re: The BCS

quote:

---

and I think does most definitely violate antri-trust laws.

---

Which ones? Unlawful barriers to market entry? Improper collaboration between competitors? And how do you define the "market" and the "competitors"? Is it all football, including a direct competitor to the BCS in both the NFL and the NCAA? Or is it specifically FBS division football, which would be a unique (and unprecedented) step to define a market for competitive purposes among a voluntary division of a voluntary organization? Or is it all of the NCAA, or all of college football? Who are the competitors (or potential competitors)? The conferences? The schools? The BCS? The bowls?

It is extremely easy (as well as simplistic, and incorrect) to throw out lines like "most definitely violate antitrust laws", but actually supporting such a claim is nigh impossible in a situation such as this.

Bear in mind that the only factors acting against the so-called "mid-majors" are consequences of their membership in lesser conferences, which is not a consequence of the BCS. And the regular and consistent flow of new teams into the BCS conferences over the last several years makes any argument of their non-competitive nature very difficult to take seriously. If the Utahs and Boise States of the world today were in the same boat as the Louisvilles and South Floridas and Florida States and Penn States and Miamis of yesteryear. The only difference is that some teams stepped up and actually tried competing on an even field to earn their shot, and others shied away and merely complained about not having it handed to them.