Obama administration requests legal review of BCS structure.......

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Now here's something that Obama can likely get bipartisan support on!

Justice Dept.: President Obama's administration may take action on BCS - NCAA Football - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/01/29/obama.bcs.ap/index.html?xid=si_ncaaf)

[Flasch186]

yes!

[panerd]

What a waste of government time. Especially being a Mizzou fan MBBF, a few years ago we win against OU and we are in the national title game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Any remaining doubt that he's a complete moron has now been removed.

[MrBug708]

Who the F cares

[Flasch186]

goddamnit, if there is nothing else we can agree on that a playoff system for college system is one of them!

[JonInMiddleGA]

if there is nothing else we can agree on that a playoff system for college football is completely useless & will destroy very fabric of what makes the regular season the only completely meaningful one in all of sports is one of them!

Fixed that for you ;)

[Flasch186]

i hate you ;)

[gstelmack]

Fixed that for you ;)

Then stop claiming we have a national champion, that's all I ask...

[Izulde]

If he handles this as well as he did health care reform, the bowl system will be safe for years.

[RainMaker]

Fixed that for you ;)
Nothing screams meaningful like having some media members, former players, and computers determine the championship. How unmeaningful it must feel for those other sports that determine it on the field.

[JPhillips]

Ugh. Don't like Congress messing with college football nd I don't like the executive fooling around with it either.

How about the DOJ spends the time it would take to look at the BCS and instead find a way to convict Evan Bayh of something that gets him out of the Senate.

[ISiddiqui]

For those who do believe this is a waste of time, do you believe that anti-trust laws are not worth pursuing?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I wish McCain had won. Not because I think he would have been a better president, but because I wouldn't have to hear all the fucking Obama haters.

[JPhillips]

For those who do believe this is a waste of time, do you believe that anti-trust laws are not worth pursuing?

No, but there's a limited amount of manhours available for enforcement and the BCS structure shouldn't be a priority. If you can tell me all the other anti-trust issues have been cleaned up and now we're on to the BCS it would make more sense.

[MrBug708]

It's not really an Obama thing, at least not to me. Hell, I voted for the guy. But I dont want the government involved in sports. (At least where there is legality issues not involved)

[ISiddiqui]

No, but there's a limited amount of manhours available for enforcement and the BCS structure shouldn't be a priority. If you can tell me all the other anti-trust issues have been cleaned up and now we're on to the BCS it would make more sense.

Can you tell me of all that many anti-trust cases/investigations that have more money behind it? Regardless of what the DOJ does with it, it'll likely be a far less waste of time and money as the case against Microsoft was.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nothing screams meaningful like having some media members, former players, and computers determine the championship. How unmeaningful it must feel for those other sports that determine it on the field.

Works pretty well for me, has worked out pretty well for college football for a long time now as a matter of fact.

Want an illustration of the difference? Today #7 Duke plays #11 Georgetown in a game that means absolutely nothing. That same regular season game can be an important eliminator in college football, actually has meaning beyond the few hours it lasts. I'd far rather have a meaningful regular season for months of football where every week matters.

edit to add: I have no desire to see it dumbed down so that I only need to pay attention for a few weeks at the end of the year. I enjoy the role that college football plays in absorbing recreational attention for a prolonged period & am loathe to have that taken away.

[ISiddiqui]

From the article:

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.

How exactly is that so horrible? In addition, as it is a Senatorial request, it carries more weight (as an executive branch employee, I can attest that if a Congressman or Senator comes to us, it becomes more of a priority).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lemme see here

A private, voluntary membership organization elects to determine a champion in the manner of its choosing.

In the case of college basketball, they've chosen to allow 65 teams selected in a manner they've deemed appropriate to compete for that championship, while also allowing additional opportunities to compete in sanctioned post-season play unrelated to that championship.

In the case of college football, they've chosen to allow 2 teams selected in a manner they've deemed appropriate to compete for that championship, while allowing additional opportunities for sanctioned post-season play unrelated to that championship.

And that's somehow the business of Congress? Fuck me running.

[ISiddiqui]

I can say it again, not that'll help matters...

Anti-Trust Laws.

Or, more specifically, Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can say it again, not that'll help matters...

Anti-Trust Laws.

Or, more specifically, Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Hey, if the NCAA needs to alter its division structure in order to allow for the "equitable distribution" of revenue to member institutions (which is what Hatch appears to be trying to latch onto) & satisfy the meddlers while maintaining something worthwhile then I'm all for it. The non-BCS conferences could vanish from the D1 landscape tomorrow and the majority of fans would never notice the difference.

But it would have been a lot simpler for Hatch to attach himself to a meaningful relevant football program if he's that into it than to try to destroy the history, tradition, and relevance of the sport.

[Dr. Sak]

I wish McCain had won. Not because I think he would have been a better president, but because I wouldn't have to hear all the fucking Obama haters.

You are so right because the other side never hates on anyone or blames anyone but themselves. :rolleyes:

[molson]

I wish McCain had won. Not because I think he would have been a better president, but because I wouldn't have to hear all the fucking Obama haters.

I definitely miss the glory days when the president wasn't criticized.

