- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Utah AG Prepares to File Anti-Trust Suit vs. BCS
Posted on 10/1/11 at 9:39 am
Posted on 10/1/11 at 9:39 am
6
Posted on 10/1/11 at 9:46 am to timlan2057
quote:That is because the other conferences blow terribly.
The core of Shurtleff's argument is that the BCS - which includes the Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar bowls - rewards six major football conferences at the expense of five others.
quote:Damn. Poor other conferences. Having to actually play well in order to get a shot must really suck.
By design, the formula for choosing those matchups automatically selects the top team from each of the six original conferences - the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern. Five other conferences get a shot only when their teams play well enough.
Posted on 10/1/11 at 9:52 am to timlan2057
go ahead and let him, he is going to get slaughtered in court. He will be lucky if it doesn't get thrown out.
Posted on 10/1/11 at 1:28 pm to timlan2057
Next he'll sue the computer polls.
Posted on 10/1/11 at 2:31 pm to timlan2057
Didn't they lose a bit of credibility when Utah joined a BCS Conference? They are now essentially suing themselves 
This post was edited on 10/1/11 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 10/1/11 at 2:57 pm to LSULaw2009
This is just so some Senators from Utah like Orren Hatch start anti-trust hearings. Other senators from other states could also do this. This is just posturing. When the Senate gets involved then it will mean something.
Don't belittle or laugh this off. If the US Senate gets invovled we'll see a playoff. Of course there are more important things to worry about, but this is an easy problem to solve to score some political points.
Don't belittle or laugh this off. If the US Senate gets invovled we'll see a playoff. Of course there are more important things to worry about, but this is an easy problem to solve to score some political points.
Posted on 10/1/11 at 3:10 pm to timlan2057
i think he's been preparing to do this since 2008
after reading the article
without the BCS, these conferences would have NO access to this revenue. who remembers the old system?
the non-BCS conferences make MORE money with the BCS
and tehy played in a BCS bowl in both years, with their conference getting the extra money each year
oh so it's not about access to money now...it's about access to the title game?
and in 2004 Auburn was left out of the title game, too
in 2008, USC and Texas were left out of the title game
this is clearly a division among BCS schools and non-BCS schools. only non-BCS schools get left out
this paragraph is just funny on its face
obviously, BCS critics haven't paid attention the past few years
they already did negotiate for payouts
the horror. the colleges who invest in their brands, who make the money, get more in the end
after reading the article
quote:
The arrangement, he argues, creates a system of haves and have-nots in which the favored six conferences have more access to and receive more bowl earnings than their less powerful cousins.
without the BCS, these conferences would have NO access to this revenue. who remembers the old system?
the non-BCS conferences make MORE money with the BCS
quote:
he became an adversary of the BCS after the University of Utah, his law-school alma mater, went undefeated in 2004 and 2008.
and tehy played in a BCS bowl in both years, with their conference getting the extra money each year
quote:
it throttled its power-conference opponents - but neither was the championship game. Shurtleff thought Utah deserved to play for a title.
oh so it's not about access to money now...it's about access to the title game?
and in 2004 Auburn was left out of the title game, too
in 2008, USC and Texas were left out of the title game
this is clearly a division among BCS schools and non-BCS schools. only non-BCS schools get left out
quote:
Shurtleff alleges Utah was locked out because the BCS rating system that selected the top two teams to play in those championships is unfair. The BCS rating system is based on a ranking formula that takes into account polls and strength of schedules.
this paragraph is just funny on its face
quote:
Bowl-game selection is largely determined by teams' performance during the season and their conference membership. Most highly ranked universities come from the BCS' six original conferences. BCS critics say that makes the system inherently biased against the other conferences whose teams typically do not rank highly at the start of the season and can't climb high enough in the polls once the season starts.
obviously, BCS critics haven't paid attention the past few years
quote:
And, he argues, the BCS engages in price fixing because conferences cannot negotiate with bowls on payouts.
they already did negotiate for payouts
quote:
The reason the six major conferences receive larger shares of BCS money, Perlman said, is because they created the system, they play in larger stadiums before more fans, and they drive lucrative television contracts.
quote:
"I don't see a fairness issue," Perlman said. "The reality of the marketplace is, the major teams in the automatic qualifying conferences generate the TV revenue that supports the Bowl Championship Series. . . . Resources flow to those who generate them."
the horror. the colleges who invest in their brands, who make the money, get more in the end
This post was edited on 10/1/11 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 10/1/11 at 4:30 pm to Scruffy
quote:
That is because the other conferences blow terribly.
If the BCS makes that argument in court they will lose. The courts have long been in the business of protecting the little guy.
Posted on 10/2/11 at 7:09 am to RollTide1987
This is why we need 4 super conferences. These 64 teams break away from the BCS and start there own system. 16 team playoff and tell the have nots to go frick themselves.
This post was edited on 10/2/11 at 7:10 am
Posted on 10/2/11 at 9:56 am to Michael J
quote:
16 team playoff a
Posted on 10/2/11 at 9:44 pm to Michael J
quote:
These 64 teams break away from the BCS and start there own system. 16 team playoff and tell the have nots to go frick themselves.
this is exactly why these whiners should shut the frick up. remember the old cfa? the big boys broke away from the ncaa in football; the little boys kissed their arse big time to come back. guess that could and would happen again if they try to hurt the big boys.
