Obama vs BCS

Submitted by Rescue_Dawn on

Looks like Obama wants PLAYOFFS.

"The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.

In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.

"Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason," Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws."....cont @ SI.com

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/29/obama.bcs.ap/…

MaizeNBlue

January 29th, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^

Honestly, at first I wanted a playoff, but I don't anymore. I don't want politicians to ruin one thing that everyone uses to escape from the reality that they create, for one.

More importantly, though, I like waking up during December and early January and having the feeling that there are going to be a multitude of bowl games on. I like waking up on New Year's Day and feeling "Rose Bowl" while watching the Tournament of Roses parade and all the other stuff going on...I feel like the bowl system creates a pretty unique atmosphere for December-January and that turning it into a playoff would make it just like everything else, which would detract from how entertaining it really is and how drama filled the regular season is.

Blue_Bull_Run

January 29th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

I had a great time watching all the bowl games this year. And as far as getting the best two teams into the BCS Title game, I think the current system has done a pretty decent job.

Frankly, I can live without the #4 team getting a shot at winning the playoffs. Then again, I'm a traditionalist when it comes to these games.

South Bend Wolverine

January 29th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^

I agree as well, although I'm essentially resigned. The bowl system was something particular and unique. Unfortunately, it's been diluted with too many Papajohns.com bowl sorts of things, plus the rationalists have de-mystified the bowl system.

What pisses me off is that the rationalists have to ruin bowl season for everyone else. They spend the whole time whining about the system and telling everyone who isn't in the #1 v #2 game that they're getting screwed & their game doesn't matter, instead of letting folks enjoy it. Stupid rationalists. :)

letsgoblue213

January 30th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^

Politicians have no place trying to change sports, with a few rare exceptions. I've always been a fan of the bowl system and I think it's part of what makes each game of the season so important, unlike other sports. One of the best parts about college football is that every game matters. Bowls have also been a big part of college football tradition. I don't see playoff games named after bowl games being even close to the same as the real bowl experience. Obama needs to worry about a lot more important things than college football.

almostkorean

January 31st, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^

I've never really understood the "every game matters" argument. Assuming the playoff system will be 'Top X teams get in', every game will still matter as only those top teams will get a chance to compete for the national championship. Is there something im missing here

AKWolverine

January 29th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^

...but meaningless. The argument 'the [insert system here] is broken, but those idiots in Washington/government will only make it worse' is used in seemingly every context. But nobody thinks the government should stay out of everything. Without an account of why government would be especially bad/corrupt/inefficient/whatever when dealing with football (or whatever else that argument is to be used for), its basically worthless.

Ernis

January 30th, 2010 at 2:17 AM ^

Sports leagues are not-for-profit organizations

Therefore, they are tax-exempt

Therefore, we taxpayers subsidize their operations

Therefore, the government subsidizes their operations

Therefore, the government has a legitimate reason to investigate the worthiness of said tax-exemption (if that's even what's going on here ... who knows. Policy is never rational)

I hope the gov't doesn't try to micro-manage with excessive regulation... but they should see if any lines are being crossed.

MaizeNBlue

January 30th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^

To be honest, I don't know the rules/technical parts of the situation, which means my opinion's pretty limited to basic concepts of just not wanting what's there now to change. If the BCS really needs to be regulated, so be it, but leave the bowl system in place.

EGD

January 29th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^

It's not like we are establishing a new cabinet department to regulate NCAA football. I agree the issue is insignificant compared to other problems the country faces, but the diversion of resources would be negligible. Besides, from what I've read the DOJ is currently packed full of nut-jobs from Bob Jones University, so maybe it's better they work on this than mess more important stuff up.

mgobleu

January 29th, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^

True, but to dismiss their involvement because those in said "government" are irresponsible, corrupt, and totally inept is completely reasonable. This is of course, without mention of the fact that 10 percent unemployment, a recent tripling of the national debt, 2 ongoing wars, (etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum) means they should probably keep their meddling asses on task and the hell away from college football.

rtyler

February 1st, 2010 at 5:44 AM ^

I guess I still don't understand what makes these two things mutually exclusive. If the BCS is in violation of its tax-exempt status as an NPO, shouldn't the government (the organization we have deigned to deal with such matters) interfere? Should the nation turn a blind eye to all unsolved problems until the unemployment issue is taken care of? Somehow I don't think that Obama is spending his time working on this, even if someone in his administration coordinated with Hatch to get the ball rolling. Also, it seems like no coincidence that Hatch is from Utah, home of the "BCS Buster" Utes.

