Are we going to lawyer up or what?
- Thread starter BelushiBob
- Start date
Deep Purple
Full Member
It's not a question of whether we're willing to take it. It's a question of whether we have a case. Unfortunately, we don't.
It's not same as non-AQ schools suing the BCS for unfair restriction of access to the market brass ring of auto-qualifying status. The BCS is the de facto market. The Big 12 is not. It's just one avenue of access to the market.
Unlike most non-AQ schools, TCU has other avenues of access to that market, and in fact we've already secured one via the Big East. All the UT has to do is point to our existing Big East invitation. That undercuts any "restricting access" argument we might raise.
Nor does UT colluding to keep us out of the Big 12 mislead or defraud us in any way. That would assume we have some right to AQ access specifically via the Big 12 conference, yet we obviously don't. And since the Big 12 hasn't offered TCU access via their particular conference either officially or unofficially, we have no reasonable grounds for expecting such access. At best, we can argue that UT collusion excludes TCU from the avenue of access some of us deem most preferable or advantageous. Unfortunately, that's not against the law.
jadailyTCU
Active Member
Fair enough. But what happens if/when the Big 12 takes Louisville and WVU (along with BYU) and/or the ACC takes UConn and Rutgers and the Big East loses its autobid? Hasn't happened yet, but it could. IF it happened, and/or if any of the above caused the conference to fall apart entirely right when our contract starts (tortious interference, maybe? Though is that even a real term?), would we still have no case? I think there might be a case there, though as I've no experience in law I'm not really sure.
frogtwang
Active Member
http://www.bettercallsaul.com/
allclearforfrogs
Active Member
Baja Frog
Active Member
+1. That is where I think we have a case. If the Big 12 goes after WVU and Louisville, thereby crippling our BCS chances and conference.
How and why Fort Worth and Texas legislature would sit around and allow that top happen is beyond me.........
West Coast Johnny
Full Member
I'll do it! On retainer. Please pay $50,000.
Yep I knew him. Mallory does still solve everyone's problems, used him once when I was in school, and again when I got a ticket recently!
froginaustin
Active Member
Even Baylor gave up on lawsuit threats, even though A&M just agreed to a 10-year (I think that's how long it was) TV deal that could crap out if Baylor's conference shrank too much or died. That was the best threat Baylor and the other B12 hangers-on had, messing with the TV deal. The BE deal is over when? No later than 2013? There's no future TV deal to mess with.
No harm no foul.
The BE tried litigation after Boston College left. Got them nowhere, and nothing. The State of Connecticut ran a damages claim up the flagpole, claiming they only built UConn's football stadium because all those BE teams would play there. No one saluted.
[ What the heck? ] you expect a state legislature or a city for christsake to do about out-of-state schools and multi-state entities like the B12 choosing whom they will associate with?
"They like someone else better" is not a cause of action in these circumstances. Sorry.
froginaustin
Active Member
For major anti-trust or business tort litigation?
$50k may not cover the deposit for court reporter's fees for depositions.
:laugh:
Big Frog II
Active Member
The Big East did get to keep their AQ status because of the lawsuit or threat of one.
BelushiBob
New Member
NBC will make sure we keep it in the next round!!
Screaming Flea
New Member
Sorry, Baylor is being no more supportive than UT and for that matter TT.
Baylor was taking a lot of HARSH criticism from everyone so they toned it down. They're still behind the scenes.
I can't understand why many on this board cannot accept the fact that they don't want to add another Texas school, especially TCU. TCU scares the heck out of them. Why? Because they can see first hand what TCU has accomplished without the support of the BCS and its vast amounts of money. Secondly TCU is more independent than Baylor. Baylor cannot lose the BCS affiliation, if they do, it could potentially spell disaster. Tech has state money, but they need students, recruits and acceptance of central-north west Texas communities to be competitive. It's Lubbock after all.
Believe Missouri will go, at some point to the SEC. But this does not mean TCU will get the invitation to the b12. They don't want us period!
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
To me, the far more profitable avenue to explore is a RICO-type exercise against ESPN. They have exerted undue influence to protect their market position and destroy legitimate competition.
Discovery would be a hoot.
Discovery would be a hoot.
YA
Active Member
Exactly what I am hearing. IF the big 12 goes to 16, the plan is anyone but TCU.
Sad, but I have to agree. College football has become like real estate; location, location, location and make sure you don't take additional risk of losing games or recruits.
