Utah AG May Sue BCS

by **mathman** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:47 pm

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/s ... 6c978.html

by **jtstang** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:50 pm

Stallion has been saying tthis should happen for years. Now finally we have a potential plaintiff with standing and maybe even actual damages. I hope he pulls the trigger on this, it'll be fun to watch.

by **RGV Pony** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:51 pm

wouldn't they have a similar problem that was faced by SMU boosters in the 80s? i.e. Utah nor its boosters are members of the BCS, so they don't have standing to sue the BCS?

by **Pony Soup** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:03 pm

RGV Pony wrote:they don't have standing to sue the BCS?

Why not?

by **RGV Pony** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:07 pm

Pony Soup wrote:
RGV Pony wrote:they don't have standing to sue the BCS?

Why not?

no idea. But why didn't SMU/its boosters have standing to sue the NCAA? Yeah yeah apples & oranges. But humor me.

by **jtstang** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:08 pm

RGV Pony wrote:wouldn't they have a similar problem that was faced by SMU boosters in the 80s? i.e. Utah nor its boosters are members of the BCS, so they don't have standing to sue the BCS?

Well, not really. SMU boosters clearly have no standing to sue the NCAA because SMU boosters are not members of the NCAA. SMU would have standing to bring such a suit itself, but would lose bacause the NCAA is a voluntary organization SMU joined. It did not have to.

The BCS on the other hand, is an organization that has only "invited" certain members. Those schools excluded, like Utah, may well be adversely affected by the fact of exclusion being a restraint on competition, thus have standing to sue for antitrust violations. Stallion I recall has more experience in this area than me, but the standing issue I believe is one that is not a problem for an AG whose state school has been the victim of anti-competitive practices.

by **SMU 86** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:15 pm

Go get'em Utah. I heard that others are in the process of doing the same thing.

by **Pony Soup** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:15 pm

jtstang wrote:
RGV Pony wrote:wouldn't they have a similar problem that was faced by SMU boosters in the 80s? i.e. Utah nor its boosters are members of the BCS, so they don't have standing to sue the BCS?

Well, not really. SMU boosters clearly have no standing to sue the NCAA because SMU boosters are not members of the NCAA. SMU would have standing to bring such a suit itself, but would lose bacause the NCAA is a voluntary organization SMU joined. It did not have to.

The BCS on the other hand, is an organization that has only "invited" certain members. Those schools excluded, like Utah, may well be adversely affected by the fact of exclusion being a restraint on competition, thus have standing to sue for antitrust violations. Stallion I recall has more experience in this area than me, but the standing issue I believe is one that is not a problem for an AG whose state school has been the victim of anti-competitive practices.

I would expect that the NCAA bylaws allow them to suspend a school's rights to participate while engaged in pending litigation with the organization.

by **jtstang** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:18 pm

You could find out for sure if you want, they're online.

by **Pony Soup** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:19 pm

dont care really, glad the bcs is a separate entity.

by **Stallion** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:29 pm

The Attorney General is the chief legal representative of the State of Utah and its subdivisions including state schools like Utah University. I'm pretty sure they have standing as a representative of a state school. Just as the Board of Trustees at SMU would have standing. A mere fan of a university would not have standing. One of the real problems I see is that Utah IS A MEMBER of the BCS-remember they have played in 2 BCS bowls in 3 years or so- so theoretically they were conspiring with themselves - a legal impossibility -so how were they damaged. They may have contracted away their right to complain about the conspiracy by joining the conspiracy. The case is somewhat weaker than it might have been since the non-BCS schools and their conferences sat down at the negotiating table and negotiated themselves right into agreeing to the BCS agreement. In fact, all Division 1A schools are BCS schools and in BCS conferences since they have all agreed to participate in the system. But the BCS really doesn't want this-that's why they keep including more concessions to the smaller schools and conferences. I still think the whole thing including conference bowl alighnments and BCS bowls is a "house of Cards". Just as the NCAA ruled in the OU and Georgia v. NCAA
I think the Supreme Court would eventually rule that the rights to TV revenues and contracts , bowl revenues and contracts etc belong to each individual school and not to the NCAA or for that matter not to SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and other BCS conferences.

by **mr. pony** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:35 pm

You go, Utah. About time somebody had the stones to do this. :twisted:

These d*mn BCS conferences are killing the rest of us.

by **HB Pony Dad** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:11 am

Stallion wrote:I think the Supreme Court would eventually rule that the rights to TV revenues and contracts , bowl revenues and contracts etc belong to each individual school and not to the NCAA or for that matter not to SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and other BCS conferences.

The NCAA doesn't run the Bowls so the NCAA is not at fault, but rather each University President who all conspire to keep the Bowl System with it's financial windfalls in place.

ABC (ESPN) has contracted for another round of BCS Bowl Games.

It includes exclusive television, radio, digital, international and marketing rights for the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls from 2011-2014 and the BCS title game from 2011 to 2013.

The Rose Bowl will continue to be televised on ABC through 2014 under a separate, previous contract. The Rose Bowl is also slated to host the 2014 title game.

So any thought of litigation or playoffs is just a pipe dream.

Nothing is changing so we can continue to disagree about my TROJANS being the most likely to win any mythical games!

by **ThadFilms** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:16 am

HB Pony Dad wrote:Nothing is changing so we can continue to disagree about my TROJANS being the most likely to win any mythical games!

FIGHT ON TO VICTORY!

If I had a vote, I'd vote Utah. But if I had to pick who would win in a playoff, SC hands down.

Why would I vote Utah? It's not sticking up for the "little guy" it's just this simple, they have been playing well for years, this is the second time in 5 years they have gone undefeated and won their BCS bowl game, both times convincingly I might add... I could see an argument for them not being "qualified" after their win over Pitt in the Fiesta a few years back, as Pitt was not really ever in the title hunt.... BUT Alabama was undefeated going into the SEC title game, a game that everyone knew was going to be a shoe-in for the National Title game... and Utah throttled them.

Yes I am posting right after HB.... bromance?

http://www.ponyfans.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=37034

I'm going to go with coincidence on this one, as I returned to PF just to reply to this Utah post... but whatever. I'm comfortable enough in the fact that I like women, I mean, really like women, to let the joke continue. But, um, of course, I also like HB's whiskey supply too, so you know... count that for whatever you want. Wishing I had some Johhnie Walker Black right now. Sigh... (and, on the other hand, thankful that I am not sitting on frozen aluminum in the hopes that 18 hours later I'll be drinking Johnnie Walker black.)

by **White Helmet** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:12 am

you need an upgrade HB

Utah AG May Sue BCS

Utah AG May Sue BCS

Who is online