Basically, what makes your above comment any different from typical "gubmint sux" attitude? If indeed the BCS is illegal, do you feel it should be allowed to remain unchanged, because it is arguably a unique type of NPO and you like it?

Plegerize

January 29th, 2010 at 8:13 PM ^

Definitely an interesting subject to discuss and as a sports fan I would love to see a resolution (as in a finishing act -- not political bill) to this issue.

I believe the BCS will evolve and the system will include a plus one system before it goes through a complete overhaul. The BCS people have heard everyone's complaints and I think to them they know that something is coming over the hill to face them whether it is change or not. They will make the necessary changes to ensure their survival and keep their system.

Tater

January 29th, 2010 at 8:30 PM ^

WE'RE TALKING PLAYOFFS???!!!!

Sorry, I still love that rant.

Anyway, an eight-team playoff could start the last week of November and determine the last two teams during the first week of December. The bowl selection process could then be exactly the way it is now, with the only exception being that the two teams playing for the Championship had to legitimately play their way in and nobody could letigimately bitch about being "left out."

The bowls would get exactly what they get now and college football would get a legitimate National Champion. I guess that's too easy.

Ghost of Bo

January 30th, 2010 at 6:47 AM ^

...Says the poster who just referred to those with a differing opinion as "dumbshits". What restraint!

If you don't feel a topic is worth your time, don't read it and post a response to the thread.

It's ironic that I am having to spell all of this out to a poster named "Captain Obvious".

Captain Obvious

January 30th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^

what I wrote. I never gave an opinion. I said the opinionS this type of topic generates are annoying as hell. I used "all government sucks" as an example because I know people would say such a comment is nonpartisan, etc. I could have just as easily used the example of people begging the government to fix everything as being annoying.

See? These topics suck. No redeeming value.

Rescue_Dawn

January 29th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^

I am all for Playoffs....IMO playoffs would be the only way to keep the system honest, and not such a beauty pageant when it comes time to determine who should be playing for the NC.

jmblue

January 29th, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^

Here's the problem that I and, I supect many others, face: I'd love a four-team playoff, and an eight-team one would be good, too. But I know the field would never be that small. If a playoff ever happens, there are going to have to be a bunch of auto-bids, plus some at-large berths (gotta keep everyone happy) and that's going to push the number of teams involved to at least 12, and more likely, 16. That would seriously dilute the importance of the regular season. I'd take the current system over that. And you know that once you go to a 16-team playoff, there's no going to a smaller field. So do I favor playoffs? Well . . . sort of.

clarkiefromcanada

January 29th, 2010 at 11:37 PM ^

I'm tired of the regurgitated BCS line regarding "reducing the importance of the regular season"...is the regular season diluted regarding March Madness? It seems every game from here on out is major for M and we likely need to run the table on the B10 tourney just to get in...If anything, every game would mean more in qualifying for a playoff. That said, I don't have a problem with autobids B10, SEC, PAC10 champion etc. I have a problem with a 10 win ND autobid but conference champions deserve the bid.

As far as 16 being too many...oh, that old saw again...a 16 team playoff allows involvement (rotationally) of all the major bowl games (and a few of the less major ones) with basically 4 weeks of football...16 allows the second bid from major conferences or from outsiders like a Boise State.

Certainly government involvement in every aspect is not necessary but it's pretty clear that the powers that be in terms of the BCS have the ability to fcuk.shit.up about every two years. They are morons and sometimes such idiots require the sort of oversight the DOJ can provide (that is when their actions skirt perilously close to anti-trust).

