OT: Utah AG To Meet With Justice Department About BCS
Per ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5763731
"You get the DOJ behind one (An investigation), and the BCS will finally say, 'OK, we'll go to a playoff,' " Shurtleff predicted.
So Utah is still trying to get the DOJ to conduct an invesitigation into the BCS for antitrust violations. Personally I'm not a fan of this and dont like Utah being all up-in-arms over the BCS. To me it just kinda sounds like little people being called midgets and taking an extreme offense...
November 4th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
Interesting that they're still after it since they're in going to a BCS conference now. Props to sticking with their principles.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
This guy went there and they still aren't in an AQ conference.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
but less a fan of a potential playoff.
Here's a reasonable scenario:
1) Utah wins their antitrust suit, BCS gets blowed up
2) Playoffs are instituted
3) Utah (no matter how good they are) still aren't ranked high enough to make the playoffs
4) Yes, polling will still be necessary, even with playoffs
November 4th, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
Basketball doesn't really have that issue - if you win your conference you're automatically in, if you don't, then you have to sit and hope the rankings put you in. That way every team in the entire country has a shot when the season begins and if they don't make it they have no one to blame but themselves. This also preserves the big name OOC games as you aren't punished for losing OOC but if you don't win your conference you're going to need those OOC games to pad your resume to get in.
November 4th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^
College Basketball != Div 1 College Football
The best comparable is Div II College Football and their playoff system. But like Div II, you'd have to get rid of the bowls for it to be feasible.
Wanna get rid of the bowls? Then we can talk Div I playoffs...
November 4th, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^
November 4th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
a last effort to try and shake things up before moving toa bigger (and more competetive) conference
November 4th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
That's why I hate them going this route.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^
You'd think that the Utah Attorney General would have many more important things than to worry about the BCS. The NY Attorney General focuses on high-profile lawsuits against banks for their alleged wrong-doings and the guy in Utah is focused on football. Amazing. That and the fact that there are obviously no antitrust claims to be brought given that there are 2 other divisions of collegel football. If Utah wants a playoff so badly they can go play for the FBS. (As you can probably tell, these kinds of frivolous lawsuits/investigations really bother me even if I agree with the underlying motivation.)
November 4th, 2010 at 8:56 PM ^
I have no problem with the guy pandering to the local interest.
Also, from the Utah Attorney General's perspective what other legal matters is he ever going to handle that would have this kind of profile. Anyone in his position would go that way.
November 4th, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^
...a legit argument. We're talking serious money here, guys. Colluding to keep a handful of marketable teams in the limelight is a problem for the BCS, plain and simple. They can't hide behind a cloak of dubious objectivity much longer.
FWIW...
November 4th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^
All the BCS here is objectivity, couldn't have been said better. I just think there's so much wasted time on Sports by people IE.) GOVERNMENT that cant afford to be wasted.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
For years Boise State has unsucesfully tried to get a big home and home series. No top BCS team will oblige them. I'm not certain but I also believe that none of the conferences invited them to join (perhaps because they are a crappy Idaho school). As a result they are, for the most part, precluded from playing in the NC game. Even if everyone else loses and even if they continue to blow out the teams they do play. I think that the BCS and the BCS conferences have set up an anticompetitive system and I think that the antitrust claims would at least be supported.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:04 PM ^
...is ultimately going to be the NCAA tournament as run by the NCAA itself.
You can't have one giant event every March involving about 20 percent of the teams in basketball while generating an absolutely insane amount of money and argue that doing the same thing in football would a) limit academic participation by players, b) damage current conferences with auto bids, c) "ruin" the regular season and d) wreck the "traditional" bowl system.
I predict the DOJ will have some interest in the matter and the BCS will soon enough die at the hands of a 16 team playoff (thus enabling all the former "major bowls" a different profit window).
November 4th, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
However...I am so sick of the government (both sides, this is not a statement in favor of or against one party or the other) wasting time on sports issues. (Justice Department here, Congress and steroids in baseball). Fix all the shit that is wrong with the country right now before we waste time on sports...no matter how much I really want to see a playoff.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^
November 4th, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
However, this has no business getting any time from any part of the government with everything else going on in this country....the horse shit economy, wars, etc.
