- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Playoff Bill set to go to the House
Posted on 12/9/09 at 1:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 12/9/09 at 1:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Either is anyone before they go work for a union shop, but aren't they forced to join the union?
Depends on the industry and the union. But the difference here is that sports is the only industry which restrains trade of potential members BEFORE they join. The drafted, unsigned player is bound by a CBA signed by a union he is not a party to. And the CBA forces him to negotiate with only the team that drafted him, signifigantly weakening his negotiating power. A mechanic who doesn't want to work under particular rules can go to a different company, he is free to contract with anyone he wants. Not so for the drafted player. The other 31 football companies are prohibited from negotiating with that drafted player.
quote:
Fed Ex and DHL are stand alone companies, the Dalls Cowboys are not. They are worthless without other NFL teams to play games against. Sports teams are franchises. If you work for McDonlads, they can tell you want store to work at, sports is not different.
Which gets in to WHY sports are considered different. But the Cowboys ARE a different company than the Redskins. They are interdependent becuase they are members of the same cartel, but you do not sign a contract with the NFL, you sign one with the Dallas Cowboys.
I've been pointing out this problem that the different companies don't have the same incentive to compete which is why the law is so wierd regarding sports, so you're not bringing up an issue I haven't brought up a few times already. But a player is NOT contracting with the NFL, so it is inherently different than McDonald's shipping a guy from the Atlanta office to the Cleveland one.
quote:
spare the hyperbole, I know you are smart enough to understand that private business making agreements is not the same as government control of production.
Yeesh... lighten up. Obviously I don't think the NFL is communist. It's called a joke. But private businesses making agreements to restrain trade is pretty much textbook antitrust. And no less of a liberal than George Will has said that he believes in the free market ewxcept in baseball, where even he thinks socialism works. George Will.
When making argument against monopolies, try not to invoke a monopoly.
0
Posted on 12/9/09 at 1:43 pm to TIGERSandFROGS
quote:
Maybe some of the big BCS schools should man up and accept their offer to play anyone, anywhere, anytime for no compensation. Oh I know why, because then they can't knock BSU by saying they don't play anyone
BCS teams play non-BCS teams all the time
it's about money
why would tehre be no compensation?
quote:
Non-BCS schools get about 1/4th the payout that BCS schools do
link?
Posted on 12/9/09 at 1:44 pm to TIGERSandFROGS
quote:
Then let them declare it the ACC/Big 10/Big 12/Big East/PAC 10/SEC inter-conference championship
it is
it's the BCS national champion
Posted on 12/9/09 at 1:46 pm to TIGERSandFROGS
quote:
Are you trying to argue that the BCS is in violation of anti-trust laws, because you just stated that the money schools gain from it directly bolsters universities involved, while others don't get that money...
no
the argument was well-past antitrust law
antitrust law in sports is a mish mush of bullshite
quote:
because you just stated that the money schools gain from it directly bolsters universities involved, while others don't get that money
CFB is more than just the BCS. that statement was about CFB programs and their impact on ADs
Posted on 12/9/09 at 1:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
BCS teams play non-BCS teams all the time
it's about money
why would tehre be no compensation?
quote:
Non-BCS schools get about 1/4th the payout that BCS schools do
link?
More often than not, BCS schools that schedule schools like Boise and TCU back out if they can find someone crappy at the last minute and if it appears they won't need additional strength of schedule. TCU has had 4 contracts terminated on them in the past 4 years, from UT, Arkansas, OU, and TTech (next season) in just that situation. The one exception was when TCU agreed to play a one and done at UT, and UT only agreed to it because they needed to fill a slot and knew TCU was going to have a team they could beat--though TCU did give them a scare by hanging around until midway through the 4th.
LINK
Check out the sidebar regarding what Boise received for the Fiesta. It's actually less than 1/4.
Posted on 12/9/09 at 1:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it is
it's the BCS national champion
Saying that the BCS National Champion is the champion of the 6 autoqualifier conferences makes no sense. Even the BCS claims to be composed of all 11 conferences of college football. See below for a link to the BCS webpage listing all 11 conferences:
LINK
Edit: 11 conferences, plus Notre Dame
This post was edited on 12/9/09 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:00 pm to TIGERSandFROGS
quote:
Check out the sidebar regarding what Boise received for the Fiesta. It's actually less than 1/4.
what BSU receives isn't the issue. the WAC is the party who receives the money. how they distribute it, is not up to me
the BCS doesn't pay schools. it pays conferences. all bowls end up paying the conference, who splits it among its members
quote:
The non-guaranteed leagues (Conference USA, WAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, Mid-American) receive 9% of the projected BCS net revenue, or about $9 million on an annual basis
they get $9M for nothing. they aren't even a part of the BCS and get $9M a year
quote:
More often than not, BCS schools that schedule schools like Boise and TCU back out if they can find someone crappy at the last minute and if it appears they won't need additional strength of schedule.
when was the last time this happened?
