Sorry, Utah: BCS doesn’t break anti-trust laws
After I wrote last week about the BCS, the Mountain West Conference and the U.S. Senate committee hearings, I heard from an old friend. Kent Meyers is an Oklahoma City attorney who you probably know best as co-host, along with OKC mayor Mick Cornett, of “The Verdict,” a weekly topical talk show.
I’ve been on the show with Kent and Mick a few times, and Kent said he’d be available to chat if I needed a little light on the anti-trust elements of the whole BCS case.
We talked Wednesday, and it was very educational. First, Meyers’ credentials. He tried his first anti-trust case in 1972 and has done virtually nothing else since in the field of law. “It’s kind of where I live,” Meyers said. He teaches anti-trust law for all three of the state’s law schools (OU, OCU, Tulsa U.) Meyers worked the anti-trust aspects of the OU-Georgia lawsuit against the NCAA in the early 1980s, which opened the doors for schools to control their own television destiny.
Meyers said he has read the transcripts from the Senate hearings last week, which included attorneys from both sides, Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman for the BCS and Utah president Michael Young for the Mountain West, which is asking for the BCS to turn into a full-fledged playoff.
Meyers wants to make it clear he has no dog in the fight. “I don’t care whether we have a playoff or not,” Meyers said. He is a college football fan but not hard-core. Meyers, for instance, admits to not knowing such details as how many automatic-qualifying conferences are in the BCS (“five or six,” he said). His contribution to this discussion is strictly related to the anti-trust laws, which is why the Senate convened. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch claimed anti-trust laws are being broken by the BCS, when the mid-majors are given secondary status in the structure that determines major bowl assignments in college football.
OK. So what does Meyers say? The BCS does not violate anti-trust laws. Doesn’t even come close.
Meyers gave me a quick lesson on anti-trust law, which admittedly is elementary, considering what he tried to teach me in 15 minutes he teaches students over a full semester. But it comes down to this simple concept: anti-trust laws protect the consumer, not the competitor.
Did you grasp that? I didn’t know it until I talked to Meyers. I figured Holiday Inn could sue Marriott for anti-trust violations, if Marriott practices were harming Holiday Inn. But no. Only if tourists and businesspeople and travelers were harmed by Marriott practices.
So the BCS is in violation of anti-trust laws NOT if the University of Utah or the Mountain West feels slighted. It is in violation of anti-trust laws if college football fans in general are being economically injured.
We know the answer to that. In college football, attendance has gone up. Stadium expansion has gone up. The number of games has gone up. Advertising revenue has gone up. Cost per spot of the advertising revenue has gone DOWN, which is another good thing for consumers. The number of bowl games has gone up.
Where is the economic injury to the consumer? It does not exist. Anti-trust laws have not been violated. “The guy representing Utah does not know what he’s talking about,” Meyers said. “There’s nothing wrong with a group of conferences or teams getting together where agreement is needed to have the product.”
Again, Meyers reiterates the anti-trust bedrock: “Anti-trust laws protect economic competition but do not protect competitors.” He offers an example. He and I both offer to sell the same product to The Oklahoma Publishing Company. OPUBCO decides to buy my product and not his. I’ve won, he’s lost. “There’s always going to winners and losers,” Meyers said. “What we’ve done is carry out the competitive system as it’s supposed to work.”
The key on the BCS, Meyers said, is to look at the BCS and see if it’s more pro-economic competitive, not withstanding individual competitors. “If this case got filed, (the question would be) has the BCS had more pro-competitive benefits than anti-competitive benefits … How has the BCS affected the product of college football and how has the BCS affected the output of college football?”
Meyers said he sees no anti-competition elements to the BCS. Some say, for instance, that Utah would have made more money without BCS restrictions. “How do we know that?” Meyers asked. In truth, the “better-off” argument — that the mid-majors are much better off with the BCS than before it — which so angers fans is absolutely relevant in anti-trust discussions.
Meyers offers another example. Say Oklahoma City wants a National Hockey League franchise. It goes to the NHL and asks to be admitted. Does the league have to admit OKC? “Hell no,” Meyers said. “The NHL has the right to add who it wants to.”
Meyers said the fact that the mid-majors are in the NCAA’s Bowl Subdivision along with the power conferences is irrelevant. The BCS is not an NCAA venture.
Meyers calls anti-trust laws the “Mills Lane” of the marketplace. Lane refereed the Mike Tyson-Evander Holyfield fight in which Tyson bit Holyfield’s ear. A referee steps in when there’s cheating going on, as Lane did to eject Tyson. Anti-trust laws stand on the sidelines and don’t enter the fray, Meyers said, until there’s cheating going on that harms the American consumer.
“This is a far cry from Tyson biting off Holyfield’s ear,” Meyers said. “They’re putting out a product the consumer clearly loves.”
Bottom line: anti-trust laws protect Joe Six-Pack, not the University of Utah.
The Mountain West and the Utes and Orrin Hatch might have an argument and might have a case and might have an army of vocal college football fans cheering them on. They do not have anti-trust laws on their side.
-------------Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here and follow him on Twitter @BerryTramel. Visit Berry's website here.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
That’s why we have judges. Once an Attorney General, Justice Department, or an individual files in Federal Court, a lawsuit, the game will be on.
Most legal scholars agree there is collusion, restriction of trade, in the way the bowls have been tied up and in distribution of dollars, within a body of supposedly equal participants, namely Divison 1 Football Teams.
