Anti-Trust Violation by P5 Conferences and NCAA

by **Ranger19** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:34 am

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... itrust-law

The ruling in the O'Bannon case does not specifically address the current trend toward anti-trust law violations by the P5 conferences, schools and the NCAA when it comes to the "have not" schools, but it does give an idea of how a federal court might rule if a case was brought.

All the talk about SMU being on the "wrong side of the divide" and "late to the party" is true, but the talk fails to see the forest for the trees. The large conferences, their members and the NCAA are in clear violation of federal anti-trust laws NOW. They are colluding to create an environment in which the talent, revenue and access to competition at its highest level is limited to a select few; leaving other valid members of D1 NCAA football out. As O'Bannon rules, student-athletes are well on their way to being paid; and Northwestern football players were recently allowed to unionize.

Some of the "talk" says that Texas would never "allow" SMU into the Big 12. That may well be the case, but if UT, the Big 12 and the NCAA don't "allow" SMU and the other "have not" schools access to D1 revenue, athletes, and competition at its highest level, then they are in violation of federal anti-trust law.

We have a lot to do on the competition side and the playing field is already far from fair. If the situation continues, as it probably will, with SMU and other schools left out, then an excellent anti-trust suit against the big schools, their conferences and the NCAA may bust this trust wide open.

by **Nacho** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:41 am

just my opinion but i think most schools are afraid to sue because they are under the impression (delusion) that they will be invited to join a p5 conference in the future. they don't want to upset the major conferences and risk not being invited to the party.

by **Ranger19** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:27 am

Nacho wrote:just my opinion but i think most schools are afraid to sue because they are under the impression (delusion) that they will be invited to join a p5 conference in the future. they don't want to upset the major conferences and risk not being invited to the party.

I agree. Once the realization hits home that they won't be invited to a P5 conference, they would risk the slow disintegration of their programs or sue. A lawsuit would be risky, but the anti-trust offense is clear, so the chances of winning the lawsuit would be great.

The promise (or threat) of a lawsuit might also persuade the P5 conferences to open their doors and let the "have nots" in on their terms, rather than terms dictated by a federal judge.

by **Stallion** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:45 am

One of my biggest concerns from SMU's perspective is I doubt very seriously that SMU's advertising rights per player are worth $5,000 per player per year so that is a second significant yearly amount in addition to the likely $2,000 per month for cost of attendance per athlete that SMU will either have to eat or get out-recruited by all school that agree to the cap. For example, did SMU obtain $25,000 in additional advertising fees for the advertising rights that-say Der'rick Thompson- generated for the university. I doubt it. Nobody is pouring money into the university to get a Der'rick Thompson jersey etc. At a school like A&M that's no big deal. Johnny Paycheck alone was worth millions

I loved the finding by the judge that the NCAA serves as a classic cartel. If appeals are unsuccessful NCAA is basically left with 2 options-either seek legislative remedies by lobbying Congress to amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to create a fair, reasonable student/athlete exemption or continue to face a series of very viable ant-trust lawsuits

by **Topper** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:59 am

Color me naive but it makes me sick that we even have to have this discussion. The very idea that a true scholar/athlete who wants to play against the best competition and compete for a championship must select a school based on the athletic department's tie in with a major conference (membership dictated by the broadcast networks) is more than a little repulsive.

Similarly, there are kids languishing on the sidelines at the OUs and Alabamas of the world who would be starters at an SMU or Tulane, and might even prefer the experience of attending a top private school if that private or smaller state school that could give them the opportunity to compete at a higher level.

The goal of college athletics should be increased participation not the size of the bank accounts of the athletic department employees.

by **Stallion** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:06 am

Basically the judge said the BCS was Goose that laid the Golden Egg but also destroyed the legitimacy of the student/athlete academic model. Next up-the Internal Revenue Service

by **Stallion** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:13 am

Quick, general financial analysis of decision and costs to compete with P5-I'm not a financial analyst but

$2,000 x 85 football players x 12= $2,040,000 (Monthly Full Cost of Education Stipend)

PLUS:

$5,000 x 85 football players= $425,000 (yearly player advertising contribution)

TOTAL: $2,465,000 (Football Only)

by **PonyKris89** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:35 am

Isn't the stipend $2,000 per player per year, not per month?

by **Hoop Fan** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:37 am

If i was the G5, i would be making my demands and threats very privately in this situation. So that may be what is happening, just because its not on ESPN news, doesnt mean its not happening behind the scenes. As for the money, Stallion, are you sure the $2000 is per month? I thought it was between $2000-5000 supplement per athete per year, not per month.

by **Hilltop** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:37 am

All of this is fascinating, but in my mind it's not the increased cost of participation that is going to hurt SMU football. I think the real challenge and new dividing line will come in future scheduling by the Power 5 conferences. Not a lot of people are discussing this, but there is a real push for the power 5 conferences to only schedule in conference opponents and other power 5 teams for their non conference schedule. Some believe that in the next four years this will be mandated by all of the P5 schools completely cutting off the rest of the Division I schools.

by **Hoop Fan** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:40 am

Hilltop wrote:All of this is fascinating, but in my mind it's not the increased cost of participation that is going to hurt SMU football. I think the real challenge and new dividing line will come in future scheduling by the Power 5 conferences. Not a lot of people are discussing this, but there is a real push for the power 5 conferences to only schedule in conference opponents and other power 5 teams for their non conference schedule. Some believe that in the next four years this will be mandated by all of the P5 schools completely cutting off the rest of the Division I schools.

blatant antitrust. I could not belive the ACC and SEC conferences made those annoucements publicly. Just asking for a lawsuit.

by **PonyKris89** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:43 am

Hilltop wrote:All of this is fascinating, but in my mind it's not the increased cost of participation that is going to hurt SMU football. I think the real challenge and new dividing line will come in future scheduling by the Power 5 conferences. Not a lot of people are discussing this, but there is a real push for the power 5 conferences to only schedule in conference opponents and other power 5 teams for their non conference schedule. Some believe that in the next four years this will be mandated by all of the P5 schools completely cutting off the rest of the Division I schools.

yep, and that scenario would be a bullet in an anti trust case.

by **SMU1523** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:50 am

I don't understand how so many people in the media are having this conversation, but are completely ignoring the legislation Jim Delaney and his goons are going to have to get around. For instance, how are they going to get around Title IX? You can't just pay the revenue producing teams (which is usually exclusively Football and Men's Basketball). Yes, this seems to me to be clearly anti-competitive behavior.

by **floridianstang** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:55 am

People like David vs Goliath. They won't lock the G5 out, they can't. If they do, then the athletic departments should be considered taxable for profit corporations and pay their fair share.

by **Nacho** » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:13 pm

too bad teddy roosevelt is dead.