Moderators: please don't move. Just a conversation I want to have on C-USA board not the broader sports board. These moves are ultimately negative toward C-USA, so the question is broad but the impact affects our league.

Excerpt from Yahoo...

"In a format being socialized among major conference administrators, the Big Ten and SEC would each receive three automatic qualifiers into a 14-team field, with the ACC and Big 12 getting two each and the Group of Five’s best team qualifying as well. Such a model would feature three at-large spots to the highest-ranked teams outside of the automatic qualifiers."

"...this “3-3-2-2-1” format is being socialized among athletic administrators, usually one of the initial steps in the process of adopting a model. The format would start in 2026 as part of a new CFP television contract."

Not only would this be a major escalation in their scoffing at the Sherman Act, there would be pretty easily proven collusion by BIG and SEC leaders supporting their illicit movements. Is this the most egregious and overt violation of antitrust law since AT&T? And it's being done not by corporate entities but federally subsidized non-profit educational institutions. It blows my mind this has been allowed to progress this far.

(02-29-2024 02:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Excerpt from Yahoo...

"In a format being socialized among major conference administrators, the Big Ten and SEC would each receive three automatic qualifiers into a 14-team field, with the ACC and Big 12 getting two each and the Group of Five’s best team qualifying as well. Such a model would feature three at-large spots to the highest-ranked teams outside of the automatic qualifiers."

"...this “3-3-2-2-1” format is being socialized among athletic administrators, usually one of the initial steps in the process of adopting a model. The format would start in 2026 as part of a new CFP television contract."

Not only would this be a major escalation in their scoffing at the Sherman Act, there would be pretty easily proven collusion by BIG and SEC leaders supporting their illicit movements. Is this the most egregious and overt violation of antitrust law since AT&T? And it's being done not by corporate entities but federally subsidized non-profit educational institutions. It blows my mind this has been allowed to progress this far.

Everyone paid off, SEC/Big Ten own it now.

(02-29-2024 02:18 PM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 02:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Excerpt from Yahoo...

"In a format being socialized among major conference administrators, the Big Ten and SEC would each receive three automatic qualifiers into a 14-team field, with the ACC and Big 12 getting two each and the Group of Five’s best team qualifying as well. Such a model would feature three at-large spots to the highest-ranked teams outside of the automatic qualifiers."

"...this “3-3-2-2-1” format is being socialized among athletic administrators, usually one of the initial steps in the process of adopting a model. The format would start in 2026 as part of a new CFP television contract."

Not only would this be a major escalation in their scoffing at the Sherman Act, there would be pretty easily proven collusion by BIG and SEC leaders supporting their illicit movements. Is this the most egregious and overt violation of antitrust law since AT&T? And it's being done not by corporate entities but federally subsidized non-profit educational institutions. It blows my mind this has been allowed to progress this far.

Everyone paid off, SEC/Big Ten own it now.

I think schools like Oregon St, Washington St, Oklahoma St, Florida St, (I can go on) may beg to differ. It's one thing for schools like TCU and Utah who "moved up" but it's an entirely different thing for a school like those above or Colorado, Miami, or Georgia Tech - schools that have won national titles not having equal access just because of conference affiliation.

But anyone who has fronted the costs to be here and for many us (not some of the more recent move ups) have to meet benchmarks just to have the FBS status. Surely someone among these groups sees the need to challenge this non-sense. Again, this isn't a corporate entity. It's non-profit ed institutions. At the very least, if I'm IRS/Dept of Ed, I'm saying no more non profit. No more fed funds. Crazy.

Sorry if I'm being dumb and it's obvious, but what about this would be an antitrust issue?

Nobody wants to be blackballed. They want to be president of one of those schools.

No one is dumb enough to throw themselves in front of that train. Win, they'll never play you or give you a job. Lose, they'll never play you or give you a job.

(02-29-2024 03:54 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  No one is dumb enough to throw themselves in front of that train. Win, they'll never play you or give you a job. Lose, they'll never play you or give you a job.

Not only that but there is a good chance the state legislature will have you fired.

(02-29-2024 03:57 PM)R40 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 03:54 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  No one is dumb enough to throw themselves in front of that train. Win, they'll never play you or give you a job. Lose, they'll never play you or give you a job.

Not only that but there is a good chance the state legislature will have you fired.

I think this is a fair point. Schools will still continue to try to get on the "inside" so this strings along until it becomes clear there is no longer a chance to be a part of whatever this ends up looking like. So, maybe I've answered my own question, but I would suggest that at that point aren't these states such as Oklahoma and Oregon inclined to support their own state institutions on this issue in the same way Virginia and Tennessee supported their state schools on the recent NIL litigation?

This is not a matter of if. It's a matter of when and who. Nothing stated above is enough to scare off some of the schools that look out their window and see the ship sailing away - but maybe we haven't reached that inflection point yet. That desperation will eventually cause action. Again, it's just a matter of when.

(02-29-2024 02:44 PM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  Sorry if I'm being dumb and it's obvious, but what about this would be an antitrust issue?

NCAA is currently facing about half a dozen anti-trust lawsuits itself. All in the name of trying preserve amateurism and the model that's been in place since its founding.

The efforts by the NCAA pale in comparison to what the SEC and BIG are doing. They're going to be subject to the same laws. Again, the only question is who and when. And for my own curiously why it hasn't happened yet.

