Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I looked around the site and didn't see a thread for this. My apologies if I missed it.

This is turning into what could be the biggest sports story of the year: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4030992

I can't say that I'm proud that Frohnmayer shows up as a champion of the BCS system. To make it worse, his defense doesn't appear to be that the BCS system is fair, it's that "everyone agreed to it voluntarily." Then, he goes on to boast about his credentials as a former state attorney general. Sorry dude, you may have been an attorney general. But, you're dropping the ball in the PR department. And there's a reason that there are trials. One side doesn't prevail simply because one of them was once an attorney general.

wheaton4prez wrote:I looked around the site and didn't see a thread for this. My apologies if I missed it.

This is turning into what could be the biggest sports story of the year: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4030992

I can't say that I'm proud that Frohnmayer shows up as a champion of the BCS system. To make it worse, his defense doesn't appear to be that the BCS system is fair, it's that "everyone agreed to it voluntarily." Then, he goes on to boast about his credentials as a former state attorney general. Sorry dude, you may have been an attorney general. But, you're dropping the ball in the PR department. And there's a reason that there are trials. One side doesn't prevail simply because one of them was once an attorney general.

"Hancock, the BCS administrator, said, "These bowls are more open to schools than they have ever been before. There is now more opportunity for more teams." And Frohnmayer said, "The system through the years has matched up No. 1 with No. 2 with remarkable success."

This from a guy who's own school got shafted by his little BCS buddies. Hey Dumbass Dave. Do you not remember 2001? How does a moron like this guy get to the position he's in. This $hit continually baffles me.

I'm not proud of wavy davy PERIOD.

To be fair, the guy probably isn't dumb. I don't see how he could be having the positions he has had over his career. But, that doesn't mean he is right on all issues as he smugly sounds on this one.

The bottom line is that a lot of people have legitimate grievances with the current system. In fact, I'm pretty certain that, if polled, a significant majority of fans think the BCS is broken and a play-off would be an improvement.

I'm not even sold myself 100% that the current system needs to be changed all that much or a play-off is necessary. But, the dismissive attitude that apparently every person representing the BCS has, in the face of popular dissent, is galling. Make an effort. If it's right, you need to sell it. Don't smirk and say there's nothing we can do about it.

It makes me think there's a lot that we don't know going on behind the scenes. There doesn't appear to be any genuine emotional support for the current system. So, why do these robots keep parroting the status quo? What are they protecting? A system they think is right, or something more sinister?

wheaton4prez wrote:So, why do these robots keep parroting the status quo? What are they protecting? A system they think is right, or something more sinister?

Money. Lots and lots of money.

There sure seems to be a lot of evidence supporting that.

Hold on to your hats. It looks like this suit is going to happen. If it wins, it looks like it will change the NCAA quite a bit. It could mean a lot for a lot of up-and-coming programs. Football isn't like basketball in that a #1 seed never loses to a #16.

Through a spokesperson, John Swofford, the commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference and the current BCS coordinator, referred ESPN.com inquiries about the lawsuit and pressure from Congress to Bill Hancock, who is the administrator for the BCS. Hancock said, "We have been subject of antitrust inquiries in the past and nothing has come of them."

That won't change in the Utah case, according to University of Oregon president David Frohnmayer, the chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee.

"Frankly, we're not concerned about it," Frohnmayer said. "People can threaten lawsuits all they want, but it's another thing to be successful … I am convinced that an antitrust suit would be utterly without merit. And I speak as a former state attorney general."

Frohnmayer, who was Oregon's attorney general from 1981 to '91, said he has known about the Utah suit for several months. One of the reasons it won't be successful, he said, is that every Division I football conference voluntarily agreed to the BCS system when it was formed.

Frohnmayer isn't taking sides here - this statement doesn't indicate that he's for the BCS, but he's giving a legal theory for why Utah's lawsuit will likely fail... Basically, he's saying a monopoly doesn't occur when it's voluntarily agreed to, hence an antitrust/monopoly lawsuit is without merit, that's all.

Oh yah, and Frohnmayer is a very very smart guy - he's argued in front of the Supreme Court like a dozen times.

And Frohnmayer said, "The system through the years has matched up No. 1 with No. 2 with remarkable success."

