Yes, another BCS thread...very interesting article

[Collier11]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/01/bcs-justice/index.html

Basically saying a playoff is on the way...



Pushing for BCS change could give Barack Obama the politically popular win he desperately needs.
AP


Before you contemplate United States of America vs. the Bowl Championship Series, imagine for a moment that only 11 American companies produce ice cream. Six of the companies earn the bulk of the revenue -- either because they've been around the longest, because they gobbled up the most lucrative mom-and-pop shops or because they simply make the best product. Five other companies also produce ice cream. On occasion, a subsidiary of the smaller five produces some of the nation's best ice cream. Sometimes, the six big companies contract with the five to produce ice cream for lucrative, one-off events, but most of the time, the companies keep to themselves.

Now imagine the six richest companies got together and decided to fix the price of ice cream. In return, they would split the revenue from the January sales of ice cream evenly. The other five would be welcome to join the consortium, but they would have to take a significantly smaller percentage of the revenue. If they didn't join, they'd simply be squeezed out of the ice cream business. Join, the big boys would say, or you may as well drop down to the Italian ice subdivision. Oh, and by the way, in this example, all 120 subsidiaries of the 11 ice cream companies receive millions in state and/or federal funding.

If that ever happened, the federal government would bust the ice cream cartel using the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law passed in 1890 to keep companies from erecting unreasonable barriers to competition. At the turn of the 20th Century, President William Howard Taft used the Sherman Act against Standard Oil and the American Tobacco Company. In 1982, American Telephone and Telegraph -- better known as "the phone company" -- fell to the Sherman Act and its younger brother, the Clayton Act.

If the letter Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) received Friday from the Justice Department is any indication, get ready to watch the worst fears of the BCS overlords come true. Then get ready for some form of a college football playoff -- because that's where this is headed. When the dust settles, power conference commissioners either will compromise to preserve their partnership with their bowl cronies, or the BCS will cease to exist.

According to the letter, the Justice Department (the rock) may launch an investigation to determine whether the BCS violates antitrust laws. Meanwhile the Obama administration (the hard place) is willing to explore several options, including encouraging the NCAA -- which runs 16-team playoffs in three other football divisions -- to take over the postseason, asking the Federal Trade Commission to examine the BCS and pushing legislation that could "target universities' tax-exempt status if a playoff system is not implemented."
The leaders of the BCS could sit in their hollowed-out volcano and chuckle after U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) hauled them before a House subcommittee last year. They could lampoon Barton's bill, a relatively meaningless exercise in semantics that would ban the BCS from advertising its No. 1 vs. No. 2 game as a championship.

They can't laugh now, but they can duck.

Predictably, BCS executive director/mouthpiece Bill Hancock released a statement Friday reiterating the BCS defense whenever antitrust/cartel questions are raised: Hey, look over there!

"This letter is nothing new and if the Justice Department thought there was a case to be made, they likely would have made it already," Hancock's statement read. "There is much less to this letter than meets the eye. The White House knows that with all the serious issues facing the country, the last thing they should do is increase the deficit by spending money to investigate how the college football playoffs are played."

First, it is something new, and BCS leaders know it. They hired former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer for a reason, and it wasn't because they enjoyed watching his work on CNN in the early days of the Bush 43 administration. So far, Fleischer and his minions have served only to enrage fans further by creating a Facebook page and a Twitter feed that severely underestimate the customers' intelligence. Now, they're going to earn their money. The BCS hired Fleischer because he can navigate the halls of power in Washington, not because he makes a mean Facebook page.

Second, the federal deficit will not rise one penny if the Justice Department investigates the BCS. The Justice Department employs people, and those people must do something. If they are ordered to investigate the BCS, there is an opportunity cost exacted -- they could have investigated something else -- but not a monetary one. Also, it is the government's responsibility to monitor the activities of a multi-billion business that involves more than 100 publicly funded universities.

Third, Hancock's response doesn't actually answer the question; it simply misdirects. So, as a public service for Hancock and the bowl lovers everywhere, I called Michael McCann, the Vermont Law School professor who writes about legal issues for SI.com, and asked him to explain how the BCS might defend itself against an antitrust challenge.

"The people that support the BCS would say that we wouldn't have a national championship without it," McCann said. "All it does is reflect the college football standings. It doesn't do anything other than that."

McCann also summarized what the Justice Department might argue in an antitrust proceeding against the BCS. "It's arguably a cartel," McCann said. "It's producers and sellers joining together to control a product's production, price and distribution. ... In terms of anticompetitive effect, it affects prices. It also creates financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools. There are economic disparities between BCS members and non-BCS members. All of that would go into an antitrust analysis."


If faced with voting for a bowl-based system or a full-scale playoff, Big East schools like Pitt and Cincinnati would likely stand with the Mountain West and WAC.

In a courtroom, McCann said, neither side would be a four-touchdown favorite. "I don't think it's a slam dunk either way," he said.

