College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

You are not an antitrust attorney. Try researching "antitrust".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Childish--but informative and telling--article written by a Notre Dame blogger:

https://si.com/college/notredame/football/college-football-is-going-through-its-biggest-shift-ever-and-i-dont-like-it

Interesting point: The Pac-12 turned down Texas & Oklahoma.

The article reveals what we already know: Notre Dame has trouble dealing with a changing world.

Media market sizes were all anyone really cared about back in the day realignment wise. Luckily for Maryland and Rutgers, they are close to big ones!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

You are not an antitrust attorney. Try researching "antitrust".

What changes with a few higher earning conferences and a large number of existing conferences that have less money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

You are not an antitrust attorney. Try researching "antitrust".

What changes with a few higher earning conferences and a large number of existing conferences that have less money?

Market power is a big stretch, so what do you really worry about?

[Anonymous]

Can any of you lawyers here help the ACC schools?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can any of you lawyers here help the ACC schools?!

Concentrating on the fine print is tough when you're focused on the 00s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

(OP her):

I'll give you a headstart on your research:

https://ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can any of you lawyers here help the ACC schools?!

Probably not as the members of the ACC got exactly what they wanted when they signed the grant-of-rights agreement = an ironclad contract designed primarily to prevent defections from the ACC. Would need to allege and prove fraud in the inducement to entering into the contract. Lawyers can always make arguments/raise issues, but arguments cost money and don't guarantee any level of success.

[Anonymous]

Maybe argue unjust enrichment ?

Best avenue for relief is a negotiated settlement with any disgruntled party.

Using FSU as an example of a disgruntled party, where would FSU go if it left the ACC ? The only options are the Big Ten, the SEC, or to go independent (like Notre Dame).

It isn't clear that FSU has enough to offer the SEC or the Big Ten. Doubtful that FSU wants to be an independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

(OP her):

I'll give you a headstart on your research:

https://ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

There isn't really a substantive change here though versus the complaints that already existed re: the Power 5. I'm just not seeing what you are so concerned about. There are plenty of non attorneys here, so how about you just spell it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe argue unjust enrichment ?

Best avenue for relief is a negotiated settlement with any disgruntled party.

Using FSU as an example of a disgruntled party, where would FSU go if it left the ACC ? The only options are the Big Ten, the SEC, or to go independent (like Notre Dame).

It isn't clear that FSU has enough to offer the SEC or the Big Ten. Doubtful that FSU wants to be an independent.

The American and Conference USA would be happy to take them on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can any of you lawyers here help the ACC schools?!

Probably not as the members of the ACC got exactly what they wanted when they signed the grant-of-rights agreement = an ironclad contract designed primarily to prevent defections from the ACC. Would need to allege and prove fraud in the inducement to entering into the contract. Lawyers can always make arguments/raise issues, but arguments cost money and don't guarantee any level of success.

Several of the ACC member institutions have had teams of lawyers go back over the deal in painstaking detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

You are not an antitrust attorney. Try researching "antitrust".

What changes with a few higher earning conferences and a large number of existing conferences that have less money?

Antitrust cases get complicated real fast. Concerns arise when there are fewer competitors / when other competitors go out of business.

Antitrust laws do not necessarily outlaw monopolies, but antitrust laws do care how a business became a monopoly.

Broadly speaking, antitrust laws are designed to protect / nurture / ensure a competitive marketplace.

A shift from a group of Power 5 Conferences to a Power 3 might trigger antitrust concerns, for example. The result is that the government (can be state or federal) often steps in to prevent mergers or acquisitions in the interest of facilitating a competitive marketplace. But these broad simplistic statements get complicated real fast in antitrust reviews. Also, a harmed party can initiate legal actions based on allegations of antitrust law violations.

I am not here to educate anyone on the nuances of antitrust laws beyond stating that the Big Ten Conference attorneys certainly review their actions of merging, acquiring, or consolidating schools as well as causing harm to other schools and/or entities before giving clearance to proceed. Essentially, examining antitrust concerns is a part of due diligence in matters such as expanding a conference which results in the collapse of another conferance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

(OP her):

I'll give you a headstart on your research:

https://ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

There isn't really a substantive change here though versus the complaints that already existed re: the Power 5. I'm just not seeing what you are so concerned about. There are plenty of non attorneys here, so how about you just spell it out.

Sorry, but no. It gets complicated quickly. Feel free to do your own research. I have given a broad outline & a general guide from the FTC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this time, the Big Ten Conference probably views a healthy SEC, a healthy Big 12, and a healthy ACC as its best friends. Nobody wants to hear the word antitrust and, under the current circumstances, that word will not be uttered.

The only school that the Big Ten Conference truly covets is independent, free agent Notre Dame. And even this fascination may fade over the next few years as the reality of the Big Ten Conference's embarrassment of riches sinks in.

The Big Ten needs to play the long game though and that means being opportunistic with big gets like ND and even a few ACC schools if things start to unravel there. With the SEC around no one needs to worry at all about the Big Ten and the word antitrust. The Big Ten should care less about a healthy ACC or Big 12. It isn't bad to have financially weaker and unstable opponents.

Which reveals a total lack of knowledge about antitrust law and antitrust concerns.

I'm an attorney and legitimately want to know what the potential antitrust worry could be for the Big Ten. I'm confused by these posts.

You are not an antitrust attorney. Try researching "antitrust".

What changes with a few higher earning conferences and a large number of existing conferences that have less money?

Antitrust cases get complicated real fast. Concerns arise when there are fewer competitors / when other competitors go out of business.

Antitrust laws do not necessarily outlaw monopolies, but antitrust laws do care how a business became a monopoly.

Broadly speaking, antitrust laws are designed to protect / nurture / ensure a competitive marketplace.

A shift from a group of Power 5 Conferences to a Power 3 might trigger antitrust concerns, for example. The result is that the government (can be state or federal) often steps in to prevent mergers or acquisitions in the interest of facilitating a competitive marketplace. But these broad simplistic statements get complicated real fast in antitrust reviews. Also, a harmed party can initiate legal actions based on allegations of antitrust law violations.

I am not here to educate anyone on the nuances of antitrust laws beyond stating that the Big Ten Conference attorneys certainly review their actions of merging, acquiring, or consolidating schools as well as causing harm to other schools and/or entities before giving clearance to proceed. Essentially, examining antitrust concerns is a part of due diligence in matters such as expanding a conference which results in the collapse of another conferance.

Thanks for the overview! The Power 5 cases didn't seem particularly strong and a shift to 4 in the current landscape looks only slightly more compelling within the larger college sports landscape. I'd agree that the Big Ten has done its due diligence so I wouldn't worry about it much at this point. I'm sure at least one middling antitrust attorney will be happy to take a shot at alleging a violation though.