TCU does well OOC
Utah does well OOC
BYU does well OOC
the WAC? not so much
quote:
TCU has had 4 contracts terminated on them in the past 4 years, from UT, Arkansas, OU, and TTech (next season) in just that situation
this happens with BCS schools too
see: UT and Arky. the 2nd game has been postponed
quote:
when TCU agreed to play a one and done
this is the road they need to pursue, esp BSU
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:01 pm to TIGERSandFROGS
quote:
Saying that the BCS National Champion is the champion of the 6 autoqualifier conferences makes no sense
that's what it is
and the "autoqualifiers" are BCS conference champions
you're either BCS, or you're not
quote:
Even the BCS claims to be composed of all 11 conferences of college football.
you can blame the non-BCS conferences for this
the BCS is an agreement among 6 conferences, with some deference given to non-members for public relations
look at the history of what formed the BCS. it is a grouping of 6 conferences. those are the BCS conferences
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
Once again, SFP. Your antitrust argument is essentially arguing that the BCS is a monopoly.
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:17 pm to Baloo
a monopoly like the NBA, NFL, or NCAA, sure
i'm not the one trying to argue that the courts would ever threaten to take any real adverse action against these organizations
i'm not the one trying to argue that the courts would ever threaten to take any real adverse action against these organizations
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:18 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Congress has no business getting involved in how college football chooses a champion. I think they have more important matters to deal with.
Interesting that this bill was originated by Joe Barton, one of the most conservative Republicans. And the only vote against it in Committee was from a Democrat.
quote:
Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. “With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on,” Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn’t like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what BSU receives isn't the issue. the WAC is the party who receives the money. how they distribute it, is not up to me
All non-AQ conferences are treated as a single conference, and therefore the pie is much smaller by the time it gets down to the school that earned the spot. Read the freaking articles about it, I'm not here to teach you.
quote:
they get $9M for nothing. they aren't even a part of the BCS and get $9M a year
They get 9% of the revenue split among them so that they can sign on as being part of the BCS and the BCS can say all FBS conferences are a part of it. They are 5 of 11 conferences, but they split 9% of the revenue... non-AQ conferences aren't the free-loaders, it's the shitty AQ conference teams that are.
quote:
when was the last time this happened?
Happening right now with TTech cancelling on TCU because they know they don't stand a chance next year. It's their way of stacking the records, becasue they can back out if they think they'll lose, but they'll stay in if they think they'll win.
quote:
TCU does well OOC
Utah does well OOC
BYU does well OOC
Occasionally TCU, Utah, and BYU get good teams. Most of the time it's out of desperation, like Oregon playing Boise to fill a spot, Oregon St playing Utah to fill a spot, and Clemson playing TCU to fill a spot. All of those were this season.
quote:
this happens with BCS schools too
see: UT and Arky. the 2nd game has been postponed
That was mutual and never would have happened if a hurricane hadn't screwed up the first leg of the trip.
quote:
this is the road they need to pursue, esp BSU
Boise currently has a standing offer to play a one-and-done at any BCS school without compensation for travel. Nobody has taken them up on it because they would rather pay 600k to play crappy FBS teams and FCS teams.
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:quote:
Saying that the BCS National Champion is the champion of the 6 autoqualifier conferences makes no sense
that's what it is
and the "autoqualifiers" are BCS conference champions
you're either BCS, or you're not
What about when Oklahoma played for it in 2003? If they had won, they would've been the BCS inter-conference champion, according to you, but would've not been their own conference champion.
Your argument has 10,000 holes in it. I'm starting to think you're a little kid.
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i'm not the one trying to argue that the courts would ever threaten to take any real adverse action against these organizations
No one is because that's a non-sensical statement. The courts can't threaten to do squat, they can only administer the cases brought before them. Courts don't sue people. And I've stated repeatedly I think the antitrust lawsuit would lose, just not for the reasons which you are stating, which bear no resmeblance to antitrust law.
