BCS/Conference Expansion and Anti Trust issues

I want to get a general sense of how we feel about the business aspects on this board of college athletics. I have been in an email debate with someone of this topic and despite my tendancies against government involvement in such things I find myself drawn to the conclusion that only the Federal Government can prevent the excesses that have occured in college athletics financing.

So the questions are:

  1. Are college athletics programs for profit corporations that are legally separate in financial matters from their host publicly financed institutions?

  2. If they are for profit corporations, then would the BCS and/or proposed split be a monopoly and subject to federal anti-trust regulations?

  3. If they are not considered separate from their not for profit host institutions, then can they legally benefit from taxpayer money while seeking to harm other publicly funded institutions (ex: tax exemptions for athletic donations, state funds for athletics in some states)?

  4. If they are non profit publicly funded institutions than can they legally participate in a for profit corporation like the BCS if said institution is declared a monopoly under federal law?

The overly simplistic answer I tend to get to this is that they are not trying to kill non-BCS athletics and that our government has better things to do. I think protecting public institutions from having their investments nullified by other public institutions out for greed is something that the Fed Gov needs to handle, considering the billions in taxpayer dollars at both the federal and state levels that these institutions benefit from.

  1. Yes.

  2. Yes, in my opinion.

  3. NA.

  4. It is a monopoly so it doesn’t matter where the funds come from. No one should be allowed to participate in a monopoly. The monopoly should be fixed and institutions allowed to operate their sports programs as they had before, aside from the monopolistic aspect.

If the monopoly aspect can’t be used in court then if I were a senator from a state without a BCS school I’d work to remove the tax exempt status on donations to athletics to any institution that recieves federal funds and makes a profit from athletics. If that didn’t force them not to seceed from the non-BCS schools i would make them reinvest all their athletics profits toward education programs and not back into their athletics. No reason an institution making a profit from the left hand of athletics should be begging for federal or state funding for research and grants with their right hand. I’d also have the IRS ride them to make sure they did reinvest that money in academics before they ever asked for 1 dime of taxpayer money.

The part that I really don’t get, and what I think will keep the BCS programs from seceeding in the firstplace is:

What’s NC State thinking?

Let me expand on that. There is no concieveable way that the top 60 something schools leave THE NCAA and are allowed to play the other schools. It would be like an NFL team playing an NHL team and being allowed to count the game against the other NFL teams’ records.

That means that only BCS programs and play BCS programs. That means that there will be a new breed of BOTTOM FEEDERS, and schools like State, Duke, Baylor, OK St., Ole Miss, Vandy, So Car, Arizona…on and on; will become more and more IRRELEVANT in college athletics. Right now these schools are considered ELITE despite relatively poor performance because they are in the “top conferences”, well if you kill off the bottom conferences, which is what seceeding from the NCAA will effectively do; then those schools will become the new, irrelevant, bottom feeders of relevant college athletics.

Now maybe these schools are willing to trade ever winning anything ever again for a significant payday, but if I were a TV sports broadcasting company I wouldn’t want to see NC State get waxed on TV by Ohio St, USC and schools like them year after year. If I were fans of said lower BCS programs I also wouldn’t pay to see my team take year after year of getting beat down by the more popular programs, would you?

When you create a new OFFICIAL BOTTOM then those teams that once benefited from the persception of being elit will become nothing but the roadbumps for the top teams. A separate BCS will only benefit the top 10 teams in the long run and 30 or 40 years from now we may be talking about these Ultra-top teams wanting to cut of the lower BCS.

[quote=“49or bust, post:2, topic:23260”]1) Yes.

  1. Yes, in my opinion.

  2. NA.

  3. It is a monopoly so it doesn’t matter where the funds come from. No one should be allowed to participate in a monopoly. The monopoly should be fixed and institutions allowed to operate their sports programs as they had before, aside from the monopolistic aspect.[/quote]
    What does NinerAdvocate have to do with this?

Are you against monopolies altogether? What about patents?

The problem is if the BCS secedes from the NCAA, they can say they aren’t blocking the NCAA from existence just like the NFL isn’t blocking the Arena League from existence.

Anti-trust laws still apply if the NCAA non-BCS schools can demonstrate that the BCS schools effectively prevent them from equal access to the marketplace and/or if it can be demonstrated that the BCS actively works to keep the non-BCS at a competitive disadvantage with potential clients of both (sponsors, broadcasters, ect).