Brodie

January 30th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^

Considering that even Duke-North Carolina regular season games draw sub-NHL ratings, I'd say that March Madness has deflated all the meaning from the regular season. Unless you're following a particular team, most people do not give a shit about college b-ball until the conference tourneys.

tpilews

January 30th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^

I love watching UM football, but watching the entire DSU game was tough. This "cupcake" scheduling is a result of the BCS system. Sure each game may mean less in a playoff system, but I'd rather see a game against Texas in September than Delaware State.

JeffB

January 29th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^

I think I agree with conflicting views here in that I really do think that the government has better things to do with its time than meddle in sports, but on the other hand as Tater said, it is the government's job to at least investigate antitrust issues.

I know that there was a Supreme Court case recently with the NFL in regard to antitrust with their clothing contract, and that baseball has an antitrust exemption. What I'm not sure about is how other sports fit in? With the NFL case, it seems that there are arguments as to whether the NFL is a single entity or a collection of 32 separate ones. Would that apply to NCAA sports, as the universities are all independent entities, but they come together collectively (collusion?) for the games as well as joint marketing/sales (TV rights by conference or the NCAA for playoffs)? On the other hand, you can't have a game with one team, and it does help to have standardized rules for a given sport.

ZooWolverine

January 29th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^

The NFL case doesn't really have a bearing on the NCAA but only because there's absolutely no way you colleges could argue what the NFL tried (and failed) to argue. The universities are clearly separate entities and must obey antitrust law. The NCAA could try to argue that it's one organization like the NFL did but the NCAA doesn't run the BCS so that wouldn't matter (plus that argument wouldn't hold up nearly as well as the NFL's and the NFL's argument lost).

The only argument the BCS could make is that it did not illegally collude; I think it probably has a hard time making that argument since some conferences are held above others and it's much harder for some schools to win a national championship. The BCS would probably argue that those conferences are held above others based on merit, not illegal collusion and that worthy BCS auto-bid conference schools have also been left out of the championship, and the championship decision does not use conference membership at all (though strength of schedule is indirectly affected by conference membership).

Although I'd love to see this force playoffs, it's worth considering that, if the BCS is found to be illegal, college football could just return to the old bowl format. I think that's unlikely, but all the government could say is that if an MNC is awarded, it must be awarded fairly. It's up to the institutions to decide whether it should be awarded at all.

Firstbase

January 29th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^

...f#%&ing thing these idiots will leave alone? Why do so many politicians (particularly from the left side of the aisle) feel they have to meddle in every aspect of our lives? Sheesh!!!

Look, I'm all for a playoff, too, but the government tentacles are spreading way too far these days.

Rasmus

January 30th, 2010 at 7:35 AM ^

responding to a request from Orrin Hatch, an old-school Republican senator from Utah, i.e., the Mountain West conference. It's an attempt to pressure the BCS into giving the Mountain West champion an auto-bid.

Also, the OP is reading too much into the decision to honor Hatch's request and conduct a review of the law with regard to the BCS. We don't know what the result of the review will be.

Don

January 30th, 2010 at 8:09 AM ^

The President will make all kinds of important-sounding statements, and so will various members of Congress, and then absolutely nothing will be done.

baorao

January 30th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^

the likely result of this (assuming they find the BCS is guilty of antitrust violations) is NOT that Congress develops and votes on a CFB Playoff. Its that they threaten to make everyone pay taxes on BCS money, and in response the BCS proposes a new, more fair system.

Its like baseball and steroids. There were a lot of threats and posturing, but ultimately baseball came up with their new PED policy to get Congress off their back.

Tyreas

January 30th, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^

I think when pursued at the correct time this type of investigation would be applauded by everyone.

The BCS, and on a bigger scale, the NCAA, is in need of a slap on the wrist. Next up on Obama's list is calling Ohio State the next time they stumble into the #1 spot in the polls.

"Play hard guys, avoid the letdown"

CHOKE

:-P