re: Playoff Bill set to go to the House

My two cents on the matter:

Universities receive large amounts of revenue from national championships in the two main collegiate sports. Not only that, they also get noticed by prospective high school seniors looking at colleges. LSU had a huge spike in numbers for the freshman class last year and in 2004. Most of these students are out-of-state and would generally ignore Louisiana for higher education. Growth for university system enrollments is normally a positive. Cincinnati or Boise State, both of whom are not top tier universities, would love to see an increase in smart out-of-state students look to their campus as a college choice.

quote:

---

Supreme Court would likely find it unconstitutional.

---

How would this be unconstitutional?

quote:

---

bill that would allow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit any bowl game from calling itself a "national championship" unless the game is "the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff system."

---

The FTC can prohibit products from calling themselves "Fat Free" if they're not truly fat free. The agency is within its right to prohibit false advertising. If they prohibit the BCS from using the words "national championship" in their advertising, when the BCS is in fact not the "national championship", then that is within their power as the federal regulator with powers over marketing.

quote:

---

Barton's bill would prohibit the BCS from billing itself as a national championship. Under the bill, any attempt to market the BCS as a championship would be treated as unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

---

The BCS could still have the game but they just couldn't call it a "national championship".

I'm not arguing whether they should do it or not. I'm just saying that they can.

And they can even without this bill being passed.

quote:

---

Find me where in our founding documents it says this is the domain of Wash DC.

---

Can you seriously argue that college football is NOT interstate commerce? I don't think the House should be bothering with this, but it certainly passes Constitutional muster. Texas and Alabama are PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS in two different states playing a game in California.

You can argue its a bad idea, but the Constitutional argument is a sure loser, even for a strict textualist.

quote:

---

penalize the system that calls it a national championship unless it is the end result of a single-elimination tournament.

A plus one would fit this mold.

---

a plus one, in the classical sense, would not

quote:

---

The BCS conference by definition limit participation in a market

---

it's a market they created among themselves

quote:

---

And when was the last time a BCS conference added a team from a non-BCS conference?

---

when the ACC expanded and the Big East took a bunch of CUSA teams. it was a few years ago

this was well after the formation of the BCS

quote:

---

No non-BCS team has been added since the invention of the BCS.

---

Louisville disagrees

quote:

---

it's a market they created among themselves

---

And that matters because? Once again, not real big on antitrust law, are ya?

quote:

---

when the ACC expanded and the Big East took a bunch of CUSA teams. it was a few years ago

this was well after the formation of the BCS

---

Forgot about the Big East. Of course, since Cincy is getting hosed, they might want to bring the suit. So, you have a few facts which support your legally incorrect conclusion. My apologies.

Adding new parties to a monopoly is hardly a defense to antitrust.

Without getting too technical, a monopoly is one party excluding others from a market. A market is, well, whatever you can convince the court it is. I'd probably argue the market is not "crowning a champ", it is the National title game itself, since that's where the money is. All sports leagues are somewhat monopolistic and we're okay with that.

But no one has ever argued that the SEC is a monopoly, though it is a cartel. Which would raise some issues if anyone wanted to challenge it. From a legal standpoint, most sports leagues SHOULD lose antitrust cases, they just won't because the law is applied differently to sports leagues. I think an antitrust case would be destined to fail (sports leagues have other interests other than making money, the teams are actually dependant on each other which is different than in a normal industry in which there is every incentive to drive the competitor out of business), but that doesn't mean the BCS isn't a monopoly.

Your argument that the BCS isn't a monopoly because they limit the market and then will allow a few people in there club is actually an argument that they ARE a monopoly.

quote:

---

i fail to see how a group forming to anoint a national champion falls under anti-trust

is the AP under anti-trust regulations?

---

I wasn'y aware the AP put on a bowl game which they sold tickets to and the rights to TV networks. Oh, that's right, they don't. The POLL is not a monopoly because there is no market. It's the GAME, which derives revenue.

Easy solution: have all the other conferences join up and have a game and call it the "Non-BCS National Championship". I mean if EVERYONE is so hard up on seeing these teams compete, then this should bring in all kinds of money and eliminate the bitching, right?