When you create a new OFFICIAL BOTTOM then those teams that once benefited from the persception of being elit will become nothing but the roadbumps for the top teams. A separate BCS will only benefit the top 10 teams in the long run and 30 or 40 years from now we may be talking about these Ultra-top teams wanting to cut of the lower BCS.

I totally agree

Funny you should say that.

The NFL was blocking the USFL for money in the 80’s through the use of television rights, etc. The USFL won in court. I wouldn’t think there would be much of a difference now. The “non-profit-ness” of college athletics/bcs wouldn’t be anything to make a case out of, and if you lost on that it could be VERY damaging.

I know about the USFL case. That’s why I sited the Arena League which has been on TV.

That works logically, until you realize the enormous gulf that will exist between these new BCS cellardwellars and the non BCS programs. Those programs will still get 7 or 8 figure checks every year, and that phenomenon has not stopped schools like Vandy, Baylor, etc from being gung ho members of their BCS conferences. You might get drilled on the field, but you still have the stature of being a big dog and the big bank account that goes with it.

Har har.

Are you against monopolies altogether?

What about patents?

I believe so, yes.

Patents are different. Someone came up with something new and should reap the benefits. Once they are dead, the patent is retired and it becomes free to use for everyone.

[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:1, topic:23260”]…So the questions are:

  1. Are college athletics programs for profit corporations that are legally separate in financial matters from their host publicly financed institutions?[/quote]

No. You don’t see athletics departments incorporating themselves. If they do, raises tax concerns. Now if you meant are they for-profit “institutions,” then the answer is still know. The Athletic Director, or shareholders, or alumni, etc. do not take home the profits. It goes back to the people (although not in a “Salvation Army” type of way as we think of it).

To put it into perspective, there are porn sites that are “not for-profit.” Nobody specifically is profiting, it is for the public (in some perverse way).

2) If they are for profit corporations, then would the BCS and/or proposed split be a monopoly and subject to federal anti-trust regulations?

It really does not matter if for profit or not for profit, the US Antitrust Law typically does not differentiate between the two. But you do get more leniency if you are not for profit.

3) If they are not considered separate from their not for profit host institutions, then can they legally benefit from taxpayer money while seeking to harm other publicly funded institutions (ex: tax exemptions for athletic donations, state funds for athletics in some states)?

Actual harm would be nearly impossible to show. The whole but for them there would be this argument is tough. Thus, would have to show influence through market share and the danger of harm. Alot would ride on defining the market and thus the market share. Is it just college sports? Pro sports too? All primetime or Saturday television and radio? Other ticketed events? etc.

4) If they are non profit publicly funded institutions than can they legally participate in a for profit corporation like the BCS if said institution is declared a monopoly under federal law?

If BCS is a monopoly deemed by the Federal Courts, it would no longer exist. It would be broken up. Once you get that ruling, it is the kiss of death on your business, so in short, no. But if BCS is not a monopoly, the Girl Scouts align with cookie manufaturer who has a stranglehold on making Girl Scout cookies. Non profits deal with For Profits all the time. Remember the fund raisers from Elementary School?

The overly simplistic answer I tend to get to this is that they are not trying to kill non-BCS athletics and that our government has better things to do. I think protecting public institutions from having their investments nullified by other public institutions out for greed is something that the Fed Gov needs to handle, considering the billions in taxpayer dollars at both the federal and state levels that these institutions benefit from.

Non-profits compete for the same dollars all the time. Just a fact. United Way gets more donations because people know it and it’s bigger, than say, the Celiac Foundation of Los Angeles.

I really don’t think anything will become of this. It’s just something to get people passionate about voting. To try to force subjugation on non-profits means you want the Government to have an active hand in distributing funds.

Just remember that Antitrust Law is the one section of law that goes against our National Structure. It’s a very socialistic idea, and therefore is entered into with trepidation by the Government.

Har har.

Are you against monopolies altogether?

What about patents?

I believe so, yes.

Patents are different. Someone came up with something new and should reap the benefits. Once they are dead, the patent is retired and it becomes free to use for everyone.[/quote]

? Is this some new patent law I have never heard of? I’m pretty sure it’s 17 years from issuance (technically 20 years from filing, but there are patent term extension rules that make it more like 17 from issuance).

On top of you having to pay maintenance fees at the 4, 8, and 12 year marks to keep it active.

Only rights tied to death is copyright in some instances.

Har har.

Are you against monopolies altogether?

What about patents?

I believe so, yes.