You cannot make the arguement with a straight face, that the TCU’s, Boise States, Utah’s, BYU’s, Air Force etc, are inferior to the Vanderbilt’s, Baylor’s Duke’s, Iowa States, Wash. States, Cincinatti’s, Louisville’s, or UConn’s etc…
These schools are guaranteed 2-4 million dollars a year, regardless of their record, while 56 other schools share 9 million each year, 56 ways.
This is inded a cartel, and collusion. Remember the Timberwolves etc? You cannot conspire and then lockout participants from the market place. The BCS has done this.
However, until an entity comes to court with a suit and claims, it will not be heard.
If there are not dramatic changes after 2013 or maybe before, the BCS will get it’s come-uppance.
Why, because you and your twit expert say so? Don’t think so.
Bring it on. Who cares what his opinion is. It’s just that.
Let the Courts decide.
I think the football teams need to just severe their ties with the colleges and universities and become a semi-pro football teams. It seems like thats all they are now anyway. It seems like sports is all most of the athletes really care about anyway.
While I agree that the NCAA is more like the government than a party in the dispute, I find Meyers opinion that Anti-trust Laws don’t protect competitors, surprising and ironic.
The very first Anti-trust legislation in the United States was targeted at Standard Oil. Why? Because of what they were doing to their competitors… it was their competitors that brought and persued the legislation.
The protection of the consumer is indeed how the legislation was sold but the reality was much different.
Standard’s competition couldn’t compete because Standard was selling too “cheap”. The consumer benefited. After the Legislation was inacted and Standard was broken up, prices rose to suit Standard’s competitiors wishes. Consumers suffered.
While I respect Meyers background and experience, I disagree with his opinion. Often there’s a big difference between demagaugry and affect.
In reality and in practice, Anti-trust legislation benefits the competitiors of those that bring goods and services to consumers most efficiently and at the lowest price. In practice, the consumer suffers the higher cost Anti-trust laws produce.
The NCAA and BCS in practice are more like Fascism or Government Corporatism. A unholy alliance between Government and a Ologopoly of a selected few giant Corporations that are “too big to fail”.
The Standard Oil situation ultimately affected the consumer. That’s the difference. I found it interesting that of the three members of Congress that began the hearings last week, only Hatch remained. It shows the lack of interest on Capitol Hill.
What is preventing from Utah and other non-BCS schools to form their own system, pursue TV contracts and possibly recruit BCS schools away from their conferences? Answer: nothing. That is the key issue. Let’s say they followed that path – the marketplace (of college football and sports fans) would determine whether or not it was successful. Let’s say it was – that the public chose to switch their attention from the BCS to that system. Do they have to let in Pac-10 and Big Ten bottom feeders that initially dragged their feet and remained loyal to the Rose Bowl setup? No.
The fact that the public could choose to follow the BCS or a new system started by the Utah is why this is not anti-trust.
Texas and USC were better before the bowls because of…why exactly? You can’t hide your post-bowl bias is showing. USC’s resume in the weak Pac-10- after dropping a game to Oregon State was not on par with the top teams in the SEC or the Big 12. Texas and USC got the luxury of playing two Big Ten pretenders and Oklahoma played the best team in the country and missed out on some early opportunities and fell short. Ohio State should have been in the Capital One Bowl and Texas still needed a late comeback to win the game. Funny how Texas actually dropped in the AP poll following that win.
Holy cow!
You Squatters are unbelievable!
By being awarded the opportunity to play in the Championship game ahead of undefeated Utah, somehow in your brain, you were picked on?
That’s disgusting to the point of being repulsive.
Unreal!
BTW,
Standard Oils monopoly NEVER negatively affected the consumer. They drove prices down.
Prices didn’t rise until after Standard was broken up.
That’s a fact!
To go the antitrust route was probably a mistake according to Berry’s lawyer. This not answer the accusation that Utah was treated unfairly. Yep, they were. Can they get a correction for the future? Beats me!!!
By the way,
Standard drove prices down temporarily in certain areas until they drove copetitors out of business, then they were able to price they way they wanted, with no competition. When the prices went up immediately in the short run in the affected areas, after they were broken up was natural, since the predatory practices stopped. After the breakup, in the long run the prices favored the consumer because it stopped Standard from being a monopoly. That would have happened if they drove competitors out of business. It was hesding in that direction.
Berry Tramel:
The BCS does in fact affect consumers. It unevenly divides the revue which ncaaf teams produce, leaving smaller conference looks like the WAC and Mtn. West with less money. Many of these schools depend on funding for athletics and academic programs.
All this explanation sounds legal and good, but the BCS still needs to go.
Any form of playoff format would be better than we have now. Stoops does
not want it because he can’t beat anybody in a Bowl and to qualify in a playoff
you have to be able to beat a top 10 team at a possible neutral field. Joe C.
knows as well. Bob is a good mid-major coach, as his Texas and Bowl record
have proved. I don’t personally think it he’s worth $4 Mill. but a lot of people
think different. The difference between a lawyer and a cat fish is one is a
bottom dwelling mud sucker and the other is a catfish. A lot of us were hoping that the Mormons would have a foot in the door. Oklahoma was not the best
2nd place team last season, except to gravy-train riders. Before the Bowls,
Texas and USC were the best. After the Bowls those 2 plus Utah would have
been more competitive. Stoops can thank the computers for the gift, because
he didn’t earn it on the field.