Unfortunately for the BCS, the pro-playoff crowd has a powerful and motivated advocate: a president under fire who desperately needs a politically popular win. If this pressure results in the creation of a playoff, we probably should thank the voters of Massachusetts for electing Scott Brown last month. That win for the Republicans added one more thorn in the side of Obama, who is getting ripped on both sides of the aisle on major issues such as health care and the war in Afghanistan. By pushing the BCS to disband or to institute a playoff, Obama can claim a victory that will make Republicans and Democrats happy. It's a small victory, to be sure, but a victory nonetheless.

BCS leaders have always threatened that if the government got involved, they would simply dissolve the cartel and go back to the old bowl system. That may not be feasible. The old system would be fantastic for the SEC and the Big Ten, which would be wooed by all the major bowls. It probably would be a disaster for the Big East, which, in recent years, has looked like the gawky kid picked last for kickball every time the BCS bowls choose their participants.

It's no stretch to assume that if the BCS dissolved itself, the major bowls would leave the Big East out of any new deals. That would leave the Big East with the Champs Sports Bowl, the new-for-2010 Yankee Bowl and the Meineke Car Care Bowl as its best partners. None of those bowls is going to replace the $17.7 million the Big East received from the BCS. So if the Football Bowl Subdivision membership voted on whether it wanted a full-scale playoff (big money for everyone) or a bowl-based system (big money for the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and maybe the ACC), the Big East schools would have to seriously consider standing with the Mountain West, WAC and the rest.

Besides, even BCS leaders will admit that there's more money in a playoff. The NCAA basketball tournament brings in an estimated $545 million a year, and college football is exponentially more popular than college basketball. The BCS brings in only $150 million a year, but it funnels most of it to the most powerful conferences. Government intervention would strip those conferences of their power. After that, given a choice between less money and more money, here's betting college presidents forget about their arguments against a playoff and opt for more money.

There is another solution, and it probably will work. Compromise. Offer a plus-one -- a four-team, bracketed playoff -- and offer to split the revenue 11 ways. Then the president could declare victory, and the relationship with the most powerful bowls would be preserved. That could very well result in what Hancock calls "bracket creep," but one man's creep is another man's market correction.

BCS leaders may have to take that chance, because they may have no other way to salvage their way of doing business. Hancock spent part of his State of the BCS address on Jan. 7 bragging about the unprecedented access and revenue the six power conferences have bestowed upon their five little brothers. He failed to mention the timeline. The BCS increased access for the leagues without an automatic berth at its meeting in April 2006. Not coincidentally, Barton had hauled BCS leaders before Congress five months earlier.

Expect even more cooperation this time, because in the president and the Justice Department, the BCS has run into a pair of enemies it can't defeat.

[Collier11]

Id be interested to hear some of the lawyer opinions on this, and if at all possible lets keep the playoff or no playoff talk out of this thread and just talk about the legality of the BCS, etc...

[Crucifax Autumn]

But how much fun will it be without pointy headed commie intellectual liberals arguing with knuckle dragging nazi whitebread conservatives fagging up the thread?

[Collier11]

Itll be alot more fun if I dont have to hear the same old tired arguments for and against a playoff :D I just want to know what everyone thinks of the actual issue at hand

[OU_Sooners75]

IN other words, collier.

You want the legal minds + know-it-all Liztard to converse in this thread only?


How boring!

I think the article pretty much lays out the legalities in this issue.

Then again, I agree, leave the pros and cons of a playoff or BCS out of it. But then you are left with nothing to talk about.

[Collier11]

Sure you are, I dont care who talks in the thread but It would be nice if everyone would stick to the article as opposed to why playoff haters are stupid vs why playoff lovers are stupid

[OU_Sooners75]

Sure you are, I dont care who talks in the thread but It would be nice if everyone would stick to the article as opposed to why playoff haters are stupid vs why playoff lovers are stupid


Well, we all know that is where it is already headed.

I have been pro-playoffs for a very long time.

With that stated, I think it is more than about time that the Federal gubermint is trying to do something about this.

Are there more pressing issues to worry about? Yes. However, the vast majority of D-1A football schools are publicly funded institutions.

Does the majority of the schools make up the BCS? yes. Out of the 120 of the Division 1A schools, 65 of them belong to the BCS conferences.

It is not fair that 54.1667% of the member institutions in D1A football gets to decide how much money each school gets and who gets to be involved (and under which criteria they get to be involved).

Sorry, but that just does not seem like a fair playing field.

Neither does a plus one game.

Sure, you get four top ranked teams to play, but lets get real. Only 3.33% of the schools get to play for a national championship each year? Not fair either.

I know you dont want to talk about playoffs/BCS...however, deal with it, this is what the subject of the OP is!

Want a fair system? Sure, there will be teams that stand virtually no chance in making it past round one (but same goes in NCAA Basketball).
120 teams divided in 10 to 12 conferences (all conferences must have same amount of teams). Be it 10 in each or 12.

If 12 teams in 10 conferences, then split each conference into 2 divisions and all conferences must play a championship game (8 conference games plus the possibility of a 9th).
If 10 teams in 12 conferences (the one I perfer), then all teams must play each other (9 conference games) with no championship game.

