Justice Dept and the BCS

[Crong]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/05/04/ncaa.bcs/

(CNN) -- In a letter to the NCAA on Wednesday, the Justice Department's antitrust chief asked for information on the current Bowl Championship Series system, which excludes some athletic conferences from the formula for choosing schools to play in major bowl games.

The NCAA is not required to answer the questions posed by Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, the Justice Department said. The information she is seeking would be used to help determine whether an antitrust investigation should be opened.

Millions of dollars in revenue are at stake in the football bowl selection process.

"Serious questions continue to arise suggesting that the current BCS system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in federal antitrust laws," Varney wrote in the letter to Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA in Indianapolis.

The decision to release the letter came hours after Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a major opponent of the current system, demanded further consideration of the issue in a face-to-face appearance with Attorney General Eric Holder at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Holder then disclosed the Justice Department had sent the letter to the NCAA on the issue.

In her letter, Varney asked Emmert to explain why college football does not have a playoff when so many other college sports do. She also asked what steps, if any, the NCAA has taken to create a playoff, and whether the NCAA has determined that there are aspects of the BCS system that do not serve interests of fans, colleges, universities, and players.

Currently, the BCS system limits automatic bids to the winners of the Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, ACC, Pac 10 and SEC, thereby leaving out other conferences, including almost all schools in the Rocky Mountain region.

[rich59]

This has a little potential!

[RE Tycoon]

We should be in the ears of the big boys in case they bolt to throw their own party. Make a call to Ford, et al. for an upgrade to the stadium that will compare to the best in the country. Make Ford the best 45k-50k stadium in the country and start winning...that's our only hope.

I don't see the haves capitulating and including all 120 teams in the fun.

[ObeyMyDog]

This has a little potential!

It does. It will only go as far as they are willing to take it though.

There is absolutely no question that the BCS, in some way or another, violates anti-trust law. If all of the sudden we had full access to all their financials and private info, I'm convinced it would be impossible not to find something wrong.

Again, depends how far they want to take this, and if they are ready for the circus that would follow if they actually filed suit against the BCS. Anybody in the business of big league lobbying is licking their chops hoping their services are needed.

[Stallion]

As originally conceived I thought it was a very strong case. As the BCS has allowed greater access to TCU(2), Boise(2), Utah and Hawaii it may not be nearly as strong a case-plus the non-BCS schools get a more significant cut of the pie. Can anyone really claim that any non-BCS school has been unjustly denied a spot in the BCS Championship game. I still think aspects are unfair-for example the non-BCS share is cut only from the non-BCS slice of the non-BCS representative. Why should TCU get less than Wisconsin. The best result would be to broaden the investigation to include the entire "tied" BCS Bowl system which has really messed up the bowl season. An antitrust Plaintiff must define the relevant market-for example does the antitrust violation occur in the market for NCAA Football Championship, or in the market for NCAA Bowls or even in the broader market for college football. The decision on how a plaintiff will define that relevant market will be one of the most interesting aspects of the case. Generally, it may be more difficult to prove an antitrust violation in a broader relevant market but that's exactly how litigation could really benefit non-BCS schools. Right now the Justice Department seems to be focusing more tightly on the BCS Championship only

[AusTxPony]

Stallion, or any other lawyer: Can the case bring in the aspect of implied (if not real) 2nd tier status of the non-BCS schools and its impact on recruiting, attendance as well as sports revenue? I don't speak legalese, so tell me in English.

[Stallion]

yeah that is what I was getting at-the broader the relevant market, the broader the analysis of the effect of the anti-competitive conduct in that defined market. But if the relevant market is defined as simply the access to BCS Championship (as the Justice Department appears focused on) then the tighter the analysis since it may be really difficult for the Plaintiff to show that a single non-BCS program has really been screwed out of the 2 spots in any BCS Championship. Has a non-BCS team ever been No. 1 or No. 2 in the BCS polls prior to the Championship? I don't think so. Note if the relevant market is defined so restrictively, then the effect of BCS collusion on downstream Bowls even BCS Bowls would likely be ruled irrelevant.

[mr. pony]

Obama takes down bin Laden AND the BCS?
We can call off the 2012 election right now.