(05-14-2021 07:03 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:14 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 02:36 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 11:37 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  Congress needs to get involved. Antitrust laws are being broken left and right.

this is incorrect anti-trust laws are not being broken at all

people simply do not understand what anti-trust is or how it works nor do they understand the bowl system and how the playoffs came to be

the major conferences owned the bowl games that were getting the big name teams (because each bowl had a tie in to a major conference) and they got together and decided to swap around teams to have a better match up

there is nothing at all "anti trust" about that........anti trust does not mean that suddenly those bowl games owe an opportunity to any D1-A team that feels they deserve to be in those bowls to actually be in those bowls

no one is stopping the other conferences from forming their own bowls and making their own match ups and using that to declare a champion....If there was something preventing that then it would be anti-trust

instead those other conferences were offered some concessions and a small amount of money if they wanted to participate provided certain criteria were met......and those conferences MADE A CHOICE to take that offer

people always want to compare the NFL or other pro leagues where "everyone gets a shot", but that means nothing in terms of anti-trust or why or why not any of those pro leagues do not need an exemption from congress in relation to "anti-trust"

those leagues can choose how to decide their playoff participants and championship rules as they see fit and the owners are free to have a vote on that

the ONLY thing that is "anti trust" about the NFL and other pro leagues is the draft system and the free agency system......but because all of the players in each league have chosen to have a union to bargain with the league those leagues and those leagues have chosen to accept those unions there is no need for a congressional anti-trust waiver to allow the draft and free agent rules

if those leagues decided they no longer wanted to deal with the union and then still have a draft and free agent restrictions then they would need that exemption

but other than that it has nothing to do with playoff formats or anything else.....because there is nothing preventing anyone else from trying to form other leagues to compete and nothing preventing them from trying to draw players to their league and have a union work with them

just like there is nothing stopping the G5 conferences from deciding they do not want to be a part of the BCS they will simply have their own bowls and invite who they wish based on their criteria.....but of course other conferences champions are going to say no because they are tied to their bowls and they like the BCS......but that is their right to do so

I'm 100% correct if collusion is involved.

"The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed."

Anti-trust laws

competition and monopoly

Espn article in 2011 on BCS anti-trust.
Anti-trust for collusion

Your references to the overarching law are correct, but that doesn’t mean its application to the P5/G5 split is correct (as TodgeRodge noted). The P5 aren’t preventing the AAC or other G5 leagues to enter into agreements with contract bowls, which is really the basis of the P5/G5 split. Any G5 league could get that type of deal if the contract bowls reciprocated in the free market. The fact that the G5 can’t find those deals in the free market is not the fault of the P5.

Now, if the P5 told the contract bowls that they straight up couldn’t enter into agreements with the G5, then *that’s* an illegal restraint of trade. We just need to be clear that’s not happening, though. If the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach Bowls would rather take 3rd/4th place SEC/B1G teams or other P5 at-larges instead of G5 teams and they made those decisions on their own, then that’s perfectly legal.

Saying that the G5 can start their own gig if they don't like being excluded, is completely wrong.

It clearly states that if one competitor keeps another competitor from entering the market, It's a violation of antitrust.

That's like apple excluding Parlor from having an app at their apple store so they can't compete with Facebook. Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple are colluding with each other sharing user information to pick winners and losers. They're going through Congressional hearings and investigations for Antitrust monopolization right now.

No, that’s not it at all. The P5 told the G5 leagues that they’re perfectly free to sign contracts with the NY6 bowls if the NY6 actually want them. That’s not a separate system whatsoever.

Similarly, you obviously haven’t been paying attention to Silicon Valley if you think that Apple and Facebook are working together: they completely despise each other. Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg have openly called each other their biggest competitors and Facebook is livid about Apple’s updates that will stop apps from following your activity on other apps (which is one of Facebook’s top sources of data that makes them so powerful). The fact that Parlor violated the terms of use and other contractual obligations with multiple companies and all of those companies made the decision on their own (not collectively) to get rid of them is 100% legal (regardless of political grandstanding with complete ignorance of the law in Congress). Parlor is an inconsequential non-entity compared to every iPhone preventing every Facebook app on its platform from tracking your activity.