quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,224
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2440
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: First P5 Commissioner openly pushing for CFP Expansion
(05-16-2021 12:16 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote: (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: 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.
Well about MLB, while yes, there is a "luxury tax" based on a cap amount, nevertheless, salary differences are substantial. Last year, the Dodgers had a $256 million payroll, the Pirates had a $56 million payroll. In my book, that's a big difference.
Also, by the money metric, MLB is presently doing better than ever. In 2001, overall MLB revenue was $3.8 Billion. In 2019, the last pre-virus year, it was $10.37 Billion. In both overall revenue and revenues per team, that is second only to the NFL among global sports leagues, and by a wide margin. NFL per team revenue (soon to rise again, btw) was $356m, MLB was $326m, for the NBA it was $257m.
Finally, as far as CFB is concerned, to my experience, nothing has changed about recruits in the 50 years I've watched college football. In 1972, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and Ohio State got gobs of blue-chip recruits, and the San Jose States and Akrons got very few. Same as today. Heck, if anything things have improved, because as "Jed Clampett" says, more non-P5 teams are making the top 25 than ever before. A school like my USF has far more visibility now than it would have had in 1980.
So I don't think there's much evidence that things are worse now for the "have nots" than in the past. By almost every metric - money, bowl access, and TV access - the USFs and San Jose States have more access now than ever, and with regard to recruits, things are no worse than they ever have been.
Probably a lot better. Back in the 1970s, before recruiting limits were put in place, teams like Alabama and Texas would have 200 guys on their roster. Many guys would rather be 5th on the Texas depth chart but get to strut around campus and elsewhere telling girls they were on the Texas football team than play for North Texas back then.
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2021 10:38 AM by quo vadis.)
|
|