[panerd]

If it's so bad than Boise, TCU, Cinci should all pull out and form their own league. In fact teams generally ranked 11-25 like Mizzou, Iowa, Old Miss, Oregon, etc could also join them. Or maybe them all make a shitload of money off the bowl system and don't want to lose that cash cow? But once again I guess the government knows how to run something better than the people currently running it and the millions of fans who are forced to watch it.

For those who try and make this partisan (wah Obama) the same hatred would be leveled at McCain or Bob Barr if he did this. In fact the same disgust was leveled at Bush and Congress when they "got to the bottom" of steriods. Clean up some of the messes that all of government has already created (war on drugs, war in the Middle East, ridiculous tax code, Federalized education, etc) before you go fucking something else up.

[RainMaker]

Can you tell me of all that many anti-trust cases/investigations that have more money behind it? Regardless of what the DOJ does with it, it'll likely be a far less waste of time and money as the case against Microsoft was.
Google.

[RainMaker]

Lemme see here

A private, voluntary membership organization elects to determine a champion in the manner of its choosing.

In the case of college basketball, they've chosen to allow 65 teams selected in a manner they've deemed appropriate to compete for that championship, while also allowing additional opportunities to compete in sanctioned post-season play unrelated to that championship.

In the case of college football, they've chosen to allow 2 teams selected in a manner they've deemed appropriate to compete for that championship, while allowing additional opportunities for sanctioned post-season play unrelated to that championship.

And that's somehow the business of Congress? Fuck me running.
In basketball, every team has the ability to win the National Championship while that is not the case in football.

The current system violates the Sherman Act. College football is big business.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

You are so right because the other side never hates on anyone or blames anyone but themselves. :rolleyes:
I definitely miss the glory days when the president wasn't criticized.

If you guys think that it hasn't been taken to another level with Obama...

I hate the idiots on the other side too. It's just that someone on the right can scream about the left all day long and feel they are bathed in the righteous waters of patriotism. Cindy Sheehan today would be leading a tea party.

[panerd]

If you guys think that it hasn't been taken to another level with Obama...

I hate the idiots on the other side too. It's just that someone on the right can scream about the left all day long and feel they are bathed in the righteous waters of patriotism. Cindy Sheehan today would be leading a tea party.

Sorry but some people just don't like the out of control federal government. Cry about partisan bullshit like Cindy Sheehan all you want but some people are just sick of the federal government trying to get involved in every aspect of life. It got a lot worse with Geroge W. Bush and Obama has done nothing to slow it down. It's hard to argue about out of control government with me though because I don't give a shit about Republicans either. I think they are both out of control. So give me a reason why this is a good idea that doesn't somehow involve this being anti-Obama and some non-sequitur jab about Cindy Sheehan and the tea party?

[cartman]

So give me a reason why this is a good idea that doesn't somehow involve this being anti-Obama and some non-sequitur jab about Cindy Sheehan and the tea party?

Isiddiqui covered it pretty well with the enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. Considering the act has been around since 1890, it is kind of hard to pin this on an out of control government.

[Young Drachma]

Orrin Hatch started this ball rolling, at the behest of the University of Utah and probably BYU to a lesser extent, not the President.

And this isn't exactly a new thing. If Teddy Roosevelt hadn't stepped in when he did to implore the schools to make the sport safer, it might not look anything it does right now.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I try to ignore politics all together, but now this is starting to fuck with my sports! Do I have to care now? :(

[cartman]

I try to ignore politics all together, but now this is starting to fuck with my sports! Do I have to care now? :(

No, UNO is still moving to Division 3, and the Bowling Hall of Fame is still moving to Arlington, TX.

[Pumpy Tudors]

No, UNO is still moving to Division 3, and the Bowling Hall of Fame is still moving to Arlington, TX.
fml

[Galaxy]

Lemme see here

A private, voluntary membership organization elects to determine a champion in the manner of its choosing.

In the case of college basketball, they've chosen to allow 65 teams selected in a manner they've deemed appropriate to compete for that championship, while also allowing additional opportunities to compete in sanctioned post-season play unrelated to that championship.

In the case of college football, they've chosen to allow 2 teams selected in a manner they've deemed appropriate to compete for that championship, while allowing additional opportunities for sanctioned post-season play unrelated to that championship.

And that's somehow the business of Congress? Fuck me running.

How is the NCAA/BCS a "private" organization when most of the NCAA (at least the top level) is made of public universities?

[RainMaker]

Just remember that college football is where it is money wise because a few schools sued claiming the NCAA was violating the antitrust laws. Now they will be whining when those same laws they loved a couple decades ago work against them. Hypocrisy at its best.

[Young Drachma]

Oh and they're all non-profits, too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In basketball, every team has the ability to win the National Championship while that is not the case in football.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

They are eligible for selection just like everyone else. But the number of qualifiers for the championship isn't as large as it is for other sports so we haven't seen one reach that stage yet.

The current system violates the Sherman Act. College football is big business.

So is, just for example, men's golf. Not as big but big nevertheless. But I haven't seen anyone going after the PGA to have the government determine the number of entrants in their championship procedure.

This is ultimately nothing more than typical boo hoo bullshit by people/entities jealous that others are higher on the food chain than they are.