After that the NCAA controls the format (but a format must contain all 12 conference champions). For easy working a 16 team bracket.
(based off of 12 conferences)
Each conference champion as an auto bid. The final four spots are determined by a rankings system (be it BCS or RPI), and must take the four top available teams.
Playoff Committee seeds all teams in four brackets. (4-#1s, 4-#2s, 4-#3s, 4-#4s)

First round, played at higher seed home stadium.
Second round played at the higher seed home stadium.
Semi-finals and Finals are played at neutral sites (true neutral sites if feasible).

Just the jest of it.


Sorry for getting this thread headed in that direction, but Antitrust laws are about businesses playing fair.

[King Barry's Back]

Well, we all know that is where it is already headed.

I have been pro-playoffs for a very long time.

With that stated, I think it is more than about time that the Federal gubermint is trying to do something about this.

Are there more pressing issues to worry about? Yes. However, the vast majority of D-1A football schools are publicly funded institutions.

Does the majority of the schools make up the BCS? yes. Out of the 120 of the Division 1A schools, 65 of them belong to the BCS conferences.

It is not fair that 54.1667% of the member institutions in D1A football gets to decide how much money each school gets and who gets to be involved (and under which criteria they get to be involved).

Sorry, but that just does not seem like a fair playing field.

Neither does a plus one game.

Sure, you get four top ranked teams to play, but lets get real. Only 3.33% of the schools get to play for a national championship each year? Not fair either.

I know you dont want to talk about playoffs/BCS...however, deal with it, this is what the subject of the OP is!

Want a fair system? Sure, there will be teams that stand virtually no chance in making it past round one (but same goes in NCAA Basketball).
120 teams divided in 10 to 12 conferences (all conferences must have same amount of teams). Be it 10 in each or 12.

If 12 teams in 10 conferences, then split each conference into 2 divisions and all conferences must play a championship game (8 conference games plus the possibility of a 9th).
If 10 teams in 12 conferences (the one I perfer), then all teams must play each other (9 conference games) with no championship game.

After that the NCAA controls the format (but a format must contain all 12 conference champions). For easy working a 16 team bracket.
(based off of 12 conferences)
Each conference champion as an auto bid. The final four spots are determined by a rankings system (be it BCS or RPI), and must take the four top available teams.
Playoff Committee seeds all teams in four brackets. (4-#1s, 4-#2s, 4-#3s, 4-#4s)

First round, played at higher seed home stadium.
Second round played at the higher seeded team.
Semi-finals and Finals are played at neutral sites (true neutral sites if feasible).

Just the jest of it.

Everything you said may be true, but none of that has anything to do with an anti-trust case.

And just to throw a little wrench into your carefully constructed arguments -- you refer to the number of schools in D1A football, and compare that to the number in the BCS, and claim it is "unfair" that 55% get to set the rules.

First, when 55% agree to something and do it, we call that democracy. Second, something can be "unfair" without being illegal -- in fact, many many things are. Third, the number of schools in the BCS and in D1A are arbitrary. Next year, for example, several new schools could move into D1A, or several could move down.

Or the meaning of membership could be redefined?

And why refer to D1A, and not to D1 as a whole?

And, in terms of decision-making, is it always "fair" to invoke the 'one-man; one-vote' principle? If a big time, big budget school like OU, or Bama brings hundreds of millions to the table, is it inherently unfair for them to have a bigger say in deciding things than, let's say, Utah State? Might be interesting to compare OU/Bama's annual football budgets and attendance figures and TV football ratings to those of Utah State.

I bet there'd be a big difference.

Finally -- regarding Sen Hatch (who is only trying to score political points in his home state of Utah, where ANOTHER school is routinely left out of the national championship debate) I wonder why none of his fellow Senators turn this around on him.

Hatch is pissed at the BCS because HIS team gets screwed. If he changes up the system to make it easier for Univ of Utah to get a championship, that means he will be making it harder for the established powers to get a championship.

Do we really want that? The BCS has been very favorable to Oklahoma, putting us in the big game just about time we've been in contention. Do we really want to muck that up?

[Crucifax Autumn]

I don't want to muck that up at all, but I would like to see a +1 at the very least and an 8 team playoff at most

[soonermix]

i have a question about all this. before the start of the bcs didn't conferences have tie-ins to basically the same bowl games anyways? so the payouts basically haven't changed since the bcs started.
so if the bcs strips the same bowl games of the name bcs and only hosts a "1 vs 2" game how could that possibly be called under the sherman anti trust?
i don't know legally about anything really but that seems to make sense to me unless i am just way off and i certainly could just be wrong

[JLEW1818]

It won't work and this is why, or mostly why the BCS works

College Basketball: The NCAA puts on the postseason. Whoever wins the National Title is the NCAA College Basketball National Champion

College Football: The Conferences put on the postseason. If you win the national title, you are the "BCS" National Champion. So you technically are not the NCAA College Football Champion, on paper. But fans/college football world claim you that.

The AP can give their trophy to whoever they want, usually the team that wins the BCS wins the AP as well. Same with the coaches trophy.


congress has zero chance

I just can't really see how anyone can support Obama, when he is trying to look into a ****ing college football playoff.... ITS A ****ING GAME FOR KIDS WHO SCHOOLS ARE ALREADY PAID FOR.

figure the economy out "bro"

[UTgolfer]

Since when is NCAA membership compulsory? What's stopping the "5 other companies" from creating a governing body for collegiate athletics, have it conduct a football championship, call the winner the "National Champion", and let the marketplace decide if it likes your product?

