College Football Playoffs and the Mountain West's Rise: Why a Government Flunky's Watered-Down Letter to a Showboating Senator Poses No Threat to the BCS
by T Kyle King on Feb 1, 2010 4:30 AM EST
in Football
22 comments
It is said that a drowning man will reach even for the tip of a sword, which may explain why proponents of a Division I-A college football playoff, despite being stymied at every turn and facing monolithic opposition to their position by everyone in a position of authority regarding the sport’s postseason arrangements, have been reduced to hanging their hats on meaningless correspondence from cumbersome bureaucracies to grandstanding politicians.
Last week, following a state of the union message in which President Barack Obama addressed such issues as the economy and health care, an assistant U.S. attorney general sent a letter to a hypocritical U.S. senator containing these bold words:
The administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football national championship playoff with respect to the highest division of college football … raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties. . . .
This seemingly discriminatory action with regard to revenues and access have raised questions regarding whether the BCS potentially runs afoul of the nation’s antitrust laws.
Whoa! When a Justice Department functionary a few steps down the organization-chart food chain starts using such rough language about "shar[ing] your belief that" circumstances have "raise[d] important questions" about "seemingly discriminatory action[s]" which also "have raised questions" (although, apparently, not important ones this time around) about "whether" college football’s postseason "potentially" violates any laws, brace yourself for . . .
. . . um, yeah, not much. When you’re that focused on the questions that have been raised, you’re nowhere near saying those questions have been answered; when you’re interjecting that many adverbs, you’re qualifying your statements to keep them as noncommittal as possible. If this represents the fulfillment of the president’s promise "to throw my weight around a little," it is clear that the occupant of the Oval Office intends to throw his weight around a very little, indeed. (By the way, if, as he says, President Obama doesn’t "know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this," the Venn diagrams of the serious college football fans of our respective acquaintance do not overlap by much. The president would find spending New Year’s Day at my house an enlightening experience.)
The recipient of that letter, however, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, offered a response which attempted to apply the most positive spin possible:
I’m encouraged by the administration’s response. I continue to believe there are antitrust issues the administration should explore, but I’m heartened by its willingness to consider alternative approaches to confront the tremendous inequities in the BCS that favor one set of schools over others. The current system runs counter to basic fairness that every family tries to instill in their children from the day they are born.
If he recognizes that the Justice Department is focusing on "alternative approaches," surely Senator Hatch realizes that this means his assertion that "there are antitrust issues the administration should explore" has fallen upon deaf ears.
Furthermore, Senator Hatch’s faith in "basic fairness" is perfectly respectable, considering that he became the first member of his family to attend college before working as a janitor and a construction worker while in law school, but he is simply misguided if he believes the Bowl Championship Series flies in the face of the idea of an America in which effort and talent allow the cream to rise to the top.
The structure of college football is as fundamentally American as you can get, with the rising tide of the sport’s popularity lifting all boats. Boise State’s recent ascent parallels that of many previous "mid-majors" who now are part of the established power structure and the Broncos now find themselves knocking on the door of the full-fledged big time as the latest in a long line of upstarts who made good dating back at least as far as underdog Alabama in the 1926 Rose Bowl.
If you’re in favor of a Division I-A college football playoff, by all means, celebrate the fact that folks are talking about the BCS, for all the good it will do you. Even if the power brokers with a vested financial interest in preserving the existing system lacked the savvy, the political connections, and the war chest to beat back the tepid efforts suggested by the Justice Department’s letter to Senator Hatch---a dubious proposition at best---all the sturm und drang originating in the Beehive State will last approximately as long as it takes for the Mountain West to be made an automatically-qualifying BCS conference. Since that development appears to be right around the corner, Senator Hatch’s outrage figures to cool as soon as his home state’s major players are let inside the gates he presently is bound and determined to storm.
President Lyndon Johnson, explaining why he would not take the political risk of dismissing J. Edgar Hoover as FBI director, famously said, "It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in." Right now, Orrin Hatch is outside the tent. All the BCS has to do to shut him up is to open up the tent flap and allow the Mountain West inside. For playoff advocates, the rise of the MWC is a short-term gain but a long-term loss.
Go ‘Dawgs!
1 recs |
22 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
True
I agree with your rationale and I think that if the MWC can add Boise State we’ll definitely see a seventh BCS league and with those guys having access it will be a situation where; unless ECU, Houston or someone else shows up big, they won’t have much to complain about. My biggest problem is one that you also addressed, the rise of a program from the bottom to the upper echelon, not the “giving of access to everybody.”
Everybody that is an elite program had to work for that status by proving it on the field. Bama was a joke to the Ivy Leagues and Service Academies at the turn of the century. Miami was laughable until the late 70’s. Virginia Tech was a complete joke until the 90’s. It takes time, effort and a commitment to excellence before a program eats at the table with the big boys. This instant gratification culture has created a feeling where teams feel like they deserve recognition now. No one gave the elites their status, it was earned and for others to join the party they need to earn it too. That is American TKK.
Yeah BoYeeEEeeE
As a free market libertarian...
I would rather Obama spend the rest of his presidency ruining College Football than expanding government in all aspect of our lives.
Bosie State is where Penn State was in the 1960's
going undefeated and not getting titles and all. Penn State seems to have done alright since then.
Penn State has three undefeated and uncrowned seasons (including bowls) since the dawn of the AP poll, more than any other team I am aware of.
