Utah has BCS lawsuit in mind
By Lester Munson and Paula Lavigne
ESPN.com
Already fighting off demands for a playoff system from President Barack Obama and leaders of the U.S. Congress, the Bowl Championship Series will soon face a more serious threat: an antitrust lawsuit from the attorney general of Utah that could dismantle its postseason championship scheme.
Mark Shurtleff, the Utah attorney general, is gathering contracts, statistics, economic data and experts, and expects to be able to file suit against the BCS in June.
"From the very first kickoff of the college football season, the BCS uses its monopoly powers to put more than half of the schools at a disadvantage," Shurtleff said. His investigation comes after an undefeated University of Utah team was relegated to the Sugar Bowl in January with no chance to play for a national championship.
The BCS was formed in 1998 in an attempt to ensure that the two top-ranked teams in college football would meet in a bowl game. It has produced controversy almost every year. Six preferred conferences -- the ACC, the Big East, the Big 12, the Big Ten, the Pac-10 and the SEC -- are guaranteed automatic berths in the BCS bowls and at least $18 million in revenue each season. Other conferences -- including the Mountain West, where Utah plays -- are not guaranteed a berth in a BCS bowl and receive significantly lower shares of BCS revenue.
To win the lawsuit, Shurtleff must be able to prove that the BCS has total control of the postseason bowl market for its games, that it uses its control to help some conferences and schools at the expense of others, and that the BCS system has damaged the University of Utah as well as the state of Utah.
It's a quest that could succeed, according to antitrust experts and scholars contacted by ESPN.com. If the lawsuit is successful, the BCS could face court orders requiring it to mend its ways and pay triple damages to states and universities harmed by the BCS, as well as their legal fees.
"There is no doubt that the BCS is a near monopoly," said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College who has focused his research on sports monopolies. "There is no doubt that it uses its power to make unequal payoffs to conferences and schools. And there is no doubt that its opportunities for rewards are not equal. There is a good case to be made."
Gary Roberts, a law professor at Indiana University who is the editor of the leading text on American sports law, agrees.
"It will be complicated, and it will be a close call," Roberts said. "But a state attorney general can win it if he files it in the right place."
To read the rest of this article please view here.