[JLEW1818]

I mean the UT school paper could have claimed that UT was the national champion this past year, and giving them a trophy and everything. They would be the "UT National Champion"... but nobody would recognize it.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

So there's only 11 companies that produce ice cream in America? And why would they want to share revenue in January? I'm no ice cream expert but it would seem that would be one of the slowest times of the year in the industry.

;)

[yermom]

there are lots of problems with this.

they want all the conferences/schools to divide the money equally?

why stop at Division IA? why not all college football?

[goingoneight]

We should expand it to 96 teams like they're going to in basketball!


:ducks:


8 teams. Conference champs and two "at-large" AKA "wildcards." If there's not a Cinderella Boise Tech or TCU unbeaten, it's the highest-ranked beyond that.

[SoonerMom2]

jlew1818 -- I agree with you! Small schools/small stadiums get the big bucks to play in the BCS where if strength of scheduling was still part of the equation, they wouldn't get the nod.

I resent Obama getting involved in the BCS when everything he touches is about the Government taking over more control. As for Hatch, he is doing it for Utah and BYU. Join a major conference and there wouldn't be a problem. Boise doesn't even meet academic standards to join the PAC 10.

I say the Federal Government needs to keep their hands off football.

[ndpruitt03]

nm it's off topic.

The BCS will probably not change till about 2015.

[Leroy Lizard]

Suppose the BCS conferences decide to form their own conference and not let the minor conferences join.

Can they legally do that?

And if so, how could one then say that the BCS conferences violate the Sherman Act?

[Leroy Lizard]

If the president can regain popularity in this country by giving college football fans what they want, then we are in deep trouble. Where are our priorities?

It's just a ****'in game!

[TexasLidig8r]

I dont do antitrust work at all.. but I'll take a run at this.

First, are there "unreasonable" restraints on trade involved? Maybe. But first, let's look at the players.

You have the governing body the NCAA. Then you have a BCS system. Then you have independent bowls. Then you have conferences. Then you have individual schools.

The NCAA, the BCS and the "major" bowls have a contractual relationship. The major bowls also have contracts with the conferences. The conferences have contracts with the schools.

The television networks have contracts with the conferences and the BCS bowls and other bowls. The other bowls have contracts with often times, two conferences.

The non-BCS conferences claim that the system unfairly limits their participation in the BCS bowls, which reduces the amount of money they could receive. (psst.. once again, it's not about wins and losses.. it's about money). This is where their argument starts to go off the tracks.

Participation in BCS bowls are tied to 2 factors.. .(1). winning your conference championship or (2). being ranked high enough in the BCS standings.

Winning your conference championship in a "BCS" conference results in inclusion in a BCS bowl which results in a large payday to your conference. So, why should this be? (1). Because the television networks (which are for profit corporations) want it to be this way. They pay a handsome amount for the privilege of televising the games. They make up this amount through advertising revenue they receive from corporations. The networks and corporations know that they only make money if there is more of a national appeal to the participants in the game... which largely come from the BCS conferences.

And, dont forget.. the BCS is designed to do one thing and one thing alone.. that is.. bring together the schools ranked first and second to play a championship game.. AND THAT IS ALL. The other bowl participants are based upon contracts between the bowls and conferences and the television networks and the NCAA as a sanctioning body.

So.. are the non-BCS conference teams being excluded? No, in fact, the system has evolved to a point where they are included more now, than in years past.. Look at Utah going twice.. Boise State going twice, Hawaii and TCU. And, their inclusion isn't even based on the NCAA or the BCS.. it is based on a system of inclusion.

The NCAA isn't responsible for bowl match up. Nor is the "BCS." Instead, playing in the game is based upon.. the Harris Poll (which is a separate entity)... the Coaches Poll (although coaches are employees of schools, again. this is a separate entity) and computers not affiliated with any conference or the NCAA or the BCS.

So... the argument is then made.. well.. as a non-BCS conference school, we can never play for the national championship! Which is just complete nonsense. The presumption against those teams is that their conference schedule is not as difficult.. involves teams which do not have the depth of talent and the pressure of playing before 100,000 fans on television is lacking. So... you build up your non-conference games then. This past year, Boise State's non-conference games were: Oregon, Bowling Green, UC-Davis and Miami of Ohio. Now, let's suppose instead of those teams, they had played... Florida, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia Tech. They would be screaming.. "OH.. That's a murderer's row! No one could play that schedule and win all the games!" Well.. that's who Alabama played this past year. If Boise had played those teams. .and beaten them in non-conference play, they would be playing for the national championship.

So.. the system will undoubtedly be tweaked as time goes by. But, in terms of "unreasonable restraint of trade"... I don't see it. Nor is there likely to be a playoff anytime soon.

Perhaps the Obama Administration should focus on not increasing the national deficit to an all time high instead of trying to score points by engaging in litigation attacking a system that they will probably lose.

[Collier11]

So what if the BCS conf teams arent scheduling the Boises, TCUs, etc... (just for arguments sake) and their reasoning out loud is that the games are too risky but in private their reasons are to exclude them from having a good enough schedule.