West Coast Johnny
Full Member
50K is just for my expenses.
Wow. Your sense of entitlement ALMOST matches that of the Tea Sips.
tcufrog75
Member
Antitrust law is "squishy," so it is impossible just to boil the possibilities down to one narrow proposition. If you can't skin the antitrust goose one way, that does not necessarily preclude other viable possibilities.
For example, forget the BCS and just focus on the "major" conferences acting as cartels, cornering the market for top level college football and driving out unselected competitors. Sports leagues have historically been found (although not always) to be a "reasonable" (a term loaded with meaning in antitrust cases) form of collusion that makes athletic competition feasible and that generally increases public interest, thus enlarging the market and serving the interests of consumers in that market.
Increasingly, though, the actions by the schools in the major conferences to dominate the "big time" football market in their various regions (and perhaps collectively nationwide) may have (I think it's gotten well beyond "may") crossed the line. In antitrust terms, the extent to which the collusion by the schools in these conferences promotes competition has moved arguably well past the point of being outweighed by the extent to which they undermine competition. Heck, there is not any debate about the fact that the rise of the BCS has led to a formal delineation of "AQ" and "non-AQ" conferences with the former being advantaged because of inclusion and the latter being disadvantaged by exclusion. This is so obvious, so blatant, that there is a tendency to assume that it must be "legal" and would withstand an antitrust challenge.
But think about it. AQ schools reap huge advantage in the marketplace not simply because they are stronger competitors in the marketplace (some are and some aren't), but rather because they are in an exclusive league with other major competitors. In an unrestrained, undominated market, excluded schools like TCU arguably could compete more effectively for ticket-buying and, more importantly, television-watching fans. Again I am stating the obvious. The point, though, is that the "haves and "have nots" are, on an accelerating basis, distinguished not by their respective abilities to compete individually in the marketplace (let alone the football field, which is not the point), but rather by whether they are "in" or "out" of an AQ conference.
Look no further than TCU and Baylor for two schools that should be roughly equals in the marketplace, but contrast the Baylor television revenue and TCU's. But even more insidious is the degree to which the strongest competitors, if they do not restrain themselves (UT being the poster child) can amplify their own natural strength in the marketplace to "mega" proportions. Two (Notre Dame and UT) have gotten so outsized as to be able to command a market supporting their own television networks and generally to suck the oxygen out of the market for those not granted the privilege of participating in their league (in UT's case) or with independent AQ status (in Notre Dame's case).. Notre Dame had a natural basis to have this kind of strength independently, as does BYU, each being able to draw on a large population of adherents to their respective religious traditions.I contend, though, that the things for which many Frog fans so resent DeLoss Dodds are intentional and unreasonably excessive leveraging UT's natural market strength with the advantages of its exclusive conference affiliation and that conference's advantageous position of the BCS. The argument can be made that if there were no conferences, i.e. if all schools were independent, TCU would be much better off and UT not nearly so dominant, as has occurred when UT, by virtue of its Big 12 and BCS collusion with other key competitors, can push TCU to the margins of the market.
I am not saying this is a slam dunk proposition. Far from it. It is a mere unsprouted kernel of an antitrust theory. Again, my point is that the knee-jerk rejection against the possibility of a successful antitrust suit against schools in the AQ conferences is wrongheaded. By the way, the BCS in not a legal entity, but rather a "system" agreed among the participant schools, including TCU--an indication that those who conceived the BCS were fully aware of the antitrust implications.
There are a number of scholarly law review articles that analyze and suggest possible validity of an antitrust attack on the BCS, as well as the pitfalls. Only one that I have seen in my quick Internet check takes an entirely negative position. It was published--where else--in the University of Oklahoma Law Review. Recall that OU was the lead plaintiff in the antitrust suit against the NCAA in the 1980s that led in a straight line (or should I say, full circle) to where we are today.
TCU has all sorts of practical reasons not to rush to the courthouse. But TCU conceivably could be backed into a devastating situation from which no other escape is possible. Consider, for example, the hypothetical possibilities of the BIg East and even the MWC (Boise) being raided by the Big 12 and TCU continuing to be excluded. TCU might be left with only the options of going independent (don't look to the Disciples to be able to help much there) or Conference USA, if they would take us back. As a cornered wolf, TCU might elect to try to fight its way out in court. I think that there is only a remote possibility that TCU will find itself in such a jam, but it is sadly conceivable.
