NCAA Now Owns the NIT

[MrMustang1965]

From Wire Services:

NEW YORK - The NCAA owns college basketball's postseason. Really.

The organization that made March mad with the 65-team national championship tournament purchased the rights to the preseason and postseason National Invitation Tournaments as part of a settlement that ends a four-year legal fight between the two parties.

The 40-team postseason NIT, which is a year older and was once the bigger event, will now be run by the NCAA.

The NCAA will pay $56.5 million to the five New York City colleges that operate the Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball Association, the organization that has run the NIT.

"We have resolved all differences," NCAA president Myles Brand said.

[Dooby]

I know very little about anti trust, but isn't it odd that the NIT sues the NCAA for antitrust violations and the settlement involves the NCAA BUYING the NIT? It would be like Apple or Linux or Netscape suing Microsoft for anitrust violations and the settlment was for Microsoft to buy its smaller competitor. That doesn't seem right to me.

[MrMustang1965]

So...what will prevent the NCAA from just saying 'to hell with the NIT' and just cancelling the whole thing altogether?

[EastStang]

They might do that, or they'll keep it alive. What will interest me is whether this will take the issue of fan support out of the equation and put the question of rankings in the picture. In other words with the NIT, if SMU were at 122, and say Georgetown was at 132, Georgetown would get the nod because they have bigger fan support. Will the NCAA take-over of the tourney make it easier to get in if you're at 122 regardless of your attendance. Also, if you were at 80 and Georgetown was at 105, Georgetown would get home court because they'd sell more tickets. I suspect that the NCAA will use the NIT preseason tournament as more of a showcase to kick off the season and let the post-season tournament sort of die on the vine after a couple of seasons (to recoup some of that $56.8 Million).

[Stallion]

who cares what they do with the NIT-the real story as Dooby says is that the NCAA was willing to pay 56 MILLION dollars to keep from going to trial on an antitrust suit. Geez as someone who HAS tried antitrust suits I thought the NIT suit was a joke that would quickly be thrown out of Court. The NCAA has a better product than the NIT. On the other hand the conspiracy to monopolize trade by the BCS schools is a much much better suit. You got about 63 institutions using monopoly power and leverage to control the 57 or so non-BCS schools and their TV and bowl revenue. Hell if they are willing to pay that much to the NIT what would they pay the non-BCS schools because with treble damages the award would be huge. Why are the non-BCS schools so chicken [deleted] when there are so many obvious examples of the BCS schools leveraging their monopoly power in the BCS to obtain anticompetitive agreements will TV Networks and Bowls. This isn't OU competing against BYU and OU winning because it has a better product. Its a combination of 63 schools winning because they have monopoly leverage. In a free market would a 6-5 7th place SEC team Vanderbilt go to the Liberty Bowl over a 11-1 No. 10 Ranked CUSA Champion Memphis Tigers. I don't think so and yet they have completely pulled the wool over every bodies heads that this is their right as members of bigger conference. Once again, the US Supreme Court case of OU and Georgia v. NCAA says that the negotiationg rights belong to each individual school(ie there are 117 competing businesses and not that they belong to each individual conference(ie the 8 or 9 major conferences.)

[BUS]

Stallion; I have spoken with MANY SMU lawyers and I know that at one time there was a large sum of money saved for a lawsuit.

Those, at the time wanted to go after the NCAA. Today and over the past 5--10 years, I have become upset at the one sided way the BCS works. I think they boss the NCAA around.

Here is a question.

Take 1980 to 1990 - No BCS,BS.... NFL draft choices from now BCS schools.

Take 1995 to 2005 - BCS... NFL draft choice from BCS schools.

I do n ot know the figures but if it is like I think.... That is more proof of monopoly - recruiting. Which is competitiveness.

[Stallion]

non-BCS schools rarely went to the Grandaddy Bowls even before the BCS but the obvious inability of 57 schools of EVER playing for a National Championship OR EVER playing in the more prestigious secondary bowls has had an incredibly negative effect on recruiting. This is just a House of Cards that will come crashing down someday. As a matter of fact if the non-BCS schools would just threaten action on the anti-competitive bowl tie-ins I have no doubt the BCS schools would quickly negotiate a settlement because its simply a naked restraint on trade and the BCS schools simply have too much to lose to gamble on a potentially devastating judgment.

[EastStang]

I agree with Stallion on this one. Clearly a restraint on trade for bowls. Also, remember as well that BYU won the "National Title" from the WAC and didn't get invited to a January 1 bowl because the WAC champion had to go to the Holiday Bowl. Last year, Utah showed it was a class act, but rather than going to the Rose Bowl or the Orange Bowl against strong BCS competition, they got relegated to the Fiesta Bowl against a weak BE team. It would have been interesting if they had gotten the chance to play UT and actually beat them, what the poll numbers would have looked like.