Patents are different. Someone came up with something new and should reap the benefits. Once they are dead, the patent is retired and it becomes free to use for everyone.[/quote]

Patents actually only last 20 years. There is a really good IP Law class in the CS department taught by James Frazier; it was actually one of my favorite classes.

What about government-granted monopolies for public utilities where it would be bad to duplicate things like digging up the streets for dual water lines, etc. ?

Har har.

Are you against monopolies altogether?

What about patents?

I believe so, yes.

Patents are different. Someone came up with something new and should reap the benefits. Once they are dead, the patent is retired and it becomes free to use for everyone.[/quote]

? Is this some new patent law I have never heard of? I’m pretty sure it’s 17 years from issuance (technically 20 years from filing, but there are patent term extension rules that make it more like 17 from issuance).

On top of you having to pay maintenance fees at the 4, 8, and 12 year marks to keep it active.

Only rights tied to death is copyright in some instances.[/quote]
Gotcha. That’s fine too. I think my knowledge of copyrights mostly deals with music. Isn’t it 50 years that you collect royalties or something?

Har har.

Are you against monopolies altogether?

What about patents?

I believe so, yes.

Patents are different. Someone came up with something new and should reap the benefits. Once they are dead, the patent is retired and it becomes free to use for everyone.[/quote]

Patents actually only last 20 years. There is a really good IP Law class in the CS department taught by James Frazier; it was actually one of my favorite classes.

What about government-granted monopolies for public utilities where it would be bad to duplicate things like digging up the streets for dual water lines, etc. ?[/quote]

That typically goes toward startup costs, though. When a sector has higher startup costs, the gov’t grants a kind of monopoly with the condition of more government oversight. It’s where free market lacks the ability to keep competition alive, and thus require the company to not take advantage of others.

Har har.

Are you against monopolies altogether?

What about patents?

I believe so, yes.

Patents are different. Someone came up with something new and should reap the benefits. Once they are dead, the patent is retired and it becomes free to use for everyone.[/quote]

? Is this some new patent law I have never heard of? I’m pretty sure it’s 17 years from issuance (technically 20 years from filing, but there are patent term extension rules that make it more like 17 from issuance).

On top of you having to pay maintenance fees at the 4, 8, and 12 year marks to keep it active.

Only rights tied to death is copyright in some instances.[/quote]
Gotcha. That’s fine too. I think my knowledge of copyrights mostly deals with music. Isn’t it 50 years that you collect royalties or something?[/quote]

Matters how long Disney can get copyrights extended.

Cornell has a good cheat sheet on the topic. It really matters on the type of work. Was it by a company. Was it published. When was it created. etc.

Check out the link to get your answer: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

I think that is fine seeing as how it seems these monopolies are not causing any problem and are more efficient in the end than the alternative, but it is hard for me to say.

I’m generally one of these by the book, constitutionalist types, but it has been proven that government intervention is required in business so it is one of the areas I’ll admit flat out to not being so knowledgeable about.

In any event, this seems like one of the monopolies that is doing far more harm than good and should be sacked.

That works logically, until you realize the enormous gulf that will exist between these new BCS cellardwellars and the non BCS programs. Those programs will still get 7 or 8 figure checks every year, and that phenomenon has not stopped schools like Vandy, Baylor, etc from being gung ho members of their BCS conferences. You might get drilled on the field, but you still have the stature of being a big dog and the big bank account that goes with it.[/quote]

My hypothesis is that college athletics at non-BCS schools will become nothing more or even worse than the current FCS. So in fact there will only be the BCS from a general public stand point. Non-BCS will be relegated to the level of the current D-II because there will be NO TV money or exposure for them. It will all be dedicated to the BCS. Yes, the bottom feeders of the BCS will still get a massive check, but without the competitve advantage of being able to schedule lesser non-BCS teams to pad their records they will be preceived by their fans and the general public as weaker than they are now. Lose enough games and your fans quit buying tickets, your stadiums empty and TV doesn’t schedule your beatdown games. Today these schools have FALSE public perception on their side, without the non-BCS schools that false perception dies and your fans/donors stop caring. TV money alone, even at BCS levels, can’t support the athletic departments of the future. One day the bottom BCS schools, if they seceed, will be the San Jose St.s of the future college athletics worlds.

You live to close to Columbia, SC, to believe any of that. The Gamecocks could go 0-11 and they’re still gonna fill the stands.

Besides you just made the point when you said non BCS will become the equivalent of DII. I dont care how bad it is as a perpetual BCS doormat, you’d rather be that than a non entity.