As opposed to pre-BCS? I mean, how many NC games has Utah played in?

will5 wrote:Frohnmayer isn't taking sides here - this statement doesn't indicate that he's for the BCS, but he's giving a legal theory for why Utah's lawsuit will likely fail... Basically, he's saying a monopoly doesn't occur when it's voluntarily agreed to, hence an antitrust/monopoly lawsuit is without merit, that's all.

Oh yah, and Frohnmayer is a very very smart guy - he's argued in front of the Supreme Court like a dozen times.

And Frohnmayer said, "The system through the years has matched up No. 1 with No. 2 with remarkable success."

As opposed to pre-BCS? I mean, how many NC games has Utah played in?

Frohnmayer clearly is taking sides. How else do you interperet, "Frankly, we're not concerned about it"?

And his argument has a lot of problems with it. A monopoly has nothing to do with whether or not there is voluntary participation. If the BCS holds all of the contracts for major bowls, of course all of the schools are going to "voluntarily" sign up and join. What choice do they have? To make up their own league with a prize of $300?

It's about how much of a stake in a market one organization has and whether or not they leverage their holding against consumers/participants. In the case of the BCS, I think they clearly do since there are different pay-outs to different conferences, observable patterns favoring some conferences, etc.

Utah has gone undefeated twice in the last 4 seasons but has not received the same payout and exposure as other teams with similar records would have. I think they have a legitimate grievance.

wheaton4prez wrote:Frohnmayer clearly is taking sides. How else do you interperet, "Frankly, we're not concerned about it"?

And his argument has a lot of problems with it. A monopoly has nothing to do with whether or not there is voluntary participation. If the BCS holds all of the contracts for major bowls, of course all of the schools are going to "voluntarily" sign up and join. What choice do they have? To make up their own league with a prize of $300?

It's about how much of a stake in a market one organization has and whether or not they leverage their holding against consumers/participants. In the case of the BCS, I think they clearly do since there are different pay-outs to different conferences, observable patterns favoring some conferences, etc.

When Frohnmayer says "Frankly, we're not concerned about it," it doesn't necessarily mean that he's defending the BCS as the right system, but that he is not concerned about the implications of Utah's lawsuit because the legal framework from which Utah has to work with has been tried and denied in the past, so unless they have a new fact or facts to differentiate from, Utah's lawsuit will likely be dismissed (the legal jargon term for this is stare decisis).

And you're right, Wheaton, that a monopoly can exist regardless of voluntary participation. In fact, monopolies may exist legally too - an entity that operates under the definition of a monopoly isn't per se operating illegally, meaning the BCS does not break antitrust law just because it's a monopoly. The laws that govern monopolies are the Sherman and Clayton acts, so Utah is going to have to show that the BCS is violating one of those acts.

Read this:

Lee Loevinger in 24 Am. Jur. Trials 1 wrote:In determining violations of § 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2), the question of intent is relevant to both the offense of attempt to monopolize and that of monopolization: in the former case, it is necessary to prove a specific intent to accomplish the forbidden objective, an intent which goes beyond the mere intent to do the act; but in the latter case, evidence of intent is merely relevant to the question whether the challenged conduct is fairly characterized as exclusionary, anticompetitive, or predatory.

The fact that the schools who participate in the BCS do so voluntarily suggests a lack of intent to monopolize on the part of the BCS.

Example:

Lee Loevinger in 24 Am. Jur. Trials 1 wrote: Thus, operator of three of the four skiing facilities in a locality is properly found to have violated § 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2) by refusing to continue a long-standing joint marketing arrangement with the operator of the remaining facility whereby skiers could purchase 6-day tickets redeemable on a given day at any of the four facilities and the competitors would divide up the revenues based on statistics as to actual usage, and by taking additional actions which made it difficult for the smaller operator to market a multi-area package of its own, where there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the larger operator did not take these actions because of legitimate business concerns, but instead made a deliberate effort to discourage its customers from doing business with its smaller rival, sacrificing short-run benefits and consumer good will in exchange for a perceived long-run impact on that rival; such a judgment is not based on any erroneous assumption that a firm with monopoly power has a general duty to co-operate with its smaller rivals in a marketing arrangement in order to avoid violating the law. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

I agree with you, Wheaton, that the BCS does need to be changed to fix its major shortcomings, but I am pressed to follow what Frohnmayer says about the legal aspects of Utah's case against the BCS because he's a veritable authority.

will5 wrote:When Frohnmayer says "Frankly, we're not concerned about it," it doesn't necessarily mean that he's defending the BCS as the right system, but that he is not concerned about the implications of Utah's lawsuit because the legal framework from which Utah has to work with has been tried and denied in the past, so unless they have a new fact or facts to differentiate from, Utah's lawsuit will likely be dismissed (the legal reasoning behind this is called stare decisis).

