M
MarsHe wants 100 million in damages for the non-BCS schools, the BCS to be scrapped and a playoff to be put in its place. Glad he's not satisfied just because Utah is getting some blood money now!
Archived Topic
Shurtleff ready to sue the BCS!
by Mars · 4/20/2011
Advertisement
He wants 100 million in damages for the non-BCS schools, the BCS to be scrapped and a playoff to be put in its place. Glad he's not satisfied just because Utah is getting some blood money now!
K
Kajdinwe'll see how this goes. The problem might be that some state AGs might not want to throw their support behind it as their schools have benefited from the start. Another problem would be the "consumers" IE: fans that watch at home aren't technically getting harmed. At least that's what I've understood if someone with more legal knowledge than me can shed some light on how this might be possible I'd welcome it.
M
MarsKajdin wrote:
the "consumers" IE: fans that watch at home aren't technically getting harmed.
What do you call every BCS bowl game featuring a Big east, Big Ten, or ACC team?
L
LawboyYou do not have to show financial loss to prove harm or injury. You just have to show has some type of interest in the cause of action or an emotional harm. Basically, it is a reach in that regard. Unless a fairness claim is used, and that should have traction.
K
KajdinMars wrote:the "consumers" IE: fans that watch at home aren't technically getting harmed.
What do you call every BCS bowl game featuring a Big east, Big Ten, or ACC team?
a medically induced coma? Those can be beneficial, the Big East has gotta be good for something on TV right? :lol:
Advertisement
M
MingjaiI don't do much work in antitrust, but my understanding is that there are special standing requirements in antitrust the the plaintiff must demonstrate. First the plaintiff has to demonstrate an antitrust injury, which requires proving:
(1) a violation of antitrust laws
(2) the violation caused an injury to the plaintiff
(3) the injury flowed from the illegal aspects of the anti-competitive conduct
(4) the injury is of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent
(5) injured party be a participant in the same market as the alleged violators--i.e., either a consumer or competitor of the alleged violator
Further, to have standing under antitrust the plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she is the most efficient plaintiff among those who have suffered economic injury. That entails a case-by-case weighing of factors such as the plaintiffâs injury, the alleged wrongdoing, and the relationship between plaintiff and defendant.
Good luck to Shurtleff, but I think it's doubtful that there is even a violation of US antitrust law here.
(1) a violation of antitrust laws
(2) the violation caused an injury to the plaintiff
(3) the injury flowed from the illegal aspects of the anti-competitive conduct
(4) the injury is of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent
(5) injured party be a participant in the same market as the alleged violators--i.e., either a consumer or competitor of the alleged violator
Further, to have standing under antitrust the plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she is the most efficient plaintiff among those who have suffered economic injury. That entails a case-by-case weighing of factors such as the plaintiffâs injury, the alleged wrongdoing, and the relationship between plaintiff and defendant.
Good luck to Shurtleff, but I think it's doubtful that there is even a violation of US antitrust law here.
M
MarsMingjai wrote:
Good luck to Shurtleff, but I think it's doubtful that there is even a violation of US antitrust law here.
Funny, seems like a clear slam-dunk to Shurtleff and me. ;)
G
GuestShurtleff is a true American! I'm glad to have him as my AG.
I
imuakahukuMingjai wrote:
I don't do much work in antitrust, but my understanding is that there are special standing requirements in antitrust the the plaintiff must demonstrate. First the plaintiff has to demonstrate an antitrust injury, which requires proving:
(1) a violation of antitrust laws
(2) the violation caused an injury to the plaintiff
(3) the injury flowed from the illegal aspects of the anti-competitive conduct
(4) the injury is of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent
(5) injured party be a participant in the same market as the alleged violators--i.e., either a consumer or competitor of the alleged violator
Further, to have standing under antitrust the plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she is the most efficient plaintiff among those who have suffered economic injury. That entails a case-by-case weighing of factors such as the plaintiffâs injury, the alleged wrongdoing, and the relationship between plaintiff and defendant.
Good luck to Shurtleff, but I think it's doubtful that there is even a violation of US antitrust law here.
