Telecast Deregulation and Competitive Balance: Regarding NCAA Division I Football

By Bennett, Randall W.; Fizel, John L. | The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April 1995 | Go to article overview

Telecast Deregulation and Competitive Balance: Regarding NCAA Division I Football


Bennett, Randall W., Fizel, John L., The American Journal of Economics and Sociology


I

Introduction

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) exerted complete control over college football telecasts from the early 1950s until 1984. The NCAA negotiated exclusive contracts with the television networks that, among other things, limited the number of appearances by any one member school over a specified time period, set the times at which games could be televised, and required the airing of a certain number of games involving non-football powers (e.g. teams from Division I-AA, II, and III). For instance, the last NCAA Television Plan allowed two networks, ABC and CBS, to air 14 exposures each annually. These exposures could be made up of a mixture of national and regional games, but each network had to telecast 82 different teams over a two-year period. The two networks together were required to show at least 115 different teams on television over the two years. The NCAA also set a maximum number of six appearances for any team during this period, with no more than four national appearances.(1)

The NCAA acknowledged that its Television Plan "restrained trade" and was arguably a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Yet, the NCAA pointed out that professional sports had often been granted exemptions from prosecution when restrictive business practices were necessary to promote competitive balance.(2) The NCAA also asserted that an uncontrolled market for televised college football games would skew the distribution of television appearances toward the traditional football powers. Since television appearances are an aid in recruiting top athletes, such a skewed distribution of appearances would enable the powerful to become even more dominant, and doom the weak sister football teams to further weakness. The NCAA argued that competitive balance-relative equality of team playing strength-could only be preserved if it retained control over football telecasts, and was able to spread appearances among a wide variety of teams.

Nevertheless, on June 27, 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and University of Georgia Athletic Association (468 US 85), that the 1982-1985 NCAA Football Television Plan violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. This ruling granted individual schools the property rights to college football telecasts-a right the schools have an option to sell or assign at their discretion. As schools, conferences and select organizations of schools began to negotiate their own television contracts, a large increase in the number of televised games ensued.(3)

This paper presents an empirical analysis of competitive balance in NCAA Division I college football after the Supreme Court ruling.(4) The analysis differs from the previous empirical work in three ways. First, the study uses individual team winning percentages rather than highly aggregated data such as total revenue. Second, winning percentages are included for several years prior to and after the ruling. Third, the analysis is done at the conference or intra-league level which permits an examination of winning percentages derived from common year-to-year opponents.

II

Background

Many, including the Supreme Court, argued that NCAA television restrictions hindered competitive balance, and that weaker teams would have a better chance to use television to attract players without NCAA control. Others, including the NCAA, predicted that the loss of NCAA jurisdiction over television appearances would diminish competitive balance.

Pacey (1985) asserts that the NCAA had never protected competitive balance. Division I-AA, II, and III teams had received very spotty and intermittent coverage, with little competitive advantage derived from their television appearances. Even within Division I-A, there was not much evidence that the Television Plan protected competitive balance. The Supreme Court had found it hard to imagine that dissolution of the Television Plan could cause any more disparity than had already existed between the football programs of Ohio State University and Northwestern University.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Telecast Deregulation and Competitive Balance: Regarding NCAA Division I Football
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.