I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with a lot of situations (mostly mergers and acquisitions) where the DOJ will step-in because a combination will effectively crowd-out competition. This is exactly what the BCS system is trying to do. It will eventually move to four, 16 team super conferences and if you are not one of the lucky 64 teams, then you have no shot at the big economics - a classic example of anti-competitive behavior. I'm actually surprised that there isn't more press or involvement by the DOJ on the matter. I guess we'll have to see which football schools gets left out in the realignment and it will be up to them to sue or get Congress involved. Heck - basketball only schools likely have a good case to be made as the non BCS schools are crowded-out from major TV contracts.
Also - I'm pretty right winged and by far no fan of regulation, but I just think this BCS thing is going too far, is likely illegal and needs to be broken up. I'm just sayin'.......
The only problem with this is that the BCS can legitimately state that it has given more opportunities to non-BCS schools to participate in high revenue bowl games than the previous system did. Utah doesn't get to the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii doesn't get to the Sugar Bowl. Boise doesn't get to the Fiesta Bowl twice. TCU doesn't get to the Fiesta Bowl or the Rose Bowl.
And the reason high revenue bowl games, are "high revenue" are due to market forces.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 12, 2011, 07:03:28 PM
The only problem with this is that the BCS can legitimately state that it has given more opportunities to non-BCS schools to participate in high revenue bowl games than the previous system did. Utah doesn't get to the Sugar Bowl. Hawaii doesn't get to the Sugar Bowl. Boise doesn't get to the Fiesta Bowl twice. TCU doesn't get to the Fiesta Bowl or the Rose Bowl.
And the reason high revenue bowl games, are "high revenue" are due to market forces.
I don't think he making the argument based upon the past, but rather looking towards the future. The market forces you speak of could surely be "higher revenue" if a super-conference team is playing rather than Boise State.
Quote from: avid1010 on October 12, 2011, 07:15:12 PM
I don't think he making the argument based upon the past, but rather looking towards the future. The market forces you speak of could surely be "higher revenue" if a super-conference team is playing rather than Boise State.
Not even "higher revenue"... I think it is most likely that they will create a too game championship series. The winner of each division will play in a super conference championship and then the super conference champions will play each other for a National Champion.
Make the super conferences and create your own tournament, you've dealt a blow to the "David and Goliath" matchups in the NCAAs. No more Butlers, no more Villanovas.
I think it is anticompetitive. However, in the future I believe most of the top high school players are going to sign with the super 64 and the other football teams will not be good enough to argue that they should get a chance to play for the national title. Besides that the title in football is determined by voters. Also, colleges are made up of competition level divisions and the 64 simply will be the highest division. They are also mostly state owned (government) schools.
I think a more likely scenario is that the 4 super conferences will face a challenge by federal legislation that takes away their private, non-profit status and starts taxing the hell out of them. The latest money grabbing efforts of a few conferences has demonstrated it is all about the money, rather than about amateur athletics. It would be difficult for the football schools to put up a reasonable argument in defense of their actions. At least the money made through March Madness is shared by all member schools, and funds championships in all of the other non-revenue sports. The same can't be said for football.
I think you are right 6746...that what might happen is that athletics will be considered unrelated business, and therefore subject to unrelated business income taxes. This would mean that all athletic profits are segregated and taxed, and that donations to athletic programs would no longer be tax exempt. But that would mean that all institutions would be subject to that...not just BCS football programs.
A number of economists have already written to the DOJ stating that the BCS is anti-competitive and needs investigation. There was an article and the letter in the WSJ back in April, even before all this monkey business.
Quote from: BaltimoreMC on October 12, 2011, 05:46:00 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with a lot of situations (mostly mergers and acquisitions) where the DOJ will step-in because a combination will effectively crowd-out competition. This is exactly what the BCS system is trying to do. It will eventually move to four, 16 team super conferences and if you are not one of the lucky 64 teams, then you have no shot at the big economics - a classic example of anti-competitive behavior. I'm actually surprised that there isn't more press or involvement by the DOJ on the matter. I guess we'll have to see which football schools gets left out in the realignment and it will be up to them to sue or get Congress involved. Heck - basketball only schools likely have a good case to be made as the non BCS schools are crowded-out from major TV contracts.
Also - I'm pretty right winged and by far no fan of regulation, but I just think this BCS thing is going too far, is likely illegal and needs to be broken up. I'm just sayin'.......
Your post is similar to my thoughts on this matter. If at the next BCS negotiation, in 2013, they eliminate the "opportunity" of the Boise States of the world, the Congress likely will step in.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 13, 2011, 08:23:47 AM
I think you are right 6746...that what might happen is that athletics will be considered unrelated business, and therefore subject to unrelated business income taxes. This would mean that all athletic profits are segregated and taxed, and that donations to athletic programs would no longer be tax exempt. But that would mean that all institutions would be subject to that...not just BCS football programs.
So what? A school like IUPUI most assuredly doesn't turn a profit on athletics, and therefore, they'd have no tax implications either way. The bigger the program is, the harder they fall, so to speak.
I understand that, but the way he wrote it he indicated that they would tax the BCS schools only.
Regardless, since the non-BCS schools wouldn't have any tax liability any way, "tax the BCS" and "tax everyone" would net the same result.
I'm just attempting to point out that Sultan and 6746 are on the same page, whether they realize it or not. I'm also on that page.
Incidentally, I wonder how this would play out in the DPRM. It seems they're always whining about how the "rich" don't pay their fair share, yet it just so happens that the deepest pockets in the state belong to some guy named Buckingham (metaphorically speaking) who is almost universally revered in those parts. Let's see if they're willing to walk the walk and bite the hand that feeds them.
^^^ How about that hand feeds more than it currently is? I'm sure the millions begin to blur with the extremely rich.
The whole unfortunate mess of a possible government investigation into BCS's anti-competitive behaviors is that it's not going to save programs that will be decimated in the wake of the Super Conf formations.
I am sure that you are thinking of the NCAA tournement as the time when "the Darius Johnson-Odem" will inflict this damage on the BCS.
DOJ and DJO aren't any different when you have dsylexia which apparently I do, sorry.
Speaking of the BCS & the Big East. I saw this interesting note at lunchtime.
http://newyork.sbnation.com/2011/10/14/2489674/conference-realignment-big-east-expansion-boise-state-south-florida-west-virginia
It may keep it for four years, but how do you attarct anyone into the conference if it may be lost it in four years? Let's end this nonsense now. All paths are leading to dead ends.