Earlier I was going to agree that this move by any politician would have been equally ripped. While I can assure you that I would have taken Bush, Reagan, or a hypothetically elected Ann Coulter to task just the same as I'm prepared to do with Obama maybe there is a liberal/conservative element to this ultimately after all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How is the NCAA/BCS a "private" organization when most of the NCAA (at least the top level) is made of public universities?

Umm ... when did the government take over the NCAA?

The NCAA is no more a "public" organization than any other vendor/service provider/professional organization that happens to have universities as clients. Or does a university that obtains group health insurance from a supplier suddenly turn that company into a "public" institution? Are the vendors who supply the food to campus dining halls sudden "public" companies ... just because they're chosen by public university as a supplier?

As far as I'm aware no one forces any institution to be an NCAA member. Hell, they're free to not join & schedule exhibition games against Athletes In Action if they so desire. I see no reason they couldn't determine who they'll play, keep track of results & declare themselves a champion in any manner they see fit if they so desire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Orrin Hatch started this ball rolling, at the behest of the University of Utah and probably BYU to a lesser extent, not the President.

And he's no less of a fucking idiot for doing so than Obama.

There, maybe that'll makes our poor lefties feel better. But I kind of figured that equal application of contempt was pretty obvious throughout my consistent criticism of the notion of involving government in this, which extends throughout a hell of a lot more threads than this one. Apparently not obvious enough.

And I'll be happy to ask Rep Paul Broun (R-GA) if he's lost his fucking mind too if he decides to interject himself into the process at some point.

[RainMaker]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

They are eligible for selection just like everyone else. But the number of qualifiers for the championship isn't as large as it is for other sports so we haven't seen one reach that stage yet.
Nope. College basketball has automatic qualifiers which means each team has the ability to play themselves into a National Championship. That is something football does not have.

So is, just for example, men's golf. Not as big but big nevertheless. But I haven't seen anyone going after the PGA to have the government determine the number of entrants in their championship procedure.

This is ultimately nothing more than typical boo hoo bullshit by people/entities jealous that others are higher on the food chain than they are.

Earlier I was going to agree that this move by any politician would have been equally ripped. While I can assure you that I would have taken Bush, Reagan, or a hypothetically elected Ann Coulter to task just the same as I'm prepared to do with Obama maybe there is a liberal/conservative element to this ultimately after all.
I don't see any liberal/conservative element to this at all.

The PGA does not banish a segment of golfers from ever participating in their tournaments. They have criteria to meet and every golfer plays on the same playing ground to meet that criteria. If Golfer A shoots a 65 and Golfer B shoots a 67, they don't take Golfer B on the grounds that he may draw more fans.

I don't see it as boo hoo by people lower on the food chain, I see it as some big schools hiding under their desk because they may actually have to play some tough competition to win a NC.

[gstelmack]

It's just that someone on the right can scream about the left all day long and feel they are bathed in the righteous waters of patriotism.

And vice-versa. There is plenty of self-righteousness to go around. So what's the point again?

[DeToxRox]

Nope. College basketball has automatic qualifiers which means each team has the ability to play themselves into a National Championship. That is something football does not have.


I don't see any liberal/conservative element to this at all.

The PGA does not banish a segment of golfers from ever participating in their tournaments. They have criteria to meet and every golfer plays on the same playing ground to meet that criteria. If Golfer A shoots a 65 and Golfer B shoots a 67, they don't take Golfer B on the grounds that he may draw more fans.

I don't see it as boo hoo by people lower on the food chain, I see it as some big schools hiding under their desk because they may actually have to play some tough competition to win a NC.

Listen an 8 team playoff sounds amazing but that's as big as at ever will go. I think more likely we get a And 1 situation and it'll be just a little different then it is now.

There is no perfect answer and there is going to have to be polls and computers to determine who makes it in anyway, while the regular season gets gutted in the process for nothing.

No longer would it be teams gutting it out to be in the top two, it'd be teams getting by to stay in the top eight or whatever.

[DeToxRox]

I should add the fact that I do not see any way they have a 16 team playoff because they will not play over Finals. You would then end up overlapping with the NFL Playoffs which will never happen.

So now you have 8 teams with more then 8 conferences so you can't have all the conference winners go into a playoff.

So how do you decide who the 8 teams are in the playoffs?

I know it is a good alternative but it isn't going to help the little guys anymore then the current system.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nope. College basketball has automatic qualifiers which means each team has the ability to play themselves into a National Championship. That is something football does not have.

Wrong again (I'm sensing a trend with you here).

Not all conferences have automatic qualifying bids, and that extends further than college basketall. But thanks for trying I guess.

I don't see it as boo hoo by people lower on the food chain

Yeah but you also think you're a moderate, so we have to take that with a grain of salt.

edited to adjust above & add below:
Ultimately there's a criteria that varies for inclusion from sport to sport. If you destroy college football then why not go all the way & simply declare all teams to have automatic post-season eligibility in all sports? Football happens to have the most exclusive criteria, basketball perhaps the weakest but why not extend the same absurd logic to all sports and just make 'em all eligible. The current argument boils down to "it's unfair to not let everybody in" because {insert joke conference team A here} has as much business being anywhere near the college football national championship as a 6-6 team from the Big 10 or a 4-8 team from the SEC ... but I don't hear anyone crying for them yet. Hell, let's just eliminate the crying, eliminate the regular season altogether and then have a big tournament each year so the simple minded short attention span crowd can comprehend it before rushing off to watch American Idol.