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:26 pm to TIGERSandFROGS
quote:
All non-AQ conferences are treated as a single conference
and they also get money every year, even if they send no teams to the BCS bowls
this is the trade off, just like with Notre Dame (who is kinda BCS, but kinda not)
there is going to be $27M distributed this year, and these teams' contributions are not worth that. remember that
quote:
non-AQ conferences aren't the free-loaders,
they don't contribute to the financial viability of the BCS, and share in the spoils
quote:
becasue they can back out if they think they'll lose, but they'll stay in if they think they'll win.
yeah this happens every year with BCS schools and BCS schools. don't feel special
quote:
Most of the time it's out of desperation, like Oregon playing Boise to fill a spot, Oregon St playing Utah to fill a spot, and Clemson playing TCU to fill a spot. All of those were this season.
and?
if these non-BCS teams would travel east more, and do 1-and-dones, they'd get better OOC
quote:
if a hurricane hadn't screwed up the first leg of the trip.
they played the first leg of the trip
quote:
Boise currently has a standing offer to play a one-and-done at any BCS school without compensation for travel.
and i have a standing offer to frick any woman in the world better than a 9.5. both are bullshite
BSU = PR bullshite
BSU hasn't cross the mississippi, i don't believe, since UGA skull fricked them in 2005
quote:
Nobody has taken them up on it because they would rather pay 600k to play crappy FBS teams and FCS teams.
nobody has taken them up on it b/c their offer is as real as gremlins
their OOC slate is full for 2010, and 2011-2012 i believe
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:27 pm to Baloo
quote:
And I've stated repeatedly I think the antitrust lawsuit would lose, just not for the reasons which you are stating, which bear no resmeblance to antitrust law
many sports law antitrust rulings bear little resemblence to real antitrust law
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
How are you a lawyer?
The only reason you know spots antitrust law is bizarre is because I told you. So now you believe an antitrust suit is destined to fail because antitrust law with regards to sports is nonsensical? Wouldn’t the wildly unpredictable nature of the previous litigation mean you don’t want to tempt fate?
The only reason you know spots antitrust law is bizarre is because I told you. So now you believe an antitrust suit is destined to fail because antitrust law with regards to sports is nonsensical? Wouldn’t the wildly unpredictable nature of the previous litigation mean you don’t want to tempt fate?
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:41 pm to Baloo
quote:
The only reason you know spots antitrust law is bizarre is because I told you.
naw i took sports law, forgot it, wiki'd it, and remembered the cases. the various draft cases (as you would likely agree) were a bunch of bullshite
i don't know regular labor law. only some sports law
quote:
Wouldn’t the wildly unpredictable nature of the previous litigation mean you don’t want to tempt fate?
they're only unpredictable because courts bend the law to protect sports industry
as long as i was on the side of big sports, i'd feel comfy
like a DA who knows the search was illegal feeling comfortable that the judge won't suppress the evidence
This post was edited on 12/9/09 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
Don’t get me started on the Fourth Amendment. It’s dead. Scalia killed it. Seriously, a cop would have to be the biggest moron on earth not to be able to search you and get the evidence in. Pisses me off. We’ve let our Fourth Amendment rights be stricken from us right before our eyes and we… oh, sorry. Wrong board.
Yeah, the courts have protected sports because they are popular. The BCS is UNpopular. In fact, even those opposing the legislation are still throwing in the “I hate the BCS” comments to their constituency. There’s plenty of political cover to honestly apply antitrust law against the BCS, and the courts know that.
If I’m the BCS conferences, I don’t want this decided by a politician or a judge. Because the general population hates the BCS. It’s tremendously unpopular and while I would like to think judges are above thinking about their personal popularity, I’m not so naïve is to believe that. It’s the exact reason why they created rules to make the BCS more open to the non-BCS schools. To quiet the complainers while still preserving the bowls. It’s a great strategy, honestly.
Yeah, the courts have protected sports because they are popular. The BCS is UNpopular. In fact, even those opposing the legislation are still throwing in the “I hate the BCS” comments to their constituency. There’s plenty of political cover to honestly apply antitrust law against the BCS, and the courts know that.
If I’m the BCS conferences, I don’t want this decided by a politician or a judge. Because the general population hates the BCS. It’s tremendously unpopular and while I would like to think judges are above thinking about their personal popularity, I’m not so naïve is to believe that. It’s the exact reason why they created rules to make the BCS more open to the non-BCS schools. To quiet the complainers while still preserving the bowls. It’s a great strategy, honestly.
Posted on 12/9/09 at 2:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and they also get money every year, even if they send no teams to the BCS bowls
So does 3/4ths of the BCS. frick you're dumb.
quote:
there is going to be $27M distributed this year, and these teams' contributions are not worth that. remember that
That's your opinion, but let me tell you why it's stupid. You must not think the Fiesta Bowl will make more than that off of these teams. Maybe if it were up to you, you would've invited VT to play Okie State in Glendale--that would've worked out well.
quote:
they don't contribute to the financial viability of the BCS, and share in the spoils
See above. (you're a ruhtard)
quote:
they played the first leg of the trip
Delayed almost the length of the season, which nobody wanted. There was a lot of in-fighting about it, which was why they both agreed to cancel the second game.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News