Maybe now that Washington St and Oregon St settled their legal case against the PAC, they'll turn their attention to the BIG next. At which point the collusion with the SEC will become obvious. But it could come from anywhere. I think it's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few years. And who orchestrates it.

Dude is it the Golden rule. He has the Gold, rules.

(02-29-2024 04:23 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 03:57 PM)R40 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 03:54 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  No one is dumb enough to throw themselves in front of that train. Win, they'll never play you or give you a job. Lose, they'll never play you or give you a job.

Not only that but there is a good chance the state legislature will have you fired.

I think this is a fair point. Schools will still continue to try to get on the "inside" so this strings along until it becomes clear there is no longer a chance to be a part of whatever this ends up looking like. So, maybe I've answered my own question, but I would suggest that at that point aren't these states such as Oklahoma and Oregon inclined to support their own state institutions on this issue in the same way Virginia and Tennessee supported their state schools on the recent NIL litigation?

This is not a matter of if. It's a matter of when and who. Nothing stated above is enough to scare off some of the schools that look out their window and see the ship sailing away - but maybe we haven't reached that inflection point yet. That desperation will eventually cause action. Again, it's just a matter of when.

Yes, it is bound to lead them into trouble eventually. You just need one school with a powerful booster to challenge the system and it all comes crashing down. That is why I don't think there will ever be a split. It creates too many risks. But it is easy to buy off the lower schools and keep them hoping you will be nicer in the future.

(02-29-2024 02:15 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Moderators: please don't move. Just a conversation I want to have on C-USA board not the broader sports board. These moves are ultimately negative toward C-USA, so the question is broad but the impact affects our league.

Excerpt from Yahoo...

"In a format being socialized among major conference administrators, the Big Ten and SEC would each receive three automatic qualifiers into a 14-team field, with the ACC and Big 12 getting two each and the Group of Five’s best team qualifying as well. Such a model would feature three at-large spots to the highest-ranked teams outside of the automatic qualifiers."

"...this “3-3-2-2-1” format is being socialized among athletic administrators, usually one of the initial steps in the process of adopting a model. The format would start in 2026 as part of a new CFP television contract."

Not only would this be a major escalation in their scoffing at the Sherman Act, there would be pretty easily proven collusion by BIG and SEC leaders supporting their illicit movements. Is this the most egregious and overt violation of antitrust law since AT&T? And it's being done not by corporate entities but federally subsidized non-profit educational institutions. It blows my mind this has been allowed to progress this far.

A good article here on the topic from 2022, although his NIL example is currently moot.

An excerpt:

Although Alston put the NCAA on notice that it could be held liable for violating antitrust laws, the court took a different approach to conferences, noting “individual conferences remain free to reimpose every single enjoined restraint tomorrow — or more restrictive ones still.” Looking at the NCAA overall and the 32 conferences that make up Division I, the court likely reasoned that if any one conference adopted restrictive rules on player compensation, athletes could offer their services elsewhere. For example, an athlete dissatisfied with the Ivy League’s policy against athletic scholarships has numerous other conference options.

This logic — that an abundance of choice negates the need for antitrust scrutiny of conferences — may not hold up nearly as well in the context of college football if two “super conferences” hold all of the national title contenders and the media attention that comes with them. For top high school recruits, the total number of conferences would be illusory; the choice would be between the Big Ten and the SEC. In such a world, the Big Ten and SEC would need to prepare for the type of antitrust scrutiny regularly brought to bear on highly concentrated industries.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB...lkoff.aspx

The reasons why I believe lawsuits from negatively affected state schools is imminent is because: a) institutions of higher learning were never minted to be in and of itself a “market”. That’s strike #1 against antitrust laws. b) when considering that factor and the amount of money involved - particularly access to those revenues through association, affiliation, or membership is strike #2. We see some of this already forming with what happened to Oregon St and Washington St not to mention the subsequent moves the Big 10 has made since then in announcing an alliance with the SEC to “fix” the problems associated with the NCAA. What happens next will be the third strike.

As an example of this let’s assume collegiate athletics is an industry and no longer considered tied to the non-profit interests of an institution of higher learning. Even though I think the courts would eviscerate that let’s pretend for a moment it’s a non factor.

In that scenario you can easily defend that from a market perspective Ohio St is a more valuable property than Oregon St and in the dynamics of a free market que sera sera. However, the formation of what is that third step - essentially a Division 1 Premier where the only schools that are allowed to compete in this upper tier are either in the SEC or BIG. In that scenario you automatically have infringement upon other institutions rights under antitrust laws. Why does Vanderbilt or Miss State get the golden egg while Oklahoma St and NC Staye sit on the sidelines of this premier league? That’s why they’ve hedged to not go that far yet with this new 14 team playoff proposal. But eventually they willl because those two leagues can’t help themselves from consolidating all power. and control. Even the proposal itself is limiting access. It’s one thing for us G5 schools to bear and grin in the face of it but it’s a different land mine when they are doing it to their own - many of whom still have deep pockets and big legal staffs. So, even if they don’t go that far they are still stifling competition for schools like Ok St and NC St (in my hypothetical scenario) because they are limiting schools that once had equal access to to secondary status. The lawsuits against the SEC and BIG over the next x years seem inevitable.

When those suits occur C-USA would wise to attach itself to them. It’s not like it’s going to be worse than our already relegated status.

I don't know why the BiG and SEC think it's a good idea to prop themselves up, take all the money and basically create a P2. Additionally, if your conference is good enough, you will get several teams into the CFP. No need to artificially guarantee x amount of teams get into the CFP.