Would'nt the fact that since public institutions use tax dollars to offset expenses when BCS monies or NCAA d-1 earnings could have been used create a sense of "standing" in a case like this? And if the state had to increase taxes to cover expenses doesn't that directly effect taxpayers in that state? But in this case is he sueing on behalf of the state or the citizens of the state? If on behalf of the state I think the "injury" is more easily proved.
1) Bid rigging or market allocation?
2) Increased taxes (state and public) and/or tuition (students)?
3) MWC and WAC being left out, caused :utard: and USU to not get a share. State could have used the money for the universities but had to use state tax receipts to cover expenses.
4) Restraint of trade?
5) USU and Utah are public institutions and NCAA d-1 schools
I think its a harder case for BYU because any donations (tithing etc) are voluntary whereas taxes are not.
M
mormonrastaWhat will be the outcome? If Shutleff is successful then he gets rid of the BCS, but all that will do is put CFB back into the old bowl system. It wouldn't guarantee a playoff.
Advertisement
K
KajdinBYU won a NC under the old bowl system. At least it was possible before the BCS.
C
CougarClawSo, quick question. Did anyone watch the NCAA basketball championship? I didn't. I could care less about #3 Uconn and #6(?) Butler.
But you bet I was interested in the BCS matchups and watched TCU Wisconsin as well as pieces of the championship game.
Now perhaps that's not a fair comparison because football > basketball but when you have a playoff you can't create interesting matchups. It's all luck of the draw, and luck of the play. I'm not saying anything about fairness, nor greed, nor the plunder of schools and athletes but I didn't watch the playoff NCAA championship when my team lost because I didn't care.
But you bet I was interested in the BCS matchups and watched TCU Wisconsin as well as pieces of the championship game.
Now perhaps that's not a fair comparison because football > basketball but when you have a playoff you can't create interesting matchups. It's all luck of the draw, and luck of the play. I'm not saying anything about fairness, nor greed, nor the plunder of schools and athletes but I didn't watch the playoff NCAA championship when my team lost because I didn't care.
M
MarsCougarClaw wrote:
So, quick question. Did anyone watch the NCAA basketball championship?
I did. Whereas I almost never watch a BCS football game that doesn't have a non-BCS team playing in it. Virginia Tech vs. West Virginia? Ohio State vs. Oklahoma? Who gives a crap?
J
jvquarterbackAnti-trust laws are mostly a bunch of bunk - at least when it comes to private companies. Monopolies do not exist without the intervention of government. But the BCS/NCAA is the front for the cartel of state-owned universities. The only advantage to this is that a few private schools might see some benefit as a result of the many governments squabbling over money they are not entitled to.
S
stuckinbig10countryAnti-trust cases and sports are tricky. For example, Pro Sports (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc.) violate anti-trust laws everyday. How do they get away with that? It's simple, they have an agreement (contract) between the players and the owners to bargain exclusively with eachother. Obvioulsy this is the collective bargaining agreement that we have been hearing a lot about with regard to the NFL right now, and more to come with the NBA over the summer. It seems to require a certified union to be enforced, which is why the NFLPA decertified so they could sue the NFL. Personally, I think the judge should throw this out because the NFLPA decertified solely for the purpose of bringing a lawsuit, and will almost certainly recertify after the lawsuit has been decided, but that's another topic.
It's a little different in amateur sports, like the NCAA is considered to be. Who are the owners? Is there a certified union? The BCS is going to argue that since all of the conferences and all of the independant teams have agreed to the system, they are exempt from anti-trust laws. What Shurtleff and others are going to argue is that although there is an agreement, it wasn't collectively bargained or that it wasn't fairly bargained or possibly that the true owners of the individual entities (state's for example) were not fairly represented.
A fascinating thing in this lawsuit is that Shurtleff is asking for a judgment of performance not just suing for damages. He is asking that the court not only find that the BCS is in violation of anti-trust laws and owes damages, but he is also asking that the judge force the NCAA to have a playoff.
