by Ben Johnson

Created on: July 19, 2007   Last Updated: October 31, 2008

The greatest fundamental benchmark development affecting the entire history and landscape of college football occurred in 1984. In a pivotal case involving the NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust laws. It was determined that the NCAA, through limitations regarding television appearances and restrictions upon negotiating their own television contracts, was unreasonably restraining the trade of college football.

Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA's television plan prevented schools across the country from securing the market demand, including both price and output, of their football products.

The rationale supporting this decision is clearly evident when looking at the advancements in terms of facilities, programs and technology that has improved the actual on field performance of the athletes who have participated within this sport in the last 23 years.

As a result of this case, the NCAA no longer held the authority over schools to prevent them from negotiating their own deals. If we fast forward to present day we clearly see the effects of this pivotal decision in regards the NCAA's inability to challenge the BCS model. They've lost the authority to govern the sport in regards to maintaining the financial competitive balance, integrity, and overall health of the game. The super-conferences, along with the networks, are now running the show.

Due to the fact that television revenue is growing exponentially and teams are racing to reap the rewards, a very hypocritical and revenue gleaning environment is enveloping the college football world today. The NCAA has been powerless to reverse the perversity of this trend due to the NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma in 1984.

Soon after this Supreme Court ruling in 1984, the major conferences began negotiating their own deals with the television networks. Although many schools were rewarded with greater freedom to negotiate their own deals, they lost the security of the NCAA's role as a collective negotiator who's main goal was to maintain the integrity and competitive balance of the game, rather than seek more money for given institutions.

The startling outcome of this Supreme Court decision was that although these schools had this newfound freedom to negotiate, their profit margin was much less than the traditional NCAA-negotiated plan had been producing. This was primarily due to the knowledge,

• 1
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 8
• Next Page >>