OT: Congressional Bizzaro world: Senator asks Obama to investigate BCS
15 million unemployed, deficit exploding, health care in uncertain shape, dollar hitting new lows, and two wars being fought at once. Yes, you would think there was plenty of crises in the world that need fixing and urgent attention from our congress-people and the administration. Apparently these are important, but yet another urgent matter that needs President Obama's attention is the BCS system. Senator Hatch from, you guessed it, Utah, has sent a 10 page letter to the President asking for an investigation by the Justice department into whether the BCS violates anti-trust law. Sigh.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcschampionship-cong…
Look, the BCS is dumb, and so was the system before it. But Jesus Christ...
October 21st, 2009 at 9:04 PM ^
It's an outrage!
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
Every year some senator from a state that houses whatever school got snubbed from the National Championship game gets pissed off and starts drawing attention to himself by howling for a congressional investigation into the BCS while the other 99 Senators ignore him. I'm sure it'll happen again this year with TCU or Boise or maybe even Iowa after the Texas vs. Florida/Alabama matchup is announced.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
Obama has been urged to ask the lazy* justice department to investigate the BCS, leaving Obama plenty of time to practice his heisman pose.
White House sources: he needs it.
*As a judicial officer, I know first-hand how not lazy the justice department is. Please do not take seriously.
White House sources: he needs it.
*As a judicial officer, I know first-hand how not lazy the justice department is. Please do not take seriously.October 21st, 2009 at 9:16 PM ^
Alfred Nobel thinks he looks "Dyno-Mite!"
October 21st, 2009 at 9:17 PM ^
not more than 20 hours per week.
We don't want to lose Executive Branch scholarships or forfeit past elections.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:20 PM ^
The best way to incorporate the BCS busting conferences with the rest of them would be to do a 12 team playoff similar to that of the NFL where the top 2 seeds get a bye. Automatic bids given to Winners of SEC, Big Ten, Pac 10, ACC, Big East, Big Twelve, Mountain West, and WAC. This still leaves 4 at large bids. Obviously there would still be other teams / conferences that would complain and lobby for their team but that'll happen with any system. I'm all for a playoff, but we'll never see it.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:36 PM ^
I would agree to the non-BCS conferences getting bids into a playoff system, if the NCAA got rid of many of the rules designed to create a false parity. In example: ridiculous rules such as the limit of pages and color pages that a team can have in its media guide - so as not to create an unfair advantage against the small schools. To the ones that hurts the athletes, like the lowering of scholarships, so that the bigger schools can't 'stock up' and leave the smaller schools with less to choose from.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:17 PM ^
This probably isn't the venue for starting up the playoff argument again, but this also isn't the venue for proposing your own special gumdrop land playoff scenario and you did anyway, so I'm taking the bait. I can't help myself: when I see horribly bad playoff proposals, I have no choice but to open my flap. It's genetics.
Anyway, you're "all for a playoff" because you have, as I said, your own special gumdrop land idea. Which is a terrible one. The moment you have an autobid system to the actual national championship instead of to some bowls that happen to share a designation with the championship game, stupid-ass Orrin Hatch actually does have an antitrust case if you decide to exclude people. You can't just have a playoff that arbitrarily excludes teams you think should be arbitrarily excluded. Be honest: why do you want a playoff? Because brackets are fun?
October 21st, 2009 at 9:28 PM ^
How about our lawmakers quit dicking around with issues that, in the big scheme of things, are trivial and actually do what we sent them there to do? How about healthcare? Public schools? War in the Middle East? Economic recession? There are about ninety thousand issues more important than the stupid ass BCS and every single one of them should be fixed completely before Congress sticks its nose into college athletics.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:33 PM ^
I think Obama figures since America is pretty much going to hell anyway why not give the college football fans of america something to live for
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 AM ^
+1 for you...people are getting WAY too worked up about the playoff thing.
Penn State got hosed. Nebraska is douchey. Let's move on.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:30 PM ^
The Congressman and Senators from Utah and Idaho are Republicans working with a Democratic President to effect change on an issue polarizing America. What's wrong with this?