I just wish to all that is Holy that the NCAA would either reorganize their division structure or even simply withdraw recognition from these meaningless fucking conferences in football & be done with them. But then these whiners would cry about that too.

[rowech]

Wrong again (I'm sensing a trend with you here).

Not all conferences in college basketball have automatic qualifying bids.
But thanks for trying I guess.



Yeah but you also think you're a moderate, so we have to take that with a grain of salt.

All conferences have a bid in basketball.

[cartman]

Not all conferences in college basketball have automatic qualifying bids.
But thanks for trying I guess.


The only conference that doesn't have an auto bid is the newly formed Great West conference. Once they are out of the transitional status, they will have an auto bid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The only conference that doesn't have an auto bid is the newly formed Great West conference. Once they are out of the transitional status, they will have an auto bid.

Hence my edit to include all sports to further illustrate the point I was trying to make.

The fact remains however that not all conferences have automatic qualifiers simply by virtue of their existence. All that differs is the determination of who qualifies. And only 8 of 14 I-AA conferences have automatic bids, how is that legally any different than the FBS situation? Gotta throw them in there too since they're also a part of the NCAA.

[cartman]

And only 8 of 14 I-AA conferences have automatic bids, how is that legally any different than the FBS situation? Gotta throw them in there too since they're also a part of the NCAA.

That ended this year. FCS moves to a 20 team tournament next season. In any event, the conferences in FCS voluntarily chose to not have an automatic spot in the playoffs. For example, the Ivy League chooses not to participate at all in the post season, while the SWAC season usually doesn't end until much later than the other teams. There's a big difference between that scenario and the one in FBS. The BCS is a separate entity from the NCAA.

[Galaxy]

Umm ... when did the government take over the NCAA?

The NCAA is no more a "public" organization than any other vendor/service provider/professional organization that happens to have universities as clients. Or does a university that obtains group health insurance from a supplier suddenly turn that company into a "public" institution? Are the vendors who supply the food to campus dining halls sudden "public" companies ... just because they're chosen by public university as a supplier?

As far as I'm aware no one forces any institution to be an NCAA member. Hell, they're free to not join & schedule exhibition games against Athletes In Action if they so desire. I see no reason they couldn't determine who they'll play, keep track of results & declare themselves a champion in any manner they see fit if they so desire.

I don't get the comparisons your making. The universities are not "buying" anything from other companies or contracting out facilities. They are apart of the NCAA and have a say (big or small as it may be) in it.

[Young Drachma]

The BCS is a separate entity from the NCAA.

This is operative point here. It's a cartel.

[panerd]

This is operative point here. It's a cartel.

Here is the applicable definition of cartel here...
A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices

I don't post it because of the BCS being called one (which it really seems to be), I post it because the savior of all of this (that you apparently want to fix this) is without a doubt the world's largest cartel.

[cartman]

Funny that you call enforcing the rule of law a "savior" or a "cartel", where I'd call it what a government is supposed to do.

[molson]

I don't get at all what this has to do with the Sherman Act.

Where's the illegal restraint on competition? Has any competition to the BCS even been attempted?

I don't see how the Sherman Act requires parties to a private contract to allow other parties into that contract.

What right does Utah, Boise St. have to crash someone else's contract, any more so than I would with with 50 friends? Just because they're in a conference called "1-A", instead of a conference called "1-AA"? So call non-BCS conferences something else. How about the "non-BCS conference division".

[DaddyTorgo]

Here is the applicable definition of cartel here...
A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices

I don't post it because of the BCS being called one (which it really seems to be), I post it because the savior of all of this (that you apparently want to fix this) is without a doubt the world's largest cartel.

:lol:

[JonInMiddleGA]

That ended this year. FCS moves to a 20 team tournament next season.

That I confess I did not know.

In any event, the conferences in FCS voluntarily chose to not have an automatic spot in the playoffs. For example, the Ivy League chooses not to participate at all in the post season, while the SWAC season usually doesn't end until much later than the other teams.

True for some, but not all, of the 6 non-automatic (at least that's always been my understanding of it).

There's a big difference between that scenario and the one in FBS. The BCS is a separate entity from the NCAA.

I disagree. The process of utilizing the BCS is the one that the NCAA has chosen, much as they have chosen the process for all of their other sports as well.

But hey, I'd be content with them simply eliminating the BCS and returning to the old system. But that wouldn't stop the whining either, since even fewer opportunities for paydays will exist for programs virtually no one gives a flying fuck about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So call non-BCS conferences something else. How about the "non-BCS conference division".

I have to admit that the CNGAFFA Division is a bit unwieldly.

[cartman]

I disagree. The process of utilizing the BCS is the one that the NCAA has chosen, much as they have chosen the process for all of their other sports as well.

But hey, I'd be content with them simply eliminating the BCS and returning to the old system. But that wouldn't stop the whining either, since even fewer opportunities for paydays will exist for programs virtually no one gives a flying fuck about.

The NCAA as an overall organization has nothing to do with the BCS. The NCAA still does not recognize a national champion for the FBS. The BCS is an independent organization.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't get the comparisons your making. The universities are not "buying" anything from other companies or contracting out facilities. They are apart of the NCAA and have a say (big or small as it may be) in it.

The comparison was in reference to whether it was a private organization.

The reference to being a vendor or membership organization relates to it receiving no direct government funding (versus a "public school" funded by taxpayer dollars). I'm sure we could find a magazine subscription that is paid by more than one public college or university that confers "membership status" and certain benefits but that does not make the magazine publisher any less of a private enterprise.

[panerd]

Funny that you call enforcing the rule of law a "savior" or a "cartel", where I'd call it what a government is supposed to do.

When did I do that? I stated that a cartel like the US government enforcing laws against other entities being cartels is nonsensical. I realize that many people have come to expect this from national and even local government ("What do you expect, it's the government" "It doesn't make sense but what are you going to do?") but I am saddened that people go even one step further and buy into their monkey logic of why they should stop everyone else from doing what they do. How come the US government can fix interest rates, can create laws and rules so that no third party ever has a chance, make decisions based on helping out a few corporations and banks over the rest of the country, national health care, on and on and on... AND can also write laws telling other entities that they can't do the same?

[molson]

The NCAA as an overall organization has nothing to do with the BCS. The NCAA still does not recognize a national champion for the FBS. The BCS is an independent organization.

So if you're an independent organization, and you have a contract with a bunch of parties - who do you have to invite to participate in your contract under the Sherman Act? It just seems silly. I can't imagine the Act ever actually requires anyone to have contractual relationships with specific other entities.

Or is the NCAA the one violating the Sherman Act, because they don't have a championship? That seems even more silly.

[cartman]

When did I do that? I stated that a cartel like the US government enforcing laws against other entities being cartels is nonsensical. I realize that many people have come to expect this from national and even local government ("What do you expect, it's the government" "It doesn't make sense but what are you going to do?") but I am saddened that people go even one step further and buy into their monkey logic of why they should stop everyone else from doing what they do. How come the US government can fix interest rates, can create laws and rules so that no third party ever has a chance, make decisions based on helping out a few corporations and banks over the rest of the country, national health care, on and on and on... AND can also write laws telling other entities that they can't do the same?

The US government is a political organization, not a commercial or industrial one. The US Constitution is what gives the government the powers to do those things you mention.

[panerd]

Funny that you call enforcing the rule of law a "savior" or a "cartel", where I'd call it what a government is supposed to do.

And on a less political note the Longhorns have become so successful due in a large part to this system. They are a major player of the cartel. It doesn't bother me, I wish Mizzou someday could become one of the elite, but it really makes no sense whatsoever why it would bother you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The NCAA as an overall organization has nothing to do with the BCS. The NCAA still does not recognize a national champion for the FBS. The BCS is an independent organization.

Fair point, I didn't word that well at all.

Even the NCAA points out the distinction
FOR THE RECORD: NCAA Corrects Inaccurate Coverage on the Relationship Between the NCAA and the BCS - NCAA.org (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/NCAA/Media+and+Events/Press+Room/News+Release+Archive/2009/For+the+Record/20090113+NCAA-BCS+For+the+Record)

CNN.com’s William Amsby and Sasha Johnson in their January 9 story ‘Obama raps Bowl Championship Series: 'We need a playoff' incorrectly refer to the “NCAA’s Bowl Championship Series”. In fact, the NCAA has no role in determining the contenders in the FBS national championship game. That responsibility rests with the Presidents and Commissioners of the 11 FBS conferences and the University of Notre Dame who created and manage the BCS independently of the NCAA. A multi-poll formula developed and overseen by the BCS solely determines which teams play in the BCS games. ESPN the Magazine’s Rick Reilly was equally off the mark in his January 12 article “Oklahoma and Florida can battle for the BCS. But we've already crowned the true national champ” when he questioned whether NCAA President Myles Brand and university presidents would stand in defiance of President-Elect Obama’s desire to see a playoff. Again, the NCAA has no role in determining rankings or who plays in the BCS bowls. Additionally, the NCAA membership has not advanced legislation to create a FBS playoff system.

The bolding is mine, because it really highlights a big part of the stupidity with the whining. The BCS exists because of a contract voluntarily entered into by every conference taking part. They were under no requirement of any kind to participate. Any conference(s) unhappy with the arrangement was certainly free to shop their own deal to any potential buyer, but knew how limited their value would actually be. But Versus or someone would have surely given them a few dollars for the rights to their "championship", they were just smart enough to go with the best deal available.

[cartman]

So if you're an independent organization, and you have a contract with a bunch of parties - who do you have to invite to participate in your contract under the Sherman Act? It just seems silly. I can't imagine the Act ever actually requires anyone to have contractual relationships with specific other entities.

Or is the NCAA the one violating the Sherman Act, because they don't have a championship? That seems even more silly.

If the contract specifically limits or artificially controls access to markets, then it sure does fall under Sherman Act review. That is why baseball (MLB) and football (NFL) have specific exemptions.

[panerd]

The US government is a political organization, not a commercial or industrial one. The US Constitution is what gives the government the powers to do those things you mention.


We will never see eye to eye after this statement so I will just agree that you have a completely different opinion than I do on what the government is really allowed to do and what it is that they just do because they have so much power.

[cartman]

And on a less political note the Longhorns have become so successful due in a large part to this system. They are a major player of the cartel. It doesn't bother me, I wish Mizzou someday could become one of the elite, but it really makes no sense whatsoever why it would bother you.

The AD and coach Mack Brown are on record as supporting a playoff system.

[molson]

If the contract specifically limits or artificially controls access to markets, then it sure does fall under Sherman Act review. That is why baseball and football have specific exemptions.

Baseball/football is a completely different situation though. The restraint of trade there is that the MLB/NFL can prevent teams from moving to other cities at will. Under the exemption, they can do that.

With the BCS, you have an organization that has a contract with certain colleges, but not others. There's lots of schools that aren't in the contract. The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

What would make the BCS "legal" - if they provided equal access to a subgroup of colleges as they happen to be defined by some other entity (the NCAA)? That makes no sense. What if the NCAA lets in 300 schools into its "top division"? (like it does in basketball) Does the BCS then have to legally provide equal access to all of them to crash their contract?

[JonInMiddleGA]

With the BCS, you have an organization that has a contract with certain colleges, but not others. There's lots of schools that aren't in the contract. The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

I imagine the government will find a way to force them to allow Joe's Truck Driving School to field a team with automatic entry into the 5,467 team tournament once they've won by forfeit over Glenda's School of Nail Technology.

After all, we wouldn't want the JTDS Gear Grinders to feel bad about themselves.

[cartman]

The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

You are correct, it doesn't. It is the actions of a group that would cause the Sherman Act to come into effect.

On second thought, maybe it does. I know that there was FTC review of the upcoming agreement with TicketMaster and LiveNation. However, I'm not sure if that was just a working arrangement or a merger.

[molson]

At the end of the day, I think legal analysis of this is ridiculous, but this coming up in the news every few months definitely wins some votes/campaign contributions for Hatch. And it gets fans riled up. And it gets the media riled up. And all of those things could possibly lead to playoff system of some type (though not through legal force)

[Galaxy]

Or it some deep-pocketed guy wanted too, start a pro league (or a minor league) drafting players straight out of H.S.

[molson]

Or it some deep-pocketed guy wanted too, start a pro league (or a minor league) drafting players straight out of H.S.

Or even a rich guy approaching the NCAA with a playoff proposal. But ya, until I hear something about how that kind of proposal, or a professional alternative to college football, are unlawfully restricted by the NCAA/BCS, the legal arguments are ridiculous.

[Young Drachma]

Some <s>light</s> reading from last year on the subject:

Is BCS Violating Antitrust Laws? Yes, If It Actually Existed -- NCAAFB FanHouse (http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/07/10/is-bcs-violating-antitrust-laws-yes-if-it-actually-existed/)

The Problem With Utah's Bcs Antitrust Claim | The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/the-problem-utahs-bcs-antitrust-claim)

And one from 2005 from a sports law blog: http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/10/bcs-system-could-it-be-illegal.html

[miked]

I'm still confused by the title. Is this Obama's doing, or a senator at the request of a school that feels left out?

[fantom1979]

I don't really care about the politics, I just care about the sports.

For me, it all comes down to this:

If you go undefeated in College Football, there is a chance that you didn't even play in the national championship game.

If you go undefeated in any other major US sport, you have won your sport's championship.

To me, this is unacceptable. I just think of teams like Gonzaga, UNLV, George Mason, and Indiana State...... those stories do not happen in football.

[RainMaker]

Wrong again (I'm sensing a trend with you here).

Not all conferences have automatic qualifying bids, and that extends further than college basketall. But thanks for trying I guess.
There is about 10 teams that don't have the ability to win an automatic qualifier (the Great West and independents). They are the only ones required to earn an at-large bid and make up 3% of the teams. There is a long history of independents making the NCAA tournament which has shown that those teams without an automatic qualifier have a fair shot at making the NCAA tournament.

Fact is that if you win all your games in college basketball, you will be National Champions. Everyone has the opportunity going into the season to be the National Champion. Only around 60% of football teams are eligible.

edited to adjust above & add below:
Ultimately there's a criteria that varies for inclusion from sport to sport. If you destroy college football then why not go all the way & simply declare all teams to have automatic post-season eligibility in all sports? Football happens to have the most exclusive criteria, basketball perhaps the weakest but why not extend the same absurd logic to all sports and just make 'em all eligible. The current argument boils down to "it's unfair to not let everybody in" because {insert joke conference team A here} has as much business being anywhere near the college football national championship as a 6-6 team from the Big 10 or a 4-8 team from the SEC ... but I don't hear anyone crying for them yet. Hell, let's just eliminate the crying, eliminate the regular season altogether and then have a big tournament each year so the simple minded short attention span crowd can comprehend it before rushing off to watch American Idol.
No one is saying that everyone has to get in or that you need a gigantic tournament. Just that every team should have an opportunity to play in the National Championship game. Every team should be allowed to get into BCS games if they are good enough. The current system is "fixed" so that crummy teams get in based solely on image and potential ratings. That's fine, but change it from being a sport to sports entertainment and go the WWE route.