This issue with the BCS DOES NOT EVEN COME REMOTELY CLOSE to the need for regulating the Banking Sectors and the Automotive Industry. If this was the late 90's...I would be all for the judicial department getting involved in something like this. But come on, to put sports on the same level as Banks and the Auto Industry is asenine.
November 4th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
I hate the BCS as much as the next guy but I don't think it is a matter for our governement. Personally I'd prefer to see a return to the old bowls.
November 4th, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
can the Utah AG play LB or DB?
hurr hurr hurr
November 4th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
because they can 2-3 games per week. Football is once every 7 days. The main arguments against a playoff seem to be time away from school, bowl system blowed up and fanbases couldn't travel all over the country week after week and that would hurt attendance and ticket $$. Bowl system seems to guarantee big $$ to schools involved. College presidents love the bowls and hate the playoff system. It's what makes college football so different from the NFL.
You can't use the argument that FCS and Div 2 do it because, TV doesn't care about them. ESPN will be the driving force to change how it's done. TV=$$$
November 4th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
I'm all for taking a look at restructuring the BCS, but it probably shouldn't come before dealing with the financial crisis/war on drugs/violent crime/poverty/the energy crisis/pollution.
November 4th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
Fuck Shurtleff and his dipshit antitrust suit.
He's a moron. The BCS is far less monopolistic than a playoff would be. The NCAA controls the basketball tournament - and all its sponsors - with an iron fist. The BCS championship game has absolutely no limitations on who may play in it.
The BCS isn't going to go to a playoff because of a stupid investigation. They'll disband first. And then the Fiesta Bowl, instead of being an open game with at-large picks from any conference in the country, will do like every other bowl and sign agreements with a particular conference. You want "the little guy" to play in the Fiesta Bowl? You'd better keep the BCS together or they'll just lock out all but two conferences and the WAC can enjoy the New Mexico Bowl. The BCS is much more open and inviting than the rest of the bowls - it's not their fault there aren't enough people interested in watching the CUSA champ play in the Liberty Bowl to spend that kind of money there.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:33 PM ^
+1.
The BCS did not replace a playoff, it created a playoff. If the BCS is deemed to be illegal, a playoff won't spring into existence--the bowl system as it was in the 1990s will come back again.
Right now, all Utah has to do to be a national champion is end the season ranked #2 and then win its bowl game. Without the BCS, for Utah to be national champion they would have to end the season ranked #1 and then win their bowl game. How are their interests served by destroying the BCS?
November 4th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^
Precisely. The way it's set up now, Alabama and Utah and Western Kentucky all have exactly the same path to the championship.
November 4th, 2010 at 7:10 PM ^
Why would the NCAA disband and lose money when they could have a playoff and make a lot of money? I think there should be a playoff with conference champions and a few at large teams, including two indies playing in to a round of eight on conference playoff Saturday.
I am glad the suit is happening. Anything that puts pressure on the NCAA to stop the BS of having its most popular sport be the only one without a true champion determined on the field is great in my book. Even if the suit is coming from a parochial moron.
November 4th, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^
I said the BCS would disband, not the NCAA. The BCS is a coalition of the bowl games, not a creation of the NCAA. If undue pressure is placed on them and they perceive this pressure to be focused on their alliance, they'll do what's best for their survival: disband it, and go back to the way they used to. Then TCU and Boise, instead of ever having the chance to play in the Fiesta Bowl as an at-large selection to the BCS, never get to play there and can go back to their little Las Vegas Bowls and New Mexico Bowls, because the Fiesta did what every other bowl already does and signed an agreement with two conferences.
And we still won't have a playoff. Not that I would mind.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:11 PM ^
The NCAA holds the hammer on this one and while the BCS might disband the impact would be decided by the NCAA in terms of their future planning. Most likely, the NCAA would notice a) the political pressure that has fomented in the past several years regarding a playoff and b) the absolutely insane amount of money to be made. Bowl games only sign agreements with conferences (as in past) with the NCAA giving that the okay. You assume that would happen; I have doubts of that.