Does that change it at all Lid?

[Leroy Lizard]

So what if the BCS conf teams arent scheduling the Boises, TCUs, etc... (just for arguments sake) and their reasoning out loud is that the games are too risky but in private their reasons are to exclude them from having a good enough schedule.

Wouldn't you have to show that the teams were acting in unison as part of a scheme to exclude non-BCS teams? Each team can schedule whichever teams it wants. If OU want to schedule Boise St., no one in the BCS is going to object.

[yermom]

the only thing i can think of is to obligate conferences to schedule inter-conference games in some kind of rotation

what kept Utah and TCU out of the MNC game was more about how pollsters voted than anything else, mostly based on SOS. i don't know how you legislate that

[silverwheels]

Human polls = suck.

[Collier11]

Wouldn't you have to show that the teams were acting in unison as part of a scheme to exclude non-BCS teams? Each team can schedule whichever teams it wants. If OU want to schedule Boise St., no one in the BCS is going to object.

more devious plots have been proven in the past

[TexasLidig8r]

So what if the BCS conf teams arent scheduling the Boises, TCUs, etc... (just for arguments sake) and their reasoning out loud is that the games are too risky but in private their reasons are to exclude them from having a good enough schedule.

Does that change it at all Lid?

You'd have a hard time showing a broad based conspiracy especially taking into account the current state of scheduling (years in advance) and historical data.

For example, TCU has played OU and Texas, Clemson. In the future, they have BCS conference opponents, Baylor, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas Tech and Arkansas. Boise State has... uh.. Oregon State. And that's all.

Practically all BCS conference schools schedule non-BCS Conference schools. There is just no practical way.. wink wink.. of knowing whether that non-BCS school will be competitive in 5 years.

[silverwheels]

Boise State also plays Virginia Tech this year.

[Collier11]

My biggest dilemma is this, I think the BCS ranking system is a whole lot more fair compared to just the polls, I just dont like how the BCS does their overall setup

[Leroy Lizard]

Ultimately, the problem is that the minor conferences simply have too many substandard teams to make a strong case for equal consideration.

If a playoff system is instituted based on this legislation, it would have to give the minor conferences equal consideration, which means teams would be rewarded for playing in a weak conference.

So the big question is, if the current system is deemed in violation of the Sherman Act, what can be done to implement a system that does not violate the Sherman Act?

[Collier11]

Well it will be one of two things, a small scale playoff that would initially include 4-8 and you would fear would grow much higher or they go back to the old bowl system which is covered in the article

[Leroy Lizard]

If you implement conference tie-ins, you run afoul of the Sherman Act unless you have at least 12 teams (which is too many) so that each conference winner gets a bid.

If you don't implement conference tie-ins, then conferences stand to lose millions of dollars if one of their teams doesn't get in. Conferences want guaranteed money. They don't care about the average fan's psychological hangups about the BCS.

[Collier11]

IF you use the current BCS formula or something similiar to determine the top 12 teams and eliminate preseason polls, I think that opens it up to everyone

[TMcGee86]

my take, as a very non-anti-trust lawyer:

The general principle is that under the antitrust laws a lawful practice may become unlawful when used as part of an unlawful scheme, even though that lawful practice may, from a business standpoint, be efficient and admirable.

Meaning in layman's terms, just because the BCS is legal, does not mean it is not a monopoly and therefore in violation of anti-trust laws.

The term "monopoly" has never been statutorily defined, neither for that matter has "restraint of trade". But you need the possession of market control in a relevant market and the ability to exclude actual or potential competitors from any part of trade or commerce.

So the question becomes, what power does the BCS have?

They would obviously argue that they have no power, that they merely ensure that two teams that are chosen by bodies outside of their control are pitted together for their championship game.

This is a very valid argument and the one that in my very humble legal opinion is the one that will get them the victory if they are victorious.

The BCS will say, look, if Utah was ranked #1 or #2, they would be in the championship game. However we cannot control the rankings, outside of choosing which systems to use, and in no system was Utah #1, therefore under no circumstance were we preventing Utah from playing for a national championship (i.e. excluding potential competitors from trade).

I imagine the non-BCS schools will say that a stigma is put upon them by the BCS not recognizing their member conferences as equal partners, and therefore by using their power of influence, they have prevented voters from ranking the teams any higher because of the stigma of non-BCSness.

While this may be true, the BCS would surely ask "what difference does it make?" and could a Utah prove that just by eliminating the BCS and non-BCS conference labels such a team would have been voted #2 in any poll.

The only way I see the small teams winning any favor is by saying that by refusing to allow for playoffs, the BCS has unfairly prevented an undefeated team, be it non-BCS or BCS, from playing for a national championship because they limit their entrants to #1 and #2.

This could be a valid argument. Granted, the BCS will counter with "We don't name national champions, we just put on a game between #1 vs. #2 for ****s and giggles. It's just this thing of ours. Cosa Nostra if you will.

The problem you have is if you start saying undefeated teams must be included in any NC picture, do you start a run on weak schedules and are you forced to include say a Buffalo team that happens to go undefeated one year by playing the 101st ranked strength of schedule?