I agree that a Boise State MWC wedding would likely bring both a BCS automatic qualification for 2012 and 2013. It would also put the MWC is solid footing for their survival if when the PAC 10 and Big 10 (vicariously through the Big 12) pick off a few of the top MWC teams.
I am very familiar with SEC country, but admit to associating more with the like minded Auburn crowd during playoff discussions. I would be interested in your take on my personal postseason proposals.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
The Senator's wild card...
After reading both your post on this subject and the Senator’s, I have one question of admitted ignorance. I believe that he states that if the NCAA were given an anti-trust exemption then it could lead to a full-fleged playoff. What effect on college football/sports would we see if an exemption existed? Any feedback regarding this possibility would be appreciated.
An anti-trust exemption
would allow the NCAA to create rules institute a playoff and remove or greatly diminish the bowls without fear of the conferneces taking legal actions to overturn it.
The NCAA would be foolish to force such rules and risk the automatic qualifying conferences and their revenue stream succedding from the NCAA. The NCAA would also need a majority of the FBS presidents to support a rule change involving the bowls, which isn’t happening any time soon.
Well, they could steal my idea of allowing all teams with 9 or more FBS wins to be eligible for a second bowl game.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Just what we need… more bowl games. The top 9 highest ranked conference champions and highest ranked independent should be entered into a 10 team playoff. This would guarantee that only one team per conference would advance. It would also not devalue the regular season.
I wouldn't mind more bowl games
as long as a meaningful tier design was added to the bowl structure to clarify the level prestige each bowl gives.
What about confernece co-chapmions? Not all conferences name outright champions every year. What about Texas or Texas Tech in 2008?
The BCS bowls carry more prestige than the semifinals in your 10 team playoff (which I think is too many teams) would be guaranteed. My designs use the BCS bowls as semifinals, based on the top tie-ins to qualify, and to accommodate automatic qualifying confernce champions not selected for the tournaments.
By allowing teams with 9 FBS wins (requiring 10 wins if you play an FCS team and usually placing a team in the top 25) a natural market would form using existing bowls to cater to this newly recognised level of success. This would also allow the BCS to seemlessly weave a plus-one into the existing framework without any further NCAA rule changes.
Lower Bowls could continue to cater to teams with winning records.
I certainly don’t see how this would devalue the regular season, as it would actually provide a financial incentive to teams expecting to be near 9 FBS wins to schedule another FBS team to push them into a second bowl larger greater than the costs associated with losing a national championship opportunity.
In summary: More bowls, as long as they are between top 25 teams, is good. Confernece championship are often messy and thus unreliable. THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL REGULAR SEASON ROCKS!
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Why the BCS is un-American, and the DoJ's Anti-Trust investigation is a credible threat
Mr. King,
With due respect, you are incorrect, sir. In part, at least.
You are correct in the hollowness of the trumpeting of the letter as some grand statement by President Obama that mountains will be moved, seas will be parted, and the BCS shall be torn asunder through the powers of the Executive Branch and the watchful eyes of Mr. Obama.
Nevertheless, that does not mean the Department of Justice’s inquiry into the BCS poses no threat. It does, and let me count the ways.
First, it is important to note that the BCS does not enjoy anti-trust exemptions. The NCAA does, but the BCS is not the NCAA. Rather, the BCS is an agreement between various parties. These include the so-called AQ (Auotmatic Qualifying) conferences, Notre Dame, and the four so-called major bowl games. (The Sugar, the Rose, the Orange, and the Fiesta, in the order of relevance I place on them.) Therefore, the BCS is subject to anti-trust regulation.
p(.Second, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act prohibits the activities undertaken by the BCS. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2 prohibit restraint of trade or the monopoly of trade. This is vague and the body of anti-trust law has developed primarily in the courts. What it comes down to are abusive restrictions on trade by dominant players in a market that prevent other competitors from fairly entering or competing in the market.
p(.Questions of whether or not the specific situations involving the BCS meet these requirements must be put the the tests posed by the Federal common law of anti-trust. The BCS’s situation, however, does meet a prima facie case of anti-trust violations.
Five conferences are automatic BCS qualifiers. These conferences are the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, ACC, and Big East. Notre Dame is also included in the mix as an Independent.
Four bowl games are part of the BCS agreement. They are the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl. These bowl games have the highest monetary payout of any bowl games. This is for many reasons: tradition, bowl planning groups, original bowl coffers, and TV contracts.
At least one rankings organization is also part of this agreement: the Coaches Poll, which by contract must choose the winner of the BCS National Championship Game as the National Champion in its poll.
How does this discriminate against other market participants? Mid-tier football teams and their conferences are unable to fairly compete against the teams from the top-five conferences. And no, I don’t mean on the field, I mean in the purse-strings.
The University of Georgia Athletic Association makes millions annually in revenue. Part of this is from TV-contracts negotiated by the SEC, and other contracts negotiated by Georgia. (The recent media rights purchase is an excellent example.)
Compare that with Utah, TCU, or Boise State. The revenue their Athletic Association receives annually is much smaller. It is also important to note that these three schools are three of the better-off mid-tier schools as far as Athletic Association revenue.
Many schools must bolster their Athletic Association revenue with school funds in order to keep their athletic teams competing. Georgia does not, but it is an exception to the general rule of 114 Division I-A football schools.
So what, you might ask? Georgia, and Alabama, and other prominent schools deserve their deals. Should we take away from these prosperous schools in order to give to the weaker ones?
No. This isn’t Europe. Nevertheless, neither should the Georgias and Alabamas of the world be able to put these weaker schