The Justice Department wants to know why the NCAA doesn't have a college football playoff system and says there are "serious questions" about whether the current format to determine a national champion complies with antitrust laws.
Critics who have urged the department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series contend it unfairly gives some schools preferential access to the title championship game and top-tier end-of-the-season bowl contents.
In a letter this week, the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players....
Bill Hancock, the BCS executive director, was confident the current system complies with the law.
"Goodness gracious, with all that's going on in the world right now and with national and state budgets being what they are, it seems like a waste of taxpayers' money to have the government looking into how college football games are played," he said.
In other words: "The government was so busy we were confident we could get away with violating the law. Besides, why would the government care about our little football games, which only generate a few billion dollars of business every year."
Mr. Hancock you are a tone deaf idiot.
That is all.
7 comments:
You must be joking. Hancock is the tone deaf idiot?? Really?? I tell you what: When that piece of shit Congress of ours figures out how to balance the budget and pass it in a timely manner, then MAYBE they can start sticking their noses into everybody's business. Until then they can just STFU, and mind their own business. Better yet, even then they can they can STFU. The country is much better off when those morons are on recess. There is a not a single one of them that seems to know what they are talking about on any given subject, whether it be the budget, energy, health care, the environment, or whether Osama was armed when we killed him, even as they pretend to be the foremost expert on the subject(s).
Oh c'mon. This isn't the government getting in the way of some mom and pop operation. It's big business; a business that sure looks like its run as a cabal for the benefit of a few large schools, and which have a HUGE financial incentive to keep the status quo.
I know there are 10 schools who feel they have a God given right to trade the Championship back and forth between them (along with the cash of course), but they may just have to get use to real competition.
Oh, I see: It's a big business, so obviously government should blunder in there, and pick the winners and losers. Because that's worked so well in the past. I can hardly wait to see the college football equivalent of a $40,000 "economy car"...
In the first instance, I'm not sure that the BCS is being run like a cabal, even though it is in some sense anti-competitive. In the second place, there are about 65 schools included in the BCS system, so there should be enough wait to counterbalance the dominant schools. After all, the other 55 or so could walk, possibly forming a new system on their own, including the 60, or so, schools that aren't in the BCS system. So, it seems to me that establishing that the dominant schools can prevent entry or exit, which is a key factor in establishing that a firm (or firms) possess market power. Really, before involving the Feds in this issue, I would like to see some sort of compelling case that the intrusion is warranted. All I've seen so far is some vague inequity, which may or may not be justified.
I'm sympathetic to the desire to come up with a better system than the BCS. The BCS sucks, and is probably very nearly as bad as the system that it replaced. However, it simply may be that awarding a truly legitimate college football champion is an intractable problem. A 3 or 4 game playoff system would make the college football season unnecessarily grueling, with young amateurs playing 14 or 15 game seasons, some cases. Alternatively, playoffs could be accommodated by shortening the schedules of all the teams by a couple of games, which would hurt the revenues of the weaker programs.
If there is a better solution, it would be much better if the principals involved came up with their own solution, without outside interference from the government or the courts. Enough is enough. Must everything be litigated and/or politicized in this country? Do you really want to see Chuckie Schumer or the Zero preening around, patting themselves on the back, telling us how improtant they are to our lives, on New Years' Day?
EDIT (I just read what I wrote, and I'm a little embarrassed :))
Oh, I see: It's a big business, so, obviously, government should blunder in there, and pick the winners and losers. Because that's worked so well in the past. I can hardly wait to see the college football equivalent of a $40,000 "economy car"...
In the first instance, I'm not sure that the BCS is being run like a cabal (even though it is in some sense anti-competitive). In the second place, there are about 65 schools included in the BCS system, so the smaller schools should be enough weight to counterbalance the dominant schools. After all, the other 55 or so could walk, forming a new system on their own (they might even include the 60, or so, schools that currently aren't in the BCS system). So, it seems to me that demonstrating that the dominant schools can prevent entry or exit from the BCS, which would be a key factor in establishing the presence f market power and the applicability of antitrust law. Really, before involving the Feds in this issue, I would like to see some sort of compelling case that the intrusion is warranted. All I've seen so far is some vague sense inequity, which may or may not be justified.
I'm sympathetic to the desire to come up with a better system than the BCS. The BCS sucks, and it is probably very nearly as bad as the system that it replaced. However, it simply may be that awarding a truly legitimate college football champion may be an intractable problem, given the number of teams involved and the violent nature of the game. A 3 or 4 game playoff system likely would make the college football season unnecessarily grueling, with young amateurs playing 14 or 15 game seasons, some cases. However, a shorter playoff round would probaly raise a lot of the same kinds of complaints of unfairness that we are hearing today. Alternatively, 3 or 4 game playoff tournamet could be accommodated by shortening the schedules of all the teams by a couple of games, which would hurt the revenues of the weaker programs that don't get to appear in the post-season. So, I don't see an easy solution.
If there is a better solution, it would be much better if the principals involved came up with their own ideas, without outside interference from the government or the courts. Enough is enough. Must everything be litigated and/or politicized in this country? Do you really want to see Chuckie Schumer or the Zero preening around, patting themselves on the back, telling us how important they are to our lives, on New Years' Day?
I'm not sure why its possible for schools like Delaware (and all the other ones in whatever they called 1-AA these days) to play a season and a playoff without the world coming to an end, but the second we ask Texas or Auburn to play the same type of schedule it becomes unthinkable. Given they have 85 scholarships to field a team I believe they should be able to cope... they just wouldn't be as likely to use their players the way the pros use theirs. (Which should be fine as they are supposed to be scholar/athletes!)
Besides, even if we get a playoff the big schools can just rig the selection process for that. (I forget...how many Big (le)East teams lost on the first weekend this March?)
And doesnt the computer models used by the BCS automatically favor the "power" conferences? I'm pretty sure they do (as well as getting the automatic bid, no matter how crappy the Big 10 was that year.)
Good point about the NCAA Division I Football Championship playoffs. I didn't realize that playoffs existed for the smaller programs. Still, it demonstrates that the NCAA just might be able to schedule college football games without congressional or Federal oversight. (It also suggests to me that the real problem may not be the NCAA or the big schools, but rather the big bowls. But that's pure speculation on my part.)
Well, usually just the threat of the Feds (or the courts) getting involved is enough to push sports organizations to move. The feds didn't dictate drug testing in the pro sports, but they certainly helped move it in that direction.
Without some external pressure I'm not sure the monied interests would ever deviate from the status quo short of a lawsuit like the one the state of Utah is preparing.
Post a Comment