claims. Any school that did so would be stupid. And the SEC couldn't possibly be insisting on such an unreasonable guarantee. If they are, then they will never expand.

quote:

---

Everyone has access to the same recruiting pool across the United States. How effectively they use it, and how attractive they make it is up to the school. Baylor has had some good talent come through it, but on average it has been below the average, and their records reflect as such.

Now explain to me, how is it not fair?

---

It is anticompetive to exclude teams.


And yes, to a certain extent, I agree, some level of exclusion is necessary for competitive purposes (ie, the NCAA could exclude "Theo's Univeristy". But I don't think anyone is going to want to bank on that defense. Not on this.

quote:

---

Sure you can. But no school has done this. No school has agreed to a blanket waiver of all possible future claims. Any school that did so would be stupid. And the SEC couldn't possibly be insisting on such an unreasonable guarantee. If they are, then they will never expand.

---

Well, that may be exactly what happens. They apparently aren't hot for this...you came to them, remember?

quote:

---

Theo, you're missing the point...we are not stopping them from being competitive, they can go be competitive in any other league that may arise from the 64 team superconference, we aren't saying they can't ever play football again. Teams 65-117 can start their own league, and they can go be competitive in that league...I'll say it again, they do not have a constitutional right to play in a 64 team superconference, its a competitive league, either you're good enough to make it or your not. Why don't the teams that get left out of March Madness every year sue for the same reason?

---

Tell you what, you make that argument to David Boies when he sues whatever comes of this.

Actually, it's all of you arguing with Theo that are missing the point. It has nothing to do with recruiting players or being competitive on the field

I don't think an antitrust suit would stick, but there are several good articles explaining the premise out there for those willing to google & learn something.

[This message has been edited by BMX Bandit (edited 9/7/2011 2:51a).]

quote:

---

Saying its anti-competitive its way too black and white.

---

I agree, which is why I put in the other example I did. Some anti-competitive agreements are allowed, clearly.

This is on a different level. Slive knows this. Given the threatened lawsuits over the BCS....why expand to 16 teams in anticipation of something that may not happen due to antitrust concerns?

I am pretty damn sure that the FCS has their own championship game. What do you want the BCS to do? Create a bowl game for everyone?

[This message has been edited by jabberwalkie09 (edited 9/7/2011 2:52a).]

Its funny you pick Boies, as he's one of the attorneys defending the NFL's antitrust litigation...

Why hasn't he helped all of the Division II teams sue for not being allowed to compete at the highest level?

Well if we are missing the point, please post away.

quote:

---

I don't think an antitrust suit would stick

---

I'm not sure either. But it's a better claim than anyone would have against the BCS now.

Here's the problem: Everyone's hand is being forced by a card someone else plays. Without going through all the moves, if we ultimately end up with 4 16-team conferences, the BCS as we know it will end. And those teams will want some kind of reward for running the gauntlet. A +1.

At that point you have a far stronger antitrust claim as one of the non-AQ teams than anyone ever had against the BCS. So say the new creation has to make arrangements to accommodate those outlier schools. At that point you'll have done the schools in your conference a disservice by having 16 of them.

Baylor isn't competitive.

By your rationale teams like Villanova or Montana St. should be able to sue the NCAA because they are excluded from the FBS.

quote:

---

Its funny you pick Boies, as he's one of the attorneys defending the NFL's antitrust litigation...

---

Different claims.

quote:

---

Why hasn't he helped all of the Division II teams sue for not being allowed to compete at the highest level?

---

Well that's easy--see, Division II schools generally don't mind competing at that level.

For the most part, college programs know where they belong.

This is different. This is taking a large number of FBS schools that can currently compete for a title and telling them to buzz off.

quote:

---

Well, that may be exactly what happens. They apparently aren't hot for this...you came to them, remember?

---

And if they really weren't hot for it (us), they would have told us so in the first place, instead of potentially exposing themselves to precisely the kind of legal difficulties you suppose they fear. Things would never have progressed this far.

You're making this much more complicated than needs be.

They don't have to join any of the 4 conferences, they are free to go start their own. Plus, they would have to be accepted first into that conference. Why do you insist on on the anti competitive nature? Seriously, all 64 teams would have equal chance to meet the criteria. IF they don't, then that opens the door to one of the other 117 teams out there. Even then, tv money is what companies like, so I am sure that something could be done with those other smaller fan bases/schools.

quote:

---

And if they really weren't hot for it (us), they would have told us so in the first place, instead of potentially exposing themselves to precisely the kind of legal difficulties you suppose they fear. Things would never have progressed this far.

You're making this much more complicated than needs be.

---

I don't know that I am.

Last year everyone was CERTAIN that the Big 12 was about to bust up. But it got stopped very suddenly. And everyone said they were happy with where things were.

You guys changed your minds. The SEC apparently said let's talk. That was okay because Texas and OU said go on, we're fine here. But then OU said no, we're not really fine.

And we're back to where everyone got chicken**** the last time--where it appears that superconferences are about to start.

As much as fans seem to want it, it's not at all clear that the commissioners do. They want their conferences to have advantages, and so they're okay picking off teams here and there as long as leagues aren't completely de-stabilized. But once a league like the Big 12 goes and you get 4 super conferences, college football is a HELL of a lot different. And I think the conference commissioners chicken out thinking about that.

They never had a right to be in the FBS in the first place, it was a privilege, nobody guranteed their spot in the FBS for eternity...they would have a hard time proving that that was what they are owed...if they really want to ***** about it, then we'll let the winner of their lesser conference play in our playoff...problem solved

Best 5th grade explanation I can give:

Does the existence of superconferences deprive consumers of seeing the best possible games?

Baylor will say yes, because teams like them will be shut out from playing in the championship games. Yes, that's a terrible argument coming from them, but consider if "David Bois(e) State" were making it.

The SEC doesn't fear a Baylor lawsuit per se. It's about holding off the inevitable lawsuit

It may be that none of this is worrying Slive. But it has only been the last couple of days that it's looked like the ultimate result is the break-up of the Big 12.

That plus superconferences is what caused everyone to chicken out last time.

quote:

---

They never had a right to be in the FBS in the first place, it was a privilege, nobody guranteed their spot in the FBS for eternity...they would have a hard time proving that that was what they are owed...if they really want to ***** about it, then we'll let the winner of their lesser conference play in our playoff...problem solved

---