Obviously a one loss team with the hardest schedule would have a more valid claim at a championship than such a undefeated scrub team. So the question quickly becomes where do you draw the line.

And if that's the case, then they are right, why not just scratch the whole thing and go back to bowl affiliations.

I think the BCS wins this case, unfortuantely.

[Collier11]

Thanks TM, these are the type of opinions I was hoping for

[Leroy Lizard]

And if that's the case, then they are right, why not just scratch the whole thing and go back to bowl affiliations.

That is likely what we will get unless a playoff system is created that gives the big powers a decided advantage. But that would violate the whole point of getting rid of the BCS in the first place.

[Collier11]

I think that was the point though Leroy, the Justice Dept is going to try and force D1 cfb to make a change in the best interest of all schools and they are going to try and get it out of the hands of anyone else and put it in the hands of the NCAA, where it should be

[Leroy Lizard]

Not this Justice Department. This Justice Department wants to centralize authority, so they will create a commission to adopt a playoff "idea." The Justice Department will then lay down some goals and principles that the commission must abide. (For example, a team must have a certain percentage of your coaching staff that is black, you may not be eligible.)

Then, they will issue a memorandum of understanding that universities will sign IF they are eligible. If schools don't adopt their idea, the feds will crush them financially by denying them federal funds.

That is how this administration works.

Be careful what you wish for.

[TMcGee86]

That is likely what we will get unless a playoff system is created that gives the big powers a decided advantage. But that would violate the whole point of getting rid of the BCS in the first place.

right. the only way I see this going down with a playoff in place is if they say okay we will make all conferences BCS conferences. Nothing on the football side would change, at least not right away, it's not like everyone is going to magically give the WAC street-cred because they are no longer a non-BCS conference.

The real issue is I'm not sure how they would split the proceeds, and really that is all this is about, so I would imagine if a playoff does come down it will be because the BCS said, okay we will give you a playoff but we get a bigger share and the smaller confs agree to it because it's better than nothing.

[MeMyself&Me]

If the gov forces the BCS to be scrapped, everything will fall back to the old bowl system... not a playoff.

[OU_Sooners75]

And just to throw a little wrench into your carefully constructed arguments -- you refer to the number of schools in D1A football, and compare that to the number in the BCS, and claim it is "unfair" that 55% get to set the rules.

First, when 55% agree to something and do it, we call that democracy. Second, something can be "unfair" without being illegal -- in fact, many many things are. Third, the number of schools in the BCS and in D1A are arbitrary. Next year, for example, several new schools could move into D1A, or several could move down.

Or the meaning of membership could be redefined?

And why refer to D1A, and not to D1 as a whole?



Let me make this simple.

65 or 55% of the schools that compete in D1A division football, does not get to say what standards there should be in order to crown a National Champion! Hell, the BCS technically is not part of the NCAA.

The reason I am pointing at D-1A (FBS) is because D-1AA (FCS) already has a 16 team playoff format.

Both divisions are controlled by the NCAA, however D-1A is the only one that does not have a NCAA controlled post season.

The NCAA is the one that sets which teams play at which division or in D-1's case, subdivisions. Each team that moves up is involved in a trial period where they must meet certain criteria (e.g. attendance, competiveness, etc). If the criteria are not met, then they are no allowed to be a full member of D-1A (FBS).

But lets understand something here...most of the points you have brought out are concerning what the NCAA controls!!!!

The BCS has six conferences (out of 11) that participate in D-1A (FBS) football. The other five, plus the independents do not have automatic bids!

And like I mentioned before, the BCS is not controlled by the NCAA. Thus, the BCS is acting on it own without the actual governing body presiding over them!

Not exactly a fair scenario if you are TCU, Utah, Boise State, and other teams!

If the BCS wants to play fair in their system, they must do away with conference ties period and include all 11 conferences equal chance at making a BCS Bowl game. Take the top 10 teams inranking, regardless of conference tie ins.

BTW, the BCS is overseen by commissioners from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, PAC-10, and SEC. Along with the bowl committees from the Orange, Rose, Sugar, and Fiesta!

The anti-trust comes from the BCS being biased toward the 6 conferences it represents while giving very little, or unfair chances, to those of other conferences.

[OU_Sooners75]

i have a question about all this. before the start of the bcs didn't conferences have tie-ins to basically the same bowl games anyways? so the payouts basically haven't changed since the bcs started.
so if the bcs strips the same bowl games of the name bcs and only hosts a "1 vs 2" game how could that possibly be called under the sherman anti trust?
i don't know legally about anything really but that seems to make sense to me unless i am just way off and i certainly could just be wrong


Not exactly. The only tie in was the Rose with the Big 10 and the PAC-10.

The conference champs from other conferences were free to choose which bowl they wanted to play in, until the predecessor pf the BCS was formed...the Bowl Alliance.

[OU_Sooners75]

Since when is NCAA membership compulsory? What's stopping the "5 other companies" from creating a governing body for collegiate athletics, have it conduct a football championship, call the winner the "National Champion", and let the marketplace decide if it likes your product?


This is accurate, and I suppose they could do that. However, the teams from the non-BCS conferences want equal shot at playing the Big Boys.