Being exclusive isn't the issue, it's how it's done. Footballs exclusivity is not based on on-field actions but on pre-determined relationships to exclude competition. It's why the ACC gets into a BCS bowl game while continuing to be the laughing stock of it. You are trying to give the illusion that football picks the best teams for their bowls and is just real exclusive about how many get in, when I'm saying that they aren't picking the best teams because of a barrier of competition.

I just wish to all that is Holy that the NCAA would either reorganize their division structure or even simply withdraw recognition from these meaningless fucking conferences in football & be done with them. But then these whiners would cry about that too.
That's fine too. The funny thing is that the ACC should go along with them as they've shown they have no business competing with the other BCS conferences. In fact, those meaningless fucking conferences have a signifigantly better record in BCS bowl games than the ACC.

I understand as an ACC fan you are defensive as any change in the system hurts you and your team since they'd actually have to make games based on merits on the field.

[RainMaker]

I'm still confused by the title. Is this Obama's doing, or a senator at the request of a school that feels left out?
It's the Department of Justics doing at the request of a Senator (which they can ignore). Most likely has little to do with Obama outside of it being the Department of Justice he put in place. Congress is the one that got the ball rolling last year on this.

[digamma]

You are correct, it doesn't. It is the actions of a group that would cause the Sherman Act to come into effect.

On second thought, maybe it does. I know that there was FTC review of the upcoming agreement with TicketMaster and LiveNation. However, I'm not sure if that was just a working arrangement or a merger.

All transactions (stock or asset sales) of a certain size (thresholds can vary) have to get FTC approval under the Hart Scott Rodino Act.

[RainMaker]

Baseball/football is a completely different situation though. The restraint of trade there is that the MLB/NFL can prevent teams from moving to other cities at will. Under the exemption, they can do that.

With the BCS, you have an organization that has a contract with certain colleges, but not others. There's lots of schools that aren't in the contract. The Sherman Act doesn't prevent you from contracting with who you want to contract with (I don't think).

What would make the BCS "legal" - if they provided equal access to a subgroup of colleges as they happen to be defined by some other entity (the NCAA)? That makes no sense. What if the NCAA lets in 300 schools into its "top division"? (like it does in basketball) Does the BCS then have to legally provide equal access to all of them to crash their contract?

I believe the issue is equal access to everyone in the market. You can't control an entire market and block out a percent of it. Essentially holding a monopoly on it. Remember that this is the same Act that was used by the major college teams against the NCAA in the early 1980's to get access to television rights.

The problems from what I see is two-fold. One that teams that win every game have no chance at ever playing in the Championship. The other that teams who finish higher in the BCS standings are being left out for teams farther back simply based on alternative criteria.

[digamma]

Some <s>light</s> reading from last year on the subject:

Is BCS Violating Antitrust Laws? Yes, If It Actually Existed -- NCAAFB FanHouse (http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/07/10/is-bcs-violating-antitrust-laws-yes-if-it-actually-existed/)

The Problem With Utah's Bcs Antitrust Claim | The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/the-problem-utahs-bcs-antitrust-claim)

And one from 2005 from a sports law blog: Sports Law Blog (http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/10/bcs-system-could-it-be-illegal.html)

Clay Travis is a hack, and I'd discourage you from putting too much stock in his piece. The New Republic article lays out the issues very well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's fine too. The funny thing is that the ACC should go along with them as they've shown they have no business competing with the other BCS conferences. In fact, those meaningless fucking conferences have a signifigantly better record in BCS bowl games than the ACC.

I understand as an ACC fan you are defensive as any change in the system hurts you and your team since they'd actually have to make games based on merits on the field.

Has nothing to do with it, at least half the teams in the ACC should be playing at the mid-major (whatever we'd call it) level. I count Georgia Tech in the number reasonably easily frankly. We don't put butts in seats, we don't draw on TV, assuming that everyone were judged on the same criteria for realignment I'd find little issue to take with a move. Having the GTs, the Vandys, the Wake Forests, the Stanfords of the world try to compete on the same football scale as the Oklahomas, the Floridas, the Nebraskas, the USCs is pretty absurd anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just think of teams like Gonzaga, UNLV, George Mason, and Indiana State...... those stories do not happen in football.

By and large, I can only say thank goodness.

Check the ratings for the more modern era examples you used, the appeal of those teams as anything more than a novelty is limited.

[RainMaker]

By and large, I can only say thank goodness.

Check the ratings for the more modern era examples you used, the appeal of those teams as anything more than a novelty is limited.
Check the ratings for how college football bowl games compare against NFL playoff games.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Check the ratings for how college football bowl games compare against NFL playoff games.

There's no shortage of easily amused people in the world, check the ratings for American Idol.

The inexplicable appetite for the NFL aside, we've seen what happens when college teams that have an undersized (and that's putting it mildly) fan base are put into the spotlight, they underperform their more attractive counterpoints.

