(12-10-2010 12:16 PM)FIUFan Wrote: (12-10-2010 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote: Until the five non-AQ get their act together and act in a collegial manner toward each other, there is no credibility for them to complain about the BCS. You won't fix the crappy BCS system (which you have to admit beats the old system) until the five non-AQ achieve the moral high ground.
The SEC and Big 10 don't have to share a damn thing, but they do.
Agreed. And the only way to break up the '6 Sisters' is through congressional, anti-competitive, threats and/or legislation.
The SEC and Big 10 DO have to share. As the ULM fan states in the Arrogance thread (and I paraphrase); the BCS Bowls and Conferences are building giant, unassailable fortresses through huge corporate and television contributions. We are being systematically locked out of this game and the gulf between the Q's and the non-Q's gets wider and deeper with each passing year.
It's time the non-Q's dig up the old Sherman Anitrust Act (its purpose is to oppose the combination of entities that harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels).
Honestly, the BCS schools have a better anti-trust claim when they send a second school that gets a token payment or a potential third school is left out.
Professor Michael McCann alludes to that in a column
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...9/bcs.law/
Even if he and I are both wrong, the courts do not have the ability fashion the remedy. The BCS leagues can simply say, Fine we lost the lawsuit we will no longer work in concert and each conference is on its own to make whatever post-season deal it likes. Then each league is an independent actor seeking bowl ties and market forces determine who plays who. There is no longer money shared and the Fiesta, Rose, Orange, and Sugar are no longer obligated by contract to take us if we meet the conditions.
We are starting the 13th BCS bowls and in over a decade not one of those adamant that it violates anti-trust has filed suit despite the potential windfall of damages being multiplied by three. Tulane's law school has a premier sports law program and didn't sue when they got left out.
The BCS isn't the greatest threat to the game anyway. BCS money is nothing in the grand scheme of athletics. If you want to get Congress involved use them correctly.
Declare any university with athletic and athletic-related expenditures in excess of x number ($100 million, $80 million, pick a figure) to be a for profit entity and tax all revenue minus scholarship costs at 25%.
Deny deductibility for any donations or business related expenditures to a for profit college athletic department.
Tax all conference revenue in excess of $50 million at 25%.
If athletic and athletic related spending exceeds the cap, instead of taxing it, deduct the amount in excess of the cap from Federal funds available to the institution and its students. Tell Texas they are going to lose $25 million in Federal research grants and see what happens.
35 years ago Arkansas paid its head football coach 2X what ASU paid. Today its 11X or 12X. I bet the numbers for UNT and UT then were similar and UT is paying Mack 10X.
Spending is out of control under the guise of charitable activity but go look at what a tiny fraction goes to scholarships and educational benefits at the wealthiest schools. That is a far greater problem than the BCS which generates less money for most of the uber-conferences than NCAA Tournament or television.