Posted on 10/3/11 at 7:18 am to LSU GrandDad
yeah if things move in that direction, the non-BCS schools are going to get effed
i think a simple solution, super conferences or not, is to just create 3 subsets of D1
let boise rule the mid-tier subset and win a national championship every year. i bet you they'd take getting "screwed" in the highest one (due to money)
i think a simple solution, super conferences or not, is to just create 3 subsets of D1
let boise rule the mid-tier subset and win a national championship every year. i bet you they'd take getting "screwed" in the highest one (due to money)
Posted on 10/3/11 at 1:07 pm to LSU GrandDad
The Big 10 and Pac 10 never joined the CFA. The CFA attempted to negotiate their own television contract back in 1982 but Byers(The NCAA) threatened with making all CFA programs members in bad standing. Which meant the schools would not be able to compete in any NCAA sanctioned event in any sport. The Members actually persued breaking from the NCAA at that time but determined the NCAA Basketball tournament was too valuable and would be able to put out an equal product (probably utilizing the NIT) without Big 10 and Pac 10 participation. Instead the organization provided the funding for the University of Georgia and University of Oklahoma to persue an anti-trust lawsuit. 1984 in Oklahoma Vs NCAA the Supreme Court sided with the CFA and broke the NCAA's football broadcast monopoly. A few years later the SEC negotiated their own broadcast contract but the CFA reconfigured their payout schedule and brought the conference back into the fold. In 1990 Notro Dame left the CFA and negotiated an independent contract. Also Penn State left the CFA due to joining the Big 10. Just a few years later the SEC withdrew and negotiated their own independent contract. This was the killing blow although the CFA did cling to life for another 10 years. The death of the CFA had nothing to do with the smaller schools complaining.
Posted on 10/3/11 at 2:12 pm to justafarmer
The BCS added the 5th game and the qualifications for a non-AQ school to avoid anti-trust lawsuits. Before that, the bowl games were left on their own to chose between an undefeated Boise/Utah/etc. vs a 1-2 loss major conference team with a much larger fan base. That ended the argument that the non-AQs were excluded from the BCS bowls as a whole, but it can still be argued that they are excluded from the National Championship.
Posted on 10/3/11 at 2:24 pm to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
That ended the argument that the non-AQs were excluded from the BCS bowls as a whole, but it can still be argued that they are excluded from the National Championship.
How can they argue they are being discriminated against worse than the BCS teams that think they should have gone?
Unless you find evidence of substantial impropriety with the opinion polls I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
Posted on 10/3/11 at 2:47 pm to molsusports
quote:
How can they argue they are being discriminated against worse than the BCS teams that think they should have gone?
Unless you find evidence of substantial impropriety with the opinion polls I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
The fact that there have been eleven undefeated non-AQ teams in the BCS era and none have played for a national title is all the evidence they need.
Posted on 10/3/11 at 2:56 pm to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
The fact that there have been eleven undefeated non-AQ teams in the BCS era and none have played for a national title is all the evidence they need.
Auburn begs to differ
And you are badly inflating the number of teams worth mentioning - even most of the rabid Tulane fans conceded they didn't deserve a shot at a NCG with their schedule. Would have been nice if they got a BCS bowl bid but the system hadn't expanded at that point.
The little schools are cutting off their noses to spite their face. The system has never been more favorable than it is now to them. They have a real shot of playing in the most prestigious bowls in college football today (and this in spite of bringing in substantially less money when they get these chances). That just never used to happen.
Frankly I wish the BCS schools would just separate into their own conference and leave these fools to fend for themselves. If you want to do things the right way and build a program that people care about nationally (FSU did this) then have at it... don't just try and game the system with a soft schedule and then expect a handout
Posted on 10/3/11 at 3:20 pm to molsusports
None of those teams were beaten on the field, thus they did everything they could within the confines of that season to play for a national title. People made similar statements before Utah beat Alabama or Boise beat Oklahoma and they would up looking foolish.
But that is irrelevant to an anti-trust case anyway. All that needs to be proven is that the BCS conferences are part of a collaborative effort to exclude the non-AQs from winning a national title. The fact that Florida State and Miami were able to break through 20 years ago is irrelevant because it was done under a system with fewer bowl tie-ins, open TV contracts, more independent teams, and smaller conferences.
But that is irrelevant to an anti-trust case anyway. All that needs to be proven is that the BCS conferences are part of a collaborative effort to exclude the non-AQs from winning a national title. The fact that Florida State and Miami were able to break through 20 years ago is irrelevant because it was done under a system with fewer bowl tie-ins, open TV contracts, more independent teams, and smaller conferences.
Posted on 10/3/11 at 3:28 pm to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
All that needs to be proven is that the BCS conferences are part of a collaborative effort to exclude the non-AQs from winning a national title
exactly, which turns out to be nonsense because the no one is doing that
esp when the BCS is using computer formulas and opinion polls the lawsuit would have to prove some sort of massive conspiracy.
so pretty much the basis of the lawsuit is sheer nonsense... but I wish the BCS schools would just separate into their own division of football and tell the whiners to go fend for themselves
What you don't like money? Fine, we'll stop giving you money you freeloaders
Posted on 10/3/11 at 3:59 pm to molsusports
Consolidation into four sixteen team conference is a greater anti-trust concern than the current system.
This post was edited on 10/3/11 at 4:27 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News