Thompson's Letter to the BCS

[Lost Poke]

Well, it looks like the conference is taking an aggressive stance on the application for BCS waiver.

I'm not sure if the tone will make any friends, though. Seems as if their strategy is to:
1 - Lay the groundwork (or at least seem to) for antitrust action
2 - Appeal to the non-AQ representatives on the BCS membership committee or board or whatever they're called

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools..._non_event/mw-submits-bcs-aq-exemption-re.pdf

 

[J-Rod]

He won't get a damn thing. He's in full-blown desperation mode now.

 

[MrTitleist]

Thompson is doing what's in the best interest of the conference, and that's appealing for what should have happened years ago. Taking aim at the Big East is a good move, IMO.. expose the fraud that has let them keep AQ status but kept the MW out. Thompson has a great point, but he has to convince people that don't want to share money..

 

[whyoh]

Thompson is doing what's in the best interest of the conference, and that's appealing for what should have happened years ago. Taking aim at the Big East is a good move, IMO.. expose the fraud that has let them keep AQ status but kept the MW out. Thompson has a great point, but he has to convince people that don't want to share money..

exactly....make them say what it is really all about

 

[Kougar78]

I think the non -AQ conferences do have an anti-trust case.

They are members of a football division sanctioned by the NCAA. If the NCAA is going to sanction the BCS Championship game and crown the winner as an NCAA champion, (and all the monetary and prestigious awards that go with it) then they need a firm formula to allow all the members of that football division to qualify.
If they are unwilling to do that , then the BCS is not an NCAA championship and should not be presented as one. As long as the NCAA remains a partner in the BCS, then an anti-trust case could be made.

TRUSTS are concentrations of economic power in the hands of a few; and the BCS fits that description perfectly. Anti-trust laws were enacted for the "protection of competition, not competitors". I think a case could be made that the BCS is designed for the protection of "competitors" AKA, the AQ conferences.

We've all wondered why the Big East continues to reserve a BCS spot despite the eroding conference? Because without them the Automatic Qualifying Conferences lose their majority on the Presidential Oversight Committee. I'll make a bold prediction...if Boise goes to the Big East, they may find it easier to schedule AQ Conference teams who never would do home and homes with BSU previously. :twocents:

PS...I would love to read some of the minutes from their meetings and see how some of the voting goes.

 

[calpoke25]

I think the non -AQ conferences do have an anti-trust case.

They are members of a football division sanctioned by the NCAA. If the NCAA is going to sanction the BCS Championship game and crown the winner as an NCAA champion, (and all the monetary and prestigious awards that go with it) then they need a firm formula to allow all the members of that football division to qualify.
If they are unwilling to do that , then the BCS is not an NCAA championship and should not be presented as one. As long as the NCAA remains a partner in the BCS, then an anti-trust case could be made.

TRUSTS are concentrations of economic power in the hands of a few; and the BCS fits that description perfectly. Anti-trust laws were enacted for the "protection of competition, not competitors". I think a case could be made that the BCS is designed for the protection of "competitors" AKA, the AQ conferences.

We've all wondered why the Big East continues to reserve a BCS spot despite the eroding conference? Because without them the Automatic Qualifying Conferences lose their majority on the Presidential Oversight Committee. I'll make a bold prediction...if Boise goes to the Big East, they may find it easier to schedule AQ Conference teams who never would do home and homes with BSU previously. :twocents:

PS...I would love to read some of the minutes from their meetings and see how some of the voting goes.

FWIW I don't think the NCAA sanctions a NCAA National Championship in football.

 

[Wyokie]

I think the non -AQ conferences do have an anti-trust case.

They are members of a football division sanctioned by the NCAA. If the NCAA is going to sanction the BCS Championship game and crown the winner as an NCAA champion, (and all the monetary and prestigious awards that go with it) then they need a firm formula to allow all the members of that football division to qualify.
If they are unwilling to do that , then the BCS is not an NCAA championship and should not be presented as one. As long as the NCAA remains a partner in the BCS, then an anti-trust case could be made.

TRUSTS are concentrations of economic power in the hands of a few; and the BCS fits that description perfectly. Anti-trust laws were enacted for the "protection of competition, not competitors". I think a case could be made that the BCS is designed for the protection of "competitors" AKA, the AQ conferences.

We've all wondered why the Big East continues to reserve a BCS spot despite the eroding conference? Because without them the Automatic Qualifying Conferences lose their majority on the Presidential Oversight Committee. I'll make a bold prediction...if Boise goes to the Big East, they may find it easier to schedule AQ Conference teams who never would do home and homes with BSU previously. :twocents:

PS...I would love to read some of the minutes from their meetings and see how some of the voting goes.

FWIW I don't think the NCAA sanctions a NCAA National Championship in football.

You are correct. The NCAA can only cerify bowl games per year and how many bowl games can be played.

The whole AQ status thing and the MNC thing is completely seperate from the NCAA.