I say, why not? I am not a very big fan of the NCAA as a whole, however, they should step in and control the postseason of FBS football!

[OU_Sooners75]

there are lots of problems with this.

they want all the conferences/schools to divide the money equally?

why stop at Division IA? why not all college football?


Because each of the rest of the divisions are not associated with D-1A.


(As in the scenario given in the article listed) It is kinda hard to tell the Ice Cream Companies that they must share their revenues with Lumber Companies.

[King Barry's Back]

I dont do antitrust work at all.. but I'll take a run at this.

First, are there "unreasonable" restraints on trade involved? Maybe. But first, let's look at the players.

You have the governing body the NCAA. Then you have a BCS system. Then you have independent bowls. Then you have conferences. Then you have individual schools.

The NCAA, the BCS and the "major" bowls have a contractual relationship. The major bowls also have contracts with the conferences. The conferences have contracts with the schools.

The television networks have contracts with the conferences and the BCS bowls and other bowls. The other bowls have contracts with often times, two conferences.

The non-BCS conferences claim that the system unfairly limits their participation in the BCS bowls, which reduces the amount of money they could receive. (psst.. once again, it's not about wins and losses.. it's about money). This is where their argument starts to go off the tracks.

Participation in BCS bowls are tied to 2 factors.. .(1). winning your conference championship or (2). being ranked high enough in the BCS standings.

Winning your conference championship in a "BCS" conference results in inclusion in a BCS bowl which results in a large payday to your conference. So, why should this be? (1). Because the television networks (which are for profit corporations) want it to be this way. They pay a handsome amount for the privilege of televising the games. They make up this amount through advertising revenue they receive from corporations. The networks and corporations know that they only make money if there is more of a national appeal to the participants in the game... which largely come from the BCS conferences.

And, dont forget.. the BCS is designed to do one thing and one thing alone.. that is.. bring together the schools ranked first and second to play a championship game.. AND THAT IS ALL. The other bowl participants are based upon contracts between the bowls and conferences and the television networks and the NCAA as a sanctioning body.

So.. are the non-BCS conference teams being excluded? No, in fact, the system has evolved to a point where they are included more now, than in years past.. Look at Utah going twice.. Boise State going twice, Hawaii and TCU. And, their inclusion isn't even based on the NCAA or the BCS.. it is based on a system of inclusion.

The NCAA isn't responsible for bowl match up. Nor is the "BCS." Instead, playing in the game is based upon.. the Harris Poll (which is a separate entity)... the Coaches Poll (although coaches are employees of schools, again. this is a separate entity) and computers not affiliated with any conference or the NCAA or the BCS.

So... the argument is then made.. well.. as a non-BCS conference school, we can never play for the national championship! Which is just complete nonsense. The presumption against those teams is that their conference schedule is not as difficult.. involves teams which do not have the depth of talent and the pressure of playing before 100,000 fans on television is lacking. So... you build up your non-conference games then. This past year, Boise State's non-conference games were: Oregon, Bowling Green, UC-Davis and Miami of Ohio. Now, let's suppose instead of those teams, they had played... Florida, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia Tech. They would be screaming.. "OH.. That's a murderer's row! No one could play that schedule and win all the games!" Well.. that's who Alabama played this past year. If Boise had played those teams. .and beaten them in non-conference play, they would be playing for the national championship.

So.. the system will undoubtedly be tweaked as time goes by. But, in terms of "unreasonable restraint of trade"... I don't see it. Nor is there likely to be a playoff anytime soon.

Perhaps the Obama Administration should focus on not increasing the national deficit to an all time high instead of trying to score points by engaging in litigation attacking a system that they will probably lose.


Lid, thanks for that. Been trying to put together a post like that myself, but it's so complicated that I just didn't want to jump in.

I will add that Sen Hatch's involvement is just a molehill, and the sporting press is making a mountain out of it. (You'll know its a big story when you read it in Politico or the Washington Post, rather than SI or ESPN.) Does anyone have any idea how many official letters Senators send to govt agencies everyday? Even brand-new Senators will send several a week. Mostly the letters are just asking questions.

In this case, Hatch knew that U of Utah were pissed that their team doesn't get considered for the BCS championship, and that they think (maybe justifiably?) that they are getting hosed. He probably hears all the time, when he's back home, that "Senator, you should do something about this!"

Well, sadly for Hatch, there aint much he can do. Almost the bare minimum that he can do is write a letter and ask the Justice Dept to consider an anti-trust case. So he did that, and now that he's won his political points, he will probably move on to something that might be more productive for him.

From the Justice Dept side -- They just received an official letter from a United States Senator. in reply, they answered politely that they took Hatch's question seriously, and will consider the matter when/if evidence of a violation turns up. That's about all they can do. The Senate approves their budget, they have to be polite. They have done so, and now Justice can turn to something else more productive.

That's just how these things work.

[MeMyself&Me]

Not exactly. The only tie in was the Rose with the Big 10 and the PAC-10.

The conference champs from other conferences were free to choose which bowl they wanted to play in, until the predecessor pf the BCS was formed...the Bowl Alliance.

