(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.

(05-14-2021 08:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I know all about IO14. I advertise on Facebook. I get notications for work-arounds from Facebook every week. They're having a pissing contest. Apple feels like they're not getting a big enough piece of the pie.

You and I are both from Chicago. We both Know how crooked the Democratic machine is there. Parlor is being silenced for the same reasons all conservative voices are being silenced. This isn't a political forum and I didn't want to bring it up, but you're a delusional brainwashed Chicagoan so I'm responding. I used to be a delusional brainwashed Chicagoan too.



IO14

(05-14-2021 08:18 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 08:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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:  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.

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.

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.

I know all about IO14. I advertise on Facebook. . . .

I am not going to dig into the Sherman antitrust question. I am just going to add some additional facts to this discussion.

I no longer remember whether it was John Marinetto or Mike Aresco, I think Aresco, but the Big-East-to-become-AAC tried to maintain contract bowl status in the first bowl agreements. The Rose (Big 10, Pac 12) and Sugar (SEC, Big 12) Bowls were each given $80 million annual television contracts. The Orange was given a $60 million television contract (ACC, SEC/Big 10/Notre Dame). The play-offs (and, I think, the Championship) were each given $80 million television contracts. So what is now left are the non-contract, non-play-off bowls (in the times when they are so), the Peach, Cotton, and the Fiesta.

My understanding is that ESPN gave the Bowl coalition values for an AAC tie-in (it was discussed as a "roving" tie-in because Boise and San Diego State were "in" the AAC at the time of the discussion, as well as UConn, Louisville, and Rutgers, and without ECU, Tulane, and Tulsa) . . . it was a 12-team league. The AAC auto-bid television value was substantially less for annual Peach/Cotton/Fiesta pay-outs than without an AAC auto-bid. That's why the AAC was not given a "contract" bowl. At least, that was the public reason, so I don't know any other.

If these same facts hold true the next time around, an AAC contract bowl will be contingent upon the "best" AAC team (the actual best or the second-best depending upon how the playoffs expand) being a more valuable television (and stadium) draw than the second-best team that would, on average, be available for that spot. If ESPN quotes a higher television value for our "best" team than that hypothetical "other" team, then the AAC will likely get a contract bowl the next time around. If not, it is unlikely to get that contract bowl. Unless, the AAC tries to elevate the Liberty bowl to contract bowl status (which was also discussed at the time).

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 06:05 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 05:50 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  New Pac-12 Commish isn't shy on what he wants.

This is good news for the AAC.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/new-pac-12-com...09859.html

Dude hasn't been on the job for 12 minutes so I wouldn't put much stock into what he is saying right now.

You don’t think he doesn’t have the blessing of every President in his league?

I have to agree with Pony94. I am familiar with these types of situations. Executives don't like surprises . . . lots of subsequent meetings and conferences calls happen if surprises happen. I would even go so far as to say the word "blessing" understates it. It is my opinion that the talking points for the new league commissioner were fully vetted and approved by the full membership. The new commissioner, in my opinion, would have immediately proven himself unqualified to perform his job if he walked into his first public interview unvetted and unscripted.

(05-14-2021 08:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Frank, that explanation is not the least bit convincing. You cite one extremely weak example to bolster your case and expect everyone to be convinced.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect the majority of AAC fans to go along with your view that the P5 cartel is "as gentle as a lamb" and "as pure as the virgin snow."

We all know that they're a bunch of selfish, money-grubbing b@$t@rd$. They've proven it in every conceivable way, with their rigged ranking systems and selection committees. They give two CFP committee votes each to the P5 representatives, but only one vote each to the G5 representatives, and you seriously expect us to agree with you that they don't engage in anti-competitive behavior? Please...

Who do you think you're fooling?

.

(05-13-2021 07:36 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 06:05 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(05-13-2021 05:50 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  New Pac-12 Commish isn't shy on what he wants.

This is good news for the AAC.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/new-pac-12-com...09859.html

Dude hasn't been on the job for 12 minutes so I wouldn't put much stock into what he is saying right now.