And yes, I am being sarcastic.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^
I fear a devolution into a politics...
All I will say is that Congress has as much of a chance to fix the BCS as Notre Dame does to win a BCS game under Charlie Weis.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
How does Congress or Obama plan on enforcing any playoff system? This would be about as binding as when Tricky Dick Nixon declared Texas national champion.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^
The big problem is the vast majority of the people in charge (Conference Commissioners and University Presidents) don't want a playoff. The best Congress can do is pass a law that says "You can't call it a National Championship Game unless it's the product of a playoff." IMO, since the ppl in charge don't want a playoff, they would be more likely to go back to the way things were before, where the champion is determined purely by the polls.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:57 PM ^
Damn carpet bagging Idahoans and Utahans.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:19 PM ^
In a world where Boise State is a couple of upsets and a half-dozen more cupcakes from Pasadena, I don't wanna hear crap about the BCS being unfair.
It's a new world now, where The Horror happens and Alabama getting curbstomped by Utah happens. The only thing keeping the small schools from a chance to hoist the crystal football are the same damn voters that would have the #2 team get leapfrogged twice without having lost, thanks to their excretory sense of "fairness."
/needs a beer
October 21st, 2009 at 11:37 PM ^
Look up "Sore Loser" in the dictionary. You will see a picture of Orrin Hatch next to it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 AM ^
The claim is that the BCS violates antitrust laws (e.g., the Sherman Antitrust ACT).
I don't think that organizations should be allowed to break the law simply because some people don't think the issue is important enough or that there are other issues that may be more important.
If one is breaking the law, one is breaking the law. It does not matter if the reason one is breaking the law is for a silly billion dollar college sport.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 AM ^
Didn't end so well. Sports is one place we accept monopolies, as the product actually improves with a monopoly. Having multiple drafts and bidding wars between leagues dilutes the final product, as does larger numbers of teams.
I don't like the BCS, but I'm not sure if you can legally force them into a playoff. It just seems wrong.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^
anti-trust case. They got screwed over by the jury because they got a $1 damage award because the jury hated Donald Trump (and who can blame them for that!).
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 AM ^
It's not the BCS that holds the monopoly. There are three divisions of NCAA football, and one of NAIA. The fact that the biggest programs choose to take part in the one of those divisions without a playoff is immaterial... there is enough competition to say that the BCS itself does nothing to hamper interstate commerce. The NCAA, however, is an entirely different matter.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:35 AM ^
The BCS should be investigated. There is definitely an anti-trust suit waiting to happen there.
The argument that "there are other problems so the President shouldn't waste his time on the BCS" is pretty much a non sequitur. It's like a parent saying, "people are starving in Africa, so you'd better eat every bit of food on your plate." It sounds good, but neither statement really has anything to do with the other.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 AM ^
One of my main moral compasses has been the adage "There are a lot of sober people in Africa, so you'd better drink every last drop of every last beer in sight."
And I thought I had interpreted 42 correctly.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 AM ^
Anti-trust laws are enforced because when they are violated it can harm a company and it's employees that were conspired against, potentially causing them to lose their jobs and livelihood, and potentially harming consumers. Please tell me one thing, in any possible way, that Utah or Boise not getting to play in A FOOTBALL GAME hurts one single person--except for their feelings. Holy shit. PERSPECTIVE
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 AM ^
Please tell me one thing, in any possible way, that Utah or Boise not getting to play in A FOOTBALL GAME hurts one single person--except for their feelings.Well put: There are none. They (and I assume their conferences) have the same right to earn themselves a share of a BCS game payout as an actual BCS team. It's not like it's the BCS committee or the athletic directors that are denying them this right.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:35 AM ^
Anti-trust suit? Bullshit. Answer this question: As it pertains to the national championship, what disadvantage does Boise State have as compared to USC that's actually written on paper in the BCS bylaws and eligibility rules? And a bonus question: what guarantee does the Pac-10, Big Ten have that the WAC doesn't have? What is the difference between a "BCS bowl" and a "non-BCS bowl"?
