Utah AG: BCS may violate antitrust laws

[swamprat]

The Mountain West, C-USA, WAC, MAC, and Sunbelt Conferences are all members of the BCS.

 

Let me repeat that.

 

The Mountain West, C-USA, WAC, MAC, and Sunbelt Conferences are all members of the BCS.

 

They are all BCS Conferences.

 

They just don't have automatic bids. Therefore any suit against the BCS is a suit against all of its member conferences, including the University of Utah. In fact, it says that right in the linked article.

[Clyde]

The SEC on its own getting a TV contract doesn't violate anti trust laws because it's ONLY the SEC.

 

Anti Trust Violations occur when more than one big business either combines, partners or colludes to control the marketplace, which is exactly what the BCS has done. They, as a group, have signed exclusive deals with the most lucrative bowls to divy big money to those collective power conferences.

 

I don't know if it is anti trust or not, it would take a lawyer with specific anti trust experience to offer an education opinion. BUT it would seem on the surface that the basic conditions have been met to at least examine the issue.

 

I really think if you would divorce yourself from your view for a minute and look at the fact that you would agree there is the potential for Anti Trust in this situation.

 

By the way, while it doesn't relate to the anti trust case, here's an article by Rick Rielly, who makes a case for Utah as National Champs. http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3815656

 

Please don't think that I haven't at least looked at this from a cursory view despite not being an attorney.

 

My understanding is that antitrust laws aim is to prevent:

 

agreements or practices that restrict free trade or restrict competition between entities

 

banning abusive behavior from an entity that dominates a market

 

and making sure mergers/acquisitions don't create a problem.

 

 

So which of those 3 prongs will the AG hang his legal hat on? Lets say he goes with the obvious choice of "restricting competition." Is it really? Is anyone preventing Utah from starting a "business" of BCS-type bowls?

 

"Abusive behavior" can't be it , can it? Is the BCS forbidding advertisers from being in their bowls if they ever think of doing business with another bowl entity? No.

 

So what will be the legal leg that the AG tries to prop him case upon?

[Clyde]

Anti Trust Violations occur when more than one big business either combines, partners or colludes to control the marketplace, which is exactly what the BCS has done. They, as a group, have signed exclusive deals with the most lucrative bowls to divy big money to those collective power conferences.

 

]

 

I would argue that the ABC/ESPN TV contracts being paid out to conference such as the SEC/Big 12/Big 10 are no different than 6 conferences getting together with the bowls.

 

Swap out bowl committee with "ABC/ESPN" and you would seem to be saying the same thing.

[MexicanBob]

There is no doubt, two aurguable sides to this. I'm not saying I agree that Anti Trust laws have been violated, but there is the potential. A lot of what determines whether it's anti trust is what was said and done to make the deal happen.

 

I would say that the restriction of competition would be the area of concern. To use a old anti trust example, there was nothing preventing other oil companies from starting up or continuing to compete with Standard Oil, however it was ruled that the size of the company and the sway that they had provided for an environment that restricted competition. It could be argued that the same things exists with the BCS. The minor conferences don't have the sway that the major conferences have, thus it restricts their abitlity to bargain.

 

I think in general anti trust laws are difficult to use in sports. But this could be a clever way to force a better end of season system, one that would give teams like Utah a chance to compete for a national title. I think as fans we all want the same thing, which is the best teams competing at year's end for the ulitmate prize.

[All Tell]

How many have deserved the chance to play for it? One, maybe? If Utah doesn't like the system they should put USC on the schedule. I guarantee you if they would have beaten USC in a regular season game this year they would be playing Thursday night. All of these mid majors that want to whine and cry about getting left out need to have at least one monster program on their schedule. I didn't see that on Utah's schedule this year. Yes, they had some nice wins but their best regular season win was TCU and that was a conference game.

 

 

The trouble is that the "monster" programs won't schedule "mid-majors" like Utah because they know they could lose. They want to fill their non-conference schedule with cream puffs.

[woodsrider]

The trouble is that the "monster" programs won't schedule "mid-majors" like Utah because they know they could lose. They want to fill their non-conference schedule with cream puffs.

I would normally agree but I can't recall USC really dodging anyone.

[MexicanBob]

I would normally agree but I can't recall USC really dodging anyone.

 

USC can only schedule so many teams a year. THere are, of course a few exceptions, but most of the top tier programs wont schedule teams like Utah, or they won't play them home and home. It's not fair to ask Utah to have to travel everywhere to play a top tier BCS team (even if they are getting $$). Kudos to Michigan for playing them. Even though the Wolverines were pathetic this year, they were a top 5 team when the game was scheduled.