You don’t think he doesn’t have the blessing of every President in his league?

Exactly...as no doubt that was a part of his sales pitch just to get the Pac-12 Presidents to hire him.

The only two P-5 conferences not potentially vunerable to missing the CFP as presently constructed are the SEC & B1G. The ACC in a Clemson down year that become a stretch of years would begin to look like the PAC now. Same for the B12 if OU suffers some down years & UT continues in mediocrity. Unfortunately the ACC has become so comfortable with the Clemson success that they don't see reality. But probably some of the P-5 leadership thinks long term & they all have shown a willingness to follow the $$, so expansion if it protects all of the P-5 conferences & promises more revenue, will eventually vote for expansion of some sort that protects ALL of the P-5 conferences each year & brings more revenue.

The only real question is, will they throw the AAC/G-5 a bone in the expansion.

It’s in the American’s best interest for the SEC to get two of the four playoff spots each year, because that means two P5 conferences are being left out.

I think the thing that blows my mind is that a third party controls the college football postseason. Bowl tradition plays into it in a huge way, but can you imagine if the NIT had stayed as the only basketball tournament and the NCAA didn’t start their own? The NCAA is out billions in revenue and it’s too late to fix it, but they would be the only body I could see being concerned with equal access for teams from less prestigious conferences.

Well with three of the four spots pretty much reserved for Alabama, Clemson and Ohio St., I'd push for expansion too.

I believe that nothing will be done unless it serves to further line the pockets of the P5. That is to say unless ESPN throws a large sum of money to the P5 coffers or creates a large about of At-large bids for the P5 to fill, things will remain status quo.

We are truly beating a dead horse. The time to scream and fight was when the Playoff System was being implemented in the first place.

(05-15-2021 07:55 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  The only two P-5 conferences not potentially vunerable to missing the CFP as presently constructed are the SEC & B1G. The ACC in a Clemson down year that become a stretch of years would begin to look like the PAC now. Same for the B12 if OU suffers some down years & UT continues in mediocrity. Unfortunately the ACC has become so comfortable with the Clemson success that they don't see reality. But probably some of the P-5 leadership thinks long term & they all have shown a willingness to follow the $$, so expansion if it protects all of the P-5 conferences & promises more revenue, will eventually vote for expansion of some sort that protects ALL of the P-5 conferences each year & brings more revenue.

The only real question is, will they throw the AAC/G-5 a bone in the expansion.

It will be the same bone they get now if the system changes at all. Best G5 conference winner will get an at large meaningless bowl opening against the lowest P5 school in the number 9 position. No G5 team will ever be ranked higher than number 10 in the rigged college ranking system. Call it your Super Bowl or what ever you want to call it. The 5, P5 conference champs plus ND or for the 3 highest ranked P5 outliers get the new third and fourth play off bowls in the new system. Oh and by the way the P5 + ND might give you a slight increase in the CFP money just so the the G5 have nothing to complain about, if and only if, ESPN throws a lot more money in the playoff pot to pay the extra four teams in the actual 8 team college play off at season end. In the end you end up with 8, P5 teams in the 4 bowl playoff and a consolidation bowl for the 9th ranked team against a G5 school.

(05-13-2021 05:50 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  New Pac-12 Commish isn't shy on what he wants.

This is good news for the AAC.

https://ph.news.yahoo.com/new-pac-12-com...09859.html

Is it though?

(05-15-2021 07:55 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  The only two P-5 conferences not potentially vunerable to missing the CFP as presently constructed are the SEC & B1G. The ACC in a Clemson down year that become a stretch of years would begin to look like the PAC now. Same for the B12 if OU suffers some down years & UT continues in mediocrity. Unfortunately the ACC has become so comfortable with the Clemson success that they don't see reality. But probably some of the P-5 leadership thinks long term & they all have shown a willingness to follow the $$, so expansion if it protects all of the P-5 conferences & promises more revenue, will eventually vote for expansion of some sort that protects ALL of the P-5 conferences each year & brings more revenue.

The only real question is, will they throw the AAC/G-5 a bone in the expansion.

