Maybe the government will do something AGREE
December 11th, 2008 at 12:04 AM ^
Believe it or not this could actually gain traction and they probably do have the power to do it.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:07 AM ^
I hope so. It is kind of funny that he's from Texas, though. ahahaha
December 11th, 2008 at 12:18 AM ^
y this is a good bill?
cuz BOTH parties support it
December 11th, 2008 at 12:26 AM ^
As an advocate of small government, I am freaking terrified.
But, as a football fan, I think it has promise.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:35 AM ^
Pretty much came in here to say the same thing. As a Libertarian and a playoff supporter I am very torn on this one. I think I'll put my personal interests first here and ask for whatever brings us a playoff.
Doesn't mgoblog have a large lawyer readership? Can one of them explain if this could actually hold up?
December 11th, 2008 at 12:27 AM ^
But I'm sure you're a fan of the (hopeful) bailout.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:29 AM ^
Ugh. This could get ugly.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:32 AM ^
Wait, hahah KIDDING I don't want to argue I just want a playoff.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:42 AM ^
This is never going to pass. How binding would this be anyway?
December 11th, 2008 at 1:07 AM ^
Wrong. Very.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:08 AM ^
I guarantee you this does not pass.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:12 AM ^
Where did I say it would definitely pass? I just wouldn't be so quick to say never. 6 months ago virtually no one would have thought the government would own what they do in the banks and soon to be Detroit.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:01 AM ^
It's scary to me, how so many intelligent and otherwise passionate people on this blog support something that would ruin the concept of college football.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:08 AM ^
I find it hilarious that so many people clamor for a playoff, yet nobody watches the FCS games.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:13 AM ^
That might have something to do with the superior talent, greater tradition, and the larger schools (more alumni=more natural fans) that FBS has over FCS.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:13 AM ^
How is that even a remotely valid comparison? That's like saying that when the NHL had its lockout every hockey fan should be watching the AHL.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:33 AM ^
Just for the record, I think Brodie's argument is kinda stupid.
However, a better point is this: How many IU students watch, say, every BCS bowl, and compare that to how many IU students watched the IU-OkSU game last year?
Bowl games provide students (i.e. what college athletics is for) a chance to cheer for their team, and provides them with a realistic chance of winning that game. A playoff system doesn't do that.
The bowl system is unique, in that it provides each bowl eligible school a chance for an extra game for it's students and players to cheer/fight for.
I'd rather the Pre-BCS system than a playoff.
God save the bowls.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:48 AM ^
The bowls don't have to go away with a playoff. Teams that don't make it or get eliminated early enough could still play in them.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:10 AM ^
Indiana can still go play Vanderbilt or whoever.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:15 AM ^
i find it hilarous that so any people clamor for a playoff, yet nobody watches the D3 playoffs therefore people don't care about playoff football. that is what you're saying right? i mean one of the fcs quarterfinal games last weekend was weber state v montana. i dont know where weber state is and i sure don't care about montana. oklahoma v penn state or usc v texas is a different story
December 11th, 2008 at 11:45 AM ^
My point was completely missed. I find it to be a joke that so many people clamor for a playoff but only as long as it's their idea for a playoff and completely ignore the fact that the NCAA already has a playoff structure. Brian's playoff system? Never going to be implemented.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:31 AM ^
I guess we just have a different idea as to what the concept of college football is.
Personally, I fail to see how having a playoff ruins anything. I understand the arguments against it, I personally feel the good outweighs the bad in favor of a playoff. By a decent amount even.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:35 AM ^
I tend to agree with you. Virtually every commentator I've ever heard comment on the subject considers D3 to be college football at its purest. Newsflash: D3 has a playoff.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:16 AM ^
Two dumbfucks from Hawaii and Georgia were pushing it last year. It has as much weight to it as Carissa Flockhart. The only way I could see it passing is under the Interstate Commerce Clause but no Court would hold it up. Really? Billions of dollars in debt, war in Iraq, might lose the automotive industry, economy is in shambles, millions are uninsured, gas prices until recently were fucking people in the ass like a bad porno and we're fucking talking about college football playoffs? Shit.
BTW-This dude went to TAMU and Purdue.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:28 AM ^
You have to remember that these are the same idiots that held hearings about steriods in baseball while almost all of those things on your list were going on.
I tend to disagree (although not all that much because as with any ICC case who the hell really knows) with you w/r/t ICC; it's broad enough and its hard to say where ICC jurisprudence is going because there hasn't been much decided on it by the Roberts court.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:14 AM ^
Well there's been a lot with the Rehnquist court. ICC is held to the rational basis review, the lowest one, but I still don't think it would hold. Where is there a Constitutional rational basis for a college football playoff? Do you even think all the originalists on the SC (or much less the lower courts) would even take jurisdiction on it, much less uphold it if they did? Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Souter and Alito reject it easily I think. The other 4 could swing either way. Stephens, who knows, he'll probably croak by then.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:21 AM ^
Yeah I know that there was a lot during the Rehnquist court that swung ICC back the other way. My point was we don't know for certain what direction the Roberts court will go on this. I tend to agree with you that it would be unlikely, but I would suspect the rational basis would be the allocation of financial resources. I don't think the basis would be that it is a football playoff, but rather the method used to distribute the money involved. I'm not going to go real far down this road though because Con (aside from the spending clause), and specifically ICC is not my thing.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:19 AM ^
sorry, make that trillions in debt.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:06 AM ^
I wonder if legislation like this could fall under the same umbrella as the "do not call" registry.
That is to say, legislation that is at worst unconstitutional and at best overregulation, but popular enough that legislators are afraid to question it.
Perhaps they don't need legislation. The Feds can rule baseball and the NFL with the threat of removing anti-trust exemption. What could they Lord over the NCAA? The fact that member schools receive DOE funding?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:09 AM ^
This is the sort of thing that infuriates me to no end, and only partly because I hate the idea of a playoff.
Based on the quote in the article, couldn't the NCAA just get around this by holding the BCS anyway and calling it the "BCS championship" and never using the word "national"?