[RainMaker]

Has nothing to do with it, at least half the teams in the ACC should be playing at the mid-major (whatever we'd call it) level. I count Georgia Tech in the number reasonably easily frankly. We don't put butts in seats, we don't draw on TV, assuming that everyone were judged on the same criteria for realignment I'd find little issue to take with a move. Having the GTs, the Vandys, the Wake Forests, the Stanfords of the world try to compete on the same football scale as the Oklahomas, the Floridas, the Nebraskas, the USCs is pretty absurd anyway.
Not many teams out there can compete on the same football scale as those teams mentioned. There are only a handful in the country. Is your idea to have a 15 team league with these teams? Would be kind of tough since most are afraid to play each other.

[RainMaker]

There's no shortage of easily amused people in the world, check the ratings for American Idol.

The inexplicable appetite for the NFL aside, we've seen what happens when college teams that have an undersized (and that's putting it mildly) fan base are put into the spotlight, they underperform their more attractive counterpoints.
So why shouldn't the BCS games just be based on the teams that will draw the biggest ratings each year? What you are saying is on-field doesn't matter, TV ratings do. That's fine but Notre Dame and Michigan should be in the BCS every year by that criteria.

[molson]

So why shouldn't the BCS games just be based on the teams that will draw the biggest ratings each year? What you are saying is on-field doesn't matter, TV ratings do. That's fine but Notre Dame and Michigan should be in the BCS every year by that criteria.

Obviously its a blended criteria, on-field/ratings/traveling fans are all considered. Just like they would be in any sports/entertainment "one off" kind of event, that isn't part of an official season structure.

Why shouldn't a company be allowed to contract with football teams and have them play each other? Who cares what their reason is? Maybe they want to setup a game between the best two schools that start with vowels. It's silly, that doesn't make it illegal.

[ISiddiqui]

I believe the issue is equal access to everyone in the market. You can't control an entire market and block out a percent of it. Essentially holding a monopoly on it. Remember that this is the same Act that was used by the major college teams against the NCAA in the early 1980's to get access to television rights.

The problems from what I see is two-fold. One that teams that win every game have no chance at ever playing in the Championship. The other that teams who finish higher in the BCS standings are being left out for teams farther back simply based on alternative criteria.

And three is the BCS money is sent to every BCS conference, but rarely to non-BCS conferences (if a team from their conference doesn't make the BCS title game).

The "Championship" may not be a big of a problem as the other BCS games, which are far, far easier for BCS conference teams to get in compared to non-BCS conference teams.

[sterlingice]

Some of the ratings concerns issues brought up by JIMGA fall into the camp that insist the Yankees and Red Sox *should* get an inherent advantage because it's good for the sport and it's total bunk.

But what major television household does Oklahoma play to? I guess you could say Dallas, but not really as it splits that with Texas. Ohio State? Yeah, there are a couple of big cities in Ohio but it's not as if Columbus is a top 10 media market and the other cities OSU is not close to. Same with Penn State. Or some other traditional powers who have drawn well when they are successful (Tennessee, Nebraska, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M, or to a lesser extent Wisconsin, Arkansas, Arizona State, Oregon, etc).

It's prolonged success that makes a program look like a power, not where it's located.

How were the rating for USC in the 90s when they weren't that good? Or Oklahoma or Texas, again, when they weren't national powers? How about Nebraska and Notre Dame now, compared to 20 years ago? My point is that these things ebb and flow. Bob Stoops leaves and Oklahoma could be back to where they are in the 90s, happy to be in the Sun Bowl.

Why should Florida or Penn State or Virginia Tech or these other current powers be the only schools with the chance to actually build their programs into a national power? Florida has gone from 35K to 50K students since Steve Spurrier started in the early 90s. Meanwhile, Nebraska has actually lost a handful of students over that time frame as they have lost stature.
(interesting table: Selected statistics for degree-granting institutions enrolling more than 15,000 students in 2006: Selected years, 1990 through 2007 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_235.asp))

So, again, why insist on giving up possible significant long term gains for some of these schools at the expense of some very short term ones (i.e. one year tv ratings)? Why give these traditional powers the built in advantage? Don't they already have it? And, most importantly, how is it to the benefit of the system to have the power always consolidated in the same place?

(addendum)
I don't think Peyton Manning is unknown because he plays in Indy or Lebron James would be *more* known in New York City. If you're the best and transcend the sport, people know who you are (you could make an argument that semi-stars like, say, Andy Pettite benefit from being in a larger media market because he's basically Brad Radke on better teams but we're not talking about that). Again, this is basically the same rant I make every time someone argues that parity is bad for sports, the largest media markets should always have an advantage, and that it's good for the sport.

SI

[miked]

There's no shortage of easily amused people in the world, check the ratings for American Idol.

The inexplicable appetite for the NFL aside, we've seen what happens when college teams that have an undersized (and that's putting it mildly) fan base are put into the spotlight, they underperform their more attractive counterpoints.

That's right, I do seem to remember Oklahoma wiping the field with Boise a few seasons ago. And Oregon (or State) destroyed them opening day this season.

[RainMaker]

That's right, I do seem to remember Oklahoma wiping the field with Boise a few seasons ago. And Oregon (or State) destroyed them opening day this season.
Come on. If you're going to use an example of how crappy these small schools are, at least use the best football conference in the country. The SEC manhandled Utah last year in that game, right?