Before the Bowl Alliance, wasn't the Big 8 champ destined for the Orange Bowl and the SEC champ destined for the Sugar Bowl? It seems like the Big 8-Orange Bowl relationship goes back quite a bit.

[OU_Sooners75]

Before the Bowl Alliance, wasn't the Big 8 champ destined for the Orange Bowl and the SEC champ destined for the Sugar Bowl? It seems like the Big 8-Orange Bowl relationship goes back quite a bit.

The Big 8 had an agreement from 1968 - 1998 that the Big 8/12 Champ would play there. However, if the Champ wanted to play at a different bowl, they could.

[TMcGee86]

Let me make this simple.

65 or 55% of the schools that compete in D1A division football, does not get to say what standards there should be in order to crown a National Champion! Hell, the BCS technically is not part of the NCAA.

The reason I am pointing at D-1A (FBS) is because D-1AA (FCS) already has a 16 team playoff format.

Both divisions are controlled by the NCAA, however D-1A is the only one that does not have a NCAA controlled post season.

The NCAA is the one that sets which teams play at which division or in D-1's case, subdivisions. Each team that moves up is involved in a trial period where they must meet certain criteria (e.g. attendance, competiveness, etc). If the criteria are not met, then they are no allowed to be a full member of D-1A (FBS).

But lets understand something here...most of the points you have brought out are concerning what the NCAA controls!!!!

The BCS has six conferences (out of 11) that participate in D-1A (FBS) football. The other five, plus the independents do not have automatic bids!

And like I mentioned before, the BCS is not controlled by the NCAA. Thus, the BCS is acting on it own without the actual governing body presiding over them!

Not exactly a fair scenario if you are TCU, Utah, Boise State, and other teams!

If the BCS wants to play fair in their system, they must do away with conference ties period and include all 11 conferences equal chance at making a BCS Bowl game. Take the top 10 teams inranking, regardless of conference tie ins.

BTW, the BCS is overseen by commissioners from the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, PAC-10, and SEC. Along with the bowl committees from the Orange, Rose, Sugar, and Fiesta!

The anti-trust comes from the BCS being biased toward the 6 conferences it represents while giving very little, or unfair chances, to those of other conferences.

This actually may be a way the playoff peeps could win this thing. If you sue the NCAA and say by treating D1A different than D1AA-D3 you are hindering teams ability to make money through a playoff scenario.

I was coming at this thing from the BCS angle but maybe this is the way it gets done. Attack the NCAA for their inaction instead of the BCS for their action.

Instead of couching it as a non-bcs school vs. bcs school debate, couch it as a D1 vs. D2 debate.

[TexasLidig8r]

This actually may be a way the playoff peeps could win this thing. If you sue the NCAA and say by treating D1A different than D1AA-D3 you are hindering teams ability to make money through a playoff scenario.

I was coming at this thing from the BCS angle but maybe this is the way it gets done. Attack the NCAA for their inaction instead of the BCS for their action.

Instead of couching it as a non-bcs school vs. bcs school debate, couch it as a D1 vs. D2 debate.

Won't work.. the BCS is a separate entity which came about, ironically and implicitly.. as a result of you hillbillies winning the court case against the NCAA in 1981.

In essence, you're comparing applies to turnips.

[TMcGee86]

Won't work.. the BCS is a separate entity which came about, ironically and implicitly.. as a result of you hillbillies winning the court case against the NCAA in 1981.

Ha! Shows what you know. There are no hills in Norman.

Get it straight, Hills + trees = Tulsa.


;)

[Collier11]

Here is the easy solution from collegefootballnews.com

Im posting the link as it is a long article

http://cfn.scout.com/2/943130.html

[Leroy Lizard]

Instead, just have an eight team playoff of the top eight ranked conference champions, with the caveat that if either Notre Dame, Navy, or Army finishes in the top eight.

Okay, here is what we have for 2004:


2004

No. 1 USC (Pac 10) vs. No. 8 Michigan (Big Ten)
No. 2 Oklahoma (Big 12) vs. No. 7 Louisville (C-USA)
No. 3 Auburn (SEC) vs. No. 6 Boise State (WAC)
No. 4 Utah (Mountain West) vs. No. 5 Virginia Tech (ACC)

The BCS title game result in 2004: USC 55, Oklahoma 19

I don't recall winning the conference championship in 2004; KSU did.

So Michigan, with three freakin' losses, gets to play for all the marbles while 12-1 OU stays home?!?!

And if OU stayed home, which team would have replaced it? Most likely Boise St., losing the same number of games as OU but playing a ridiculously easy schedule. So playing no one all year gets you rewarded.

Screw that system.

[yermom]

(that was 2003)

but anyway, does a 1-loss team deserve to stay home while a lower ranked team wins their easier conference and gets in?

in 2004 is Pitt more worthy than Texas? is 2001 BYU or Louisville better than 2001 Nebraska?

IMO it should be based on a rating system(open sourced computer polls) and the top 8 or 12 should be used if you are going to do that

preseason polls should have zero to do with it

[Leroy Lizard]

My bad.

So in 2003 KSU plays for the national title, but we don't. Even though they lost four games that year.

And Miami (OH) gets in with the same number of losses as OU.

That's more screwed than having Boise St. beat us out with one loss.