Is that, in fact, the only real question?

That would only be the "real question" if the CFP does expand, but only to 6 (or possibly 8) teams. They could expand to 6 and still keep the G5 teams out most years, but Cincinnati (in 2021) and UCF (in 2017) have both proven that a G5 team can finish #8 in the CFP rankings. Thus, expanding to 8 would in effect be tossing a bone to the "dogs," but making them fight for it, and not tossing it to them every year.

There is also a real question about whether or not the CFP will expand in the next few years, and if not, how long we'll have to wait for an expansion.

.

If expanding to 8 teams would, in effect, be tossing a very occasional "bone" to the G5, expanding to more than 8 teams with no automatic bids for G5 teams would amount to tossing them a bone a little more frequently (but not necessarily every year).

In order to throw a bone to the G5 every year, there would have to be at least one automatic bid (e.g.,to the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference, or the top-ranked G5 conference champion). Some have suggested 5 automatic bids for the 5 G5 conference champions in a 16-team CFP.

.

So from that standpoint, one could say that there isn't just one "real question" - - there are a few.

(05-15-2021 11:19 AM)panite Wrote:  No G5 team will ever be ranked higher than number 10 in the rigged college ranking system.

Fortunately, we know that's not the case, since Cincinnati was ranked #8 in the 2021 CFP rankings, despite the fact that the rankings were rigged (we know they were biased against Cincy in comparison to the AP and Coaches' polls, which both ranked Cincy #6).

.

The PAC wants expanded playoffs right now because its current programs are too lousy to make the playoffs under the current system.

Since that's the PAC's situation, and not the situation of any of the other P5, I'm not sure their position will have much resonance.

My take:

Short run, meaning before the CFP expires in 2025, odds are low of any changes, as that would require "unanimous consent", and unanimous is a high bar to meet. For starters, the SEC has no reason to change the status quo.

Beyond 2025? Expansion, with autobids, is quite likely.

(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:  

(05-13-2021 11:22 PM)pesik Wrote:  there is podcast by the old sunbelt commish on how the playoff systems are decided in a different thread..
the voting is even equal amoung conference.. he noted the p5 amongs themselves vote on how the system will be.. and the g5 are basically bystanders watching ..

as far changing the system, acc/big 10/sec are the majority

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.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

(05-16-2021 07:40 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-15-2021 07:55 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  The only two P-5 conferences not potentially vunerable to missing the CFP as presently constructed are the SEC & B1G. The ACC in a Clemson down year that become a stretch of years would begin to look like the PAC now. Same for the B12 if OU suffers some down years & UT continues in mediocrity. Unfortunately the ACC has become so comfortable with the Clemson success that they don't see reality. But probably some of the P-5 leadership thinks long term & they all have shown a willingness to follow the $$, so expansion if it protects all of the P-5 conferences & promises more revenue, will eventually vote for expansion of some sort that protects ALL of the P-5 conferences each year & brings more revenue.

The only real question is, will they throw the AAC/G-5 a bone in the expansion.

Is that, in fact, the only real question?

That would only be the "real question" if the CFP does expand, but only to 6 (or possibly 8) teams. They could expand to 6 and still keep the G5 teams out most years, but Cincinnati (in 2021) and UCF (in 2017) have both proven that a G5 team can finish #8 in the CFP rankings. Thus, expanding to 8 would in effect be tossing a bone to the "dogs," but making them fight for it, and not tossing it to them every year.

There is also a real question about whether or not the CFP will expand in the next few years, and if not, how long we'll have to wait for an expansion.

.

If expanding to 8 teams would, in effect, be tossing a very occasional "bone" to the G5, expanding to more than 8 teams with no automatic bids for G5 teams would amount to tossing them a bone a little more frequently (but not necessarily every year).

In order to throw a bone to the G5 every year, there would have to be at least one automatic bid (e.g.,to the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference, or the top-ranked G5 conference champion). Some have suggested 5 automatic bids for the 5 G5 conference champions in a 16-team CFP.

.

So from that standpoint, one could say that there isn't just one "real question" - - there are a few.