I suspect the more likely scenario would be that the "top tier" bowls (Fiesta, Rose, Orange, Sugar etc.) would come to an agreement with the NCAA regarding hosting rights for a playoff. You'd see a rotation not unlike every late March with the final some time around Jan 7.The only parties getting frozen out would be the Meineke Carquest Bowl having to host a 24th ranked VaTech against SEC #6 etc. etc.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:27 PM ^
But how is freezing out certain parties from the money-making process any better or more acceptable, especially legally, if those parties are bowl games instead of teams? They're legally incorporated entities with certain rights. Right now the football process is a hell of a lot more democratic and not-monopolistic than basketball where the NCAA controls everything.
Don't forget that the NCAA was essentially forced to buy the NIT out rather than face a lawsuit - an antitrust lawsuit - from the NIT over their postseason policies. Do you not expect that the "frozen out" bowls would file a similar lawsuit if the NCAA moved to a playoff and froze those bowls out? I don't buy the idea that there's enough money in a playoff to offset that, considering that about 20 bowls would have their hand out.
November 4th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
You noted:
Right now the football process is a hell of a lot more democratic and not-monopolistic than basketball where the NCAA controls everything.
I think the point is that the NCAA will want to control everything and, aside from the arms length relationship in place at the moment with the BCS, still does control things. By instituting a playoff the NCAA will exert the same level of control as it has at the D2 and D3 levels. You are right that the "frozen out" bowls will either a) be entitled to some sort of compensation or b) depending on the size of the playoff be actively involved.
I would venture that NCAA rights on a 16 team playoff with play in games (think here the "frozen out" bowl venues) would generate more overall monies than the March Madness. The NCAA will wilt, ultimately, to political and market pressures for a playoff. Raback that.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
But the NCAA itself is nothing but a consortium of its members. The money from the bowls goes directly to the conferences and schools - I don't think money will be a motivation for the NCAA to go to a playoff if the schools have to add a middleman (the NCAA itself) to the process.
I've long maintained there can be no playoff at neutral sites. It can't work. The bowls won't agree to it. The opening rounds of March Madness are played in front of two-thirds-empty arenas. Miami and Wisconsin played their bowl game (the Champs Sports Bowl) in front of 56,000 fans. Turn the Champs Sports Bowl into the first round of the playoffs and you won't get 15,000. I guarantee that. Look at the ACCCG when Boston College is involved. Their fans won't travel to Florida, they're saving their money for the bowl game. That's true for just about anyone - fans will travel once for their team, they won't follow them all the way around the country from Orlando to New Orleans to Phoenix to Dallas. Especially not after they just spent a ton of money on Christmas. They'll go to games if they're at home. The bowls know this - they won't agree to be used as playoff sites.
I mean, why compare D-I to D-II and D-III and say "they make it work, so D-I can too" and then propose a completely different model?
November 5th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
A couple thoughts...First, the difference between a bowl game and a playoff game is substantial. If a playoff system were to be adopted then you're going to see relevant matchups (your first round is maximally eight games) that would draw anywhere. I doubt you'd see neutral fields in that round (higher seed home games rd 1.). After that, however, you're likely looking at the former upper tier bowl game venues (and or Jerry Jones world depending on how much money the NCAA is looking for...Second, the bowls only reason for existence is because of the NCAA allowing their membership to compete in those same bowls via conference/current bcs model agreements. If the NCAA can control basketball the NCAA can control football; I'm sure they come to some agreement re venue with the former bowls so everyone saves face/makes money.
November 4th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
playoff games into the current craptacular bowl games and it's a win-win..........you figure out some type of playoff and the bowl games still get to happen.......the difference is that you might actually get people to attend and watch the early bowl games if teams playing in them were relevant.
November 4th, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^
Keep BCS bowls
Have "And one"
Keep the rest of the minor bowls without a playoff system