And you're right, Wheaton, that a monopoly can exist regardless of voluntary participation. In fact, monopolies may exist legally too - an entity that operates under the definition of a monopoly isn't per se operating illegally, meaning the BCS does not break antitrust law just because it's a monopoly...

I disagree. I think that by Frohnmayer saying "we're not concerned" about the building anti-trust suit against the BCS, he is quite clearly indicating that he is with them, the BCS. He said "we", not "I". So the scenario of "him" not being concerned personally is not possible unless he misspoke.

I'm not sure what suits he is referring to from the past. My hunch is that they were probably related to networks or bowl organizations complaining that they were shut out by the BCS. A federal anti-trust suit is a lot different and, to my knowledge, unprecedented.

I know that monopolies can exist legally. That's why I noted that this is about whether or not the BCS used their obvious monopoly in an illegal way. I think the evidence is there showing that it has. If Alabama had two undefeated seasons in the last 4 years, their program and state would be wealthier due to their business with the BCS than Utah would/has. By the definition that you posted, the BCS is anti-competitive in that it does not allow it's highest rewards to some teams, even if they don't lose a single game.

will5 wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:The fact that the schools who participate in the BCS do so voluntarily suggests a lack of intent to monopolize on the part of the BCS.

I agree with you, Wheaton, that the BCS does need to be changed to fix its major shortcomings, but I am pressed to follow what Frohnmayer says about the legal aspects of Utah's case against the BCS because he's a veritable authority.

The BCS isn't being pursued with illegal intent to monopolize. That's why the whole voluntary business is beside the point of the current suit. [That's why I think the cases Frohnmayer refers to are also probably irrelevant. Because their nature is most likely about whether or not the BCS unfairly keeps other organizations from having their own events with the programs (who have volunteered to be with the BCS).]

I'm pressed to see how you don't see Frohnmayer defending the BCS. How is he an authority on the situation? He is an active member of the defendant organization.

Dave is a very smart guy & a nice one too. When we did get shafted from the BCS bid, I emailed him directly and he responded promptly back to me personally. We had a nice conversation & he wasn't happy about losing our spot either. He said they had been trying to work on ways to make things more equitable, but we got stuck in no man's land.

That man has been through more pain than ANY of us could ever endure. Losing almost all of his children to a deadly genetic disease and he still marches on. He has given so much to this University & I would gladly stand next to him always. Even though we reside in separate politcal camps, he is one good man.

I'm sure he's a nice guy.

But, being nice, smart or experienced doesn't make anyone right on every issue.

In this case, I think he's wrong and his response to the suit is disappointing. At the very least, the BCS could do a better job of selling to fans why the BCS should not (or can not) be changed as the suit (and most fans) want. Their response to criticism sounds a lot like Ma Bell. As a Republican, you would think that Frohnmayer would be sensitive to that.

wheaton4prez wrote:I'm pressed to see how you don't see Frohnmayer defending the BCS. How is he an authority on the situation? He is an active member of the defendant organization.

I see your point of view perfectly, actually. However, the quotes to me are too ambiguous to actually determine that Frohnmayer has any sort of personal point of view on the actual subject of whether the BCS is good or not, but that he's acting and speaking on behalf of his position in the BCS. When he says "we're not concerned" he is speaking on behalf of those he represents in his position, as well as from his legal background/knowledge, and not just his personal view. I also know that Frohnmayer is extremely considerate of impartiality when it comes to the various prestigious positions that he has held.

Right. Doesn't that mean that he is speaking from their side? Speaking on behalf of the BCS?

I mean. I'm not surprised that he defends them. Obviously, he is working for them. I'm just not happy that there is an Oregon connection to the defense of the BCS, which I think has been a clear failure on many levels.

I don't know if they deserve to have to pay out damages to a bunch of states. But, I think they need to be scrapped completely and a big suit like this is the only plausible way I see that happening due to all of the murky deals and relationships tying the status quo together.