(05-15-2021 11:19 AM)panite Wrote:  No G5 team will ever be ranked higher than number 10 in the rigged college ranking system.

Fortunately, we know that's not the case, since Cincinnati was ranked #8 in the 2021 CFP rankings, despite the fact that the rankings were rigged (we know they were biased against Cincy in comparison to the AP and Coaches' polls, which both ranked Cincy #6).

.

Come on man... They AAC teams were ranged better than 10 when that meant they would not be in the CFP (4 teams), expand that to 16 and no AAC team will ever be ranked higher than 17, regardless of record and on field performans... That's collusion!!!

(05-16-2021 09:14 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 07:40 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(05-15-2021 07:55 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  The only two P-5 conferences not potentially vunerable to missing the CFP as presently constructed are the SEC & B1G. The ACC in a Clemson down year that become a stretch of years would begin to look like the PAC now. Same for the B12 if OU suffers some down years & UT continues in mediocrity. Unfortunately the ACC has become so comfortable with the Clemson success that they don't see reality. But probably some of the P-5 leadership thinks long term & they all have shown a willingness to follow the $$, so expansion if it protects all of the P-5 conferences & promises more revenue, will eventually vote for expansion of some sort that protects ALL of the P-5 conferences each year & brings more revenue.

The only real question is, will they throw the AAC/G-5 a bone in the expansion.

Is that, in fact, the only real question?

That would only be the "real question" if the CFP does expand, but only to 6 (or possibly 8) teams. They could expand to 6 and still keep the G5 teams out most years, but Cincinnati (in 2021) and UCF (in 2017) have both proven that a G5 team can finish #8 in the CFP rankings. Thus, expanding to 8 would in effect be tossing a bone to the "dogs," but making them fight for it, and not tossing it to them every year.

There is also a real question about whether or not the CFP will expand in the next few years, and if not, how long we'll have to wait for an expansion.

.

If expanding to 8 teams would, in effect, be tossing a very occasional "bone" to the G5, expanding to more than 8 teams with no automatic bids for G5 teams would amount to tossing them a bone a little more frequently (but not necessarily every year).

In order to throw a bone to the G5 every year, there would have to be at least one automatic bid (e.g.,to the champion of the top-ranked G5 conference, or the top-ranked G5 conference champion). Some have suggested 5 automatic bids for the 5 G5 conference champions in a 16-team CFP.

.

So from that standpoint, one could say that there isn't just one "real question" - - there are a few.

(05-15-2021 11:19 AM)panite Wrote:  No G5 team will ever be ranked higher than number 10 in the rigged college ranking system.

Fortunately, we know that's not the case, since Cincinnati was ranked #8 in the 2021 CFP rankings, despite the fact that the rankings were rigged (we know they were biased against Cincy in comparison to the AP and Coaches' polls, which both ranked Cincy #6).

.

Come on man... They AAC teams were ranged better than 10 when that meant they would not be in the CFP (4 teams), expand that to 16 and no AAC team will ever be ranked higher than 17, regardless of record and on field performans... That's collusion!!!

You're suggesting that, if the CFP had allowed for 8 teams, Cincy and UCF would have been ranked just low enough in the CFP rankings to keep them out?

I've got to admit that there's at least a 50/50 chance that you'd be right about that - maybe 60/40 (70/30?).

.

(05-16-2021 09:14 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  That's collusion!!!

You're darn tootin' it is!

And it's been going for years. How much longer is this country going to put up with that kind of b^(_#t (malarkey)?

(05-16-2021 09:14 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  ...expand that to 16 and no AAC team will ever be ranked higher than 17, regardless of record and on field performans...

That's the only place where I would disagree, because I can't imagine that a 9-0 Cincy team or a 13-0 UCF team would have been ranked #17 or lower.

It's been getting harder and harder for them to keep the best non-P5 teams out of the CFP Top 10 list over the past few years, because the number of non-P5 teams in the top 25 has been increasing steadily since 2016.

While I definitely agree that there's much to be pissed about, things may be starting to change for the better. That's why I'm rooting so hard for the 65 non-P5 FBS schools as a whole, as well as for the AAC in particular.