Someone stated above that they didn't watch the basketball title game because he wasn't interested in the teams and that the BCS provides "interesting" matchups. This will be something that the judge has to consider, because TV ratings could "injure" an entity in this case (the TV networks, bowl games, etc.), and the judge will have to determine who's injured more.
Again, on so many levels this is going to be a fascinating case. Can't Wait!!
It's a little different in amateur sports, like the NCAA is considered to be. Who are the owners? Is there a certified union? The BCS is going to argue that since all of the conferences and all of the independant teams have agreed to the system, they are exempt from anti-trust laws. What Shurtleff and others are going to argue is that although there is an agreement, it wasn't collectively bargained or that it wasn't fairly bargained or possibly that the true owners of the individual entities (state's for example) were not fairly represented.
A fascinating thing in this lawsuit is that Shurtleff is asking for a judgment of performance not just suing for damages. He is asking that the court not only find that the BCS is in violation of anti-trust laws and owes damages, but he is also asking that the judge force the NCAA to have a playoff.
Someone stated above that they didn't watch the basketball title game because he wasn't interested in the teams and that the BCS provides "interesting" matchups. This will be something that the judge has to consider, because TV ratings could "injure" an entity in this case (the TV networks, bowl games, etc.), and the judge will have to determine who's injured more.
Again, on so many levels this is going to be a fascinating case. Can't Wait!!
Advertisement
B
BigCougsFanMars wrote:So, quick question. Did anyone watch the NCAA basketball championship?
I did. Whereas I almost never watch a BCS football game that doesn't have a non-BCS team playing in it. Virginia Tech vs. West Virginia? Ohio State vs. Oklahoma? Who gives a crap?
Agreed. Those games didn't intrigue me. Maybe it's because those schools were so far from where I lived and I had not invested interest in them. I watched TCU's and Oregon's games.
M
MarsI bet there was a time when sports fans couldn't foresee the government stepping in and stopping the NCAA's illegal TV monopoly.
K
KajdinMars wrote:
I bet there was a time when sports fans couldn't foresee the government stepping in and stopping the NCAA's illegal TV monopoly.
Isn't that the main reason we have the BCS in the first place? the NCAA tried to take control of TV rights, revenue, and distribution. Then got hard-core sued and now they don't dare try to say anything about it.
C
CAFB_04-12First off, I would prefer a playoff for the sake of the game. Champions win playoffs.
Second, I think a lawsuit from an state attorney general is the wrong way to do this. This is just another feather in the cap of those who think you can't do anything unless the government gets involved.
Fans should be contacting the presidents of the universities. There is a BCS system because the university presidents want it that way. Change will have to be forced by the fans through their university presidents.
If the non-AQ university presidents were serious they would form their own playoff and let the market decide which system was better.
Second, I think a lawsuit from an state attorney general is the wrong way to do this. This is just another feather in the cap of those who think you can't do anything unless the government gets involved.
Fans should be contacting the presidents of the universities. There is a BCS system because the university presidents want it that way. Change will have to be forced by the fans through their university presidents.
If the non-AQ university presidents were serious they would form their own playoff and let the market decide which system was better.
H
hopkinscougarCAFB_04-12 wrote:
First off, I would prefer a playoff for the sake of the game. Champions win playoffs.
Second, I think a lawsuit from an state attorney general is the wrong way to do this. This is just another feather in the cap of those who think you can't do anything unless the government gets involved.
Fans should be contacting the presidents of the universities. There is a BCS system because the university presidents want it that way. Change will have to be forced by the fans through their university presidents.
If the non-AQ university presidents were serious they would form their own playoff and let the market decide which system was better.
That is what I was thinking a few years ago. The non-AQs should have contacted NCAA, set up a playoff, and then crowned the winner the NCAA Champion. It would have been hard to argue against TCU last year or a few of the other non-AQs prior years making the claim of champion. And better than just the non-AQs, you get enough money (get some billionaire in texas to promote the final game in his stadium) and viewers, and then convince a team like Texas or USC with $$$ to enter the tournament rather than play in a bowel. With a little luck it becomes much like bball with its transition from the NIT to the NCAA being the premier bball tournament.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.