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^
Championship game is a BCS bowl game.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:10 AM ^
I don't get the point. Again the question: What on-paper disadvantage does Boise State have that USC doesn't? What is the difference between the Orange Bowl and the Liberty Bowl besides a larger payout and a label?
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
I just realized what else I didn't like about this post. It was nagging at me that I couldn't put my finger on it. Now I know. You display no understanding of the concept of opportunity cost.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 PM ^
Ugh...people keep missing a fundamental fact about college football: there is no national champion or national championship game. The NCAA does not award one.
The BCS is not actually in the business of determining a true national championship. It is instead an arrangement to place the two highest ranked teams (i.e., #1 & #2) against each other in a game. The winner is the de facto BCS champion but that's kind of like winning the NIT championship in basketball (except that the NCAA doesn't run a parallel tournament of its own in football). By default, most of us concede that this is the best team.
Senators arguing that Univ of Utah was excluded is ridiculous because they were excluded for the same reason most teams were excluded, that is, they were not one of the top two teams at the time of selection.
Senators & presidents really should find something better to do and just stay out of it.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
Excellent point, and it's a primary reason Congress should butt out: they don't even understand what they're talking about. They have this bill, hanging around some chamber somewhere, that would prohibit the NCAA from promoting a "national championship football game" unless it was the result of a playoff. OK. "BCS CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ON ESPN JANUARY 6!!!" Problem solved. Good one, Congress.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 PM ^
There is an organization called the "SEC." It has 12 members. A mathematical formula is used to select 2 of those 12 teams to play in a game; the winner of that game is called the "SEC Champion." Nobody has ever suggested that this violates any anti-trust laws.
There is an organization called the "BCS." It has 66 members. A mathematical formula is used to select 2 of those 66 teams to play in a game; the winner of that game is called the "BCS Champion." Senator Hatch is convinced that this is a violation of anti-trust laws.
I have a hard time seeing the distinction, but then I am not a Senator from Utah.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:09 PM ^
Though you and I are basically on the same side of this argument, you're making a crucial, crucial mistake - the same one that leads Hatch so brutally astray.
First off, the BCS isn't an organization. It's a selection system. And even if it were an organization, it wouldn't have 66 members. More on that in a bit.
The BCS as a system does two things. One, it ties together four bowl games and determines the participants based on a mutual agreement between the bowl games, the people operating the BCS, and the FBS conferences. Two, it promulgates a ranking structure and at the end of the season, invites the two highest ranked teams to play in a championship game of its own hosting, in conjuction with a bowl game committee.
Your crucial mistake, of course, is saying the BCS selects two of sixty-six teams. It does NOT. It selects TWO OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY teams. EVERY SINGLE TEAM IN THE COUNTRY HAS THE EXACT SAME REQUIREMENT TO PLAY IN THE TITLE GAME.** This is the distinction that nearly everybody fails to make. This is also why nobody seemed to want to take me up on my question about what the difference is between Boise State and USC. THERE IS NONE. If Boise State wants to play for the title, they must do exactly the same thing USC must do: Finish #1 or #2.
This is why Senator Hatch a fucking fuckity fucktard who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He makes this same mistake. Only he's a member of Congress and therefore infinitely more dangerous.
The BCS's own semantics are killing it. If they would separate the concept of an invite to the Rose/Sugar/Orange/Fiesta Bowls and the concept of an invite to the national title game instead of labeling them both "BCS", there would be much less confusion about this.
**I am not yelling at you, I'm just emphasizing the point, because there are far too many who don't get it. Like Hatch.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 PM ^
Yes, Congress should be working on health care instead of trying to fix the BCS, but its very hard to defend a system where a computer picks a bunch of matchups instead of letting teams decide it. And the "the regular season is the playoffs" defense is garbage because it doesn't provide a fair way to determine a champion.