.

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 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.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

(05-16-2021 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 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:  
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.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

The problem with this statement and your many other statements on this specific topic over the years is that you have consistently expressed this negative opinion as if this always has been and and always will be the situation.

My criticism of your staunchly negative appraisal of the AAC's and G5's prospects is based on an over-generalization: You seem to be convinced that the situation hasn't changed, isn't changing, and will never change.


I think that it's crystal clear that you're wrong about this, and that you have been wrong about it for the past several years.

The improvements that the upper tier of G5 and FBS independent teams have been making since 2016 appear to have sailed right over your head - - not just once or twice, but year after year after year.

It seems to have made no impact on you whatsoever that the number of non-P5 FBS teams in the Final Top 25 has grown from 4 in 2016 to 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 8 in 2020. That's a 100% increase in just four years.

But, oddly, that hasn't caused your opinion to change in the slightest.

.

(05-16-2021 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 09:01 AM)GoOwls111 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:  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.

But in a way those 5 conference that destroyed the BIG EAST and voted to label the AAC (BIG EAST Revamped) as something less than... Would fit in the category of collusion... and if anyone doesn't believe that ESPiN is a monopoly that needs to be dealt with, then folks just don't understand what a monopoly is.

As long as ESPiN owns all the bowls that they do, and are in control of who they decide who plays in them the system will be a flawed and open to Anti-trust law suit.

Lets not forget that it was a law suit by Oklahoma and Georgia that lead to what we have today in college football, and only another lawsuit will restore financial equity within the FBS, the top level of college football, 130 teams

Well remember, the 1984 lawsuit was about *ending equity*, not achieving it. Before the lawsuit, the NCAA controlled TV rights to all FBS games, and basically access to TV and money distributions were pretty equal, whether you were Alabama or San Jose State.

Georgia and Oklahoma sued because they wanted to "un-equalize" things. They wanted the more popular conferences and bigger programs to be able to break free from the NCAA deal and maximize their earnings by negotiating separately with willing TV networks, thus leaving the lesser programs in FBS behind to fend for themselves.

And the federal courts - courts that were much more liberal, oriented towards equity, than they are today - ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma.

To me, it's obvious that the reason the P5 get the most money out of the CFP is because their programs are worth the most in the market. The SEC is simply a lot more popular than the MAC. No court or legislation can change that.

That's why monopolies are formed. So Alabama won't ever have to compete with the San Jose States of the world.

When George Steinbrenner of the New York Yankees "un-equalized" Major league baseball by outspending everyone, salary caps were put in place. why? So small markets like Kansas City, and Minnesota could compete. They knew if there wasn't a level playing field for everyone, the league would be destroyed.

Add to that, Espn's short cited approach of always trying to first appease investors every quarter, has almost single handedly destroyed MLB. For years all we got for game of the week was the Yankees and the Red Sox because it made the most money. At least for a while. Now we all have Yankee/Boston fatigue, and Americas pastime is probably third amongst professional sports for viewership. Ironically the Yankees and the Red Sox were'nt really rivals prior to ESPN. The Red Sox were perennial cellar dwellers for most of their history.

Now we have the ESPN made for tv college Football championship game. The Alabama Clemson Invitational. Has fatigue set in with anyone here yet?

Also,nobody is bringing up how the market control is destroying the opportunity to compete for recruits. I'm guessing the second and third Left tackle on Alabama's depth chart is probably better than any Left Tackle in the AAC most years. This doesn't happen in College BB. Memphis is routinely on most lists for high level recruits. Houston almost won the National Championship.

Somebody has to step in and stop the insanity these monopolies have created. They'll never change it on their own.

It's clearly stated that if market practices are such that it harms the American consumer, it's a violation of antitrust. What Market is larger, the city of Houston or the entire state of Alabama?

The system is rigged and monopolies have been created by a cartel stifleing competition for short term gains. There needs to be long term solutions to these problems, and you need to look no further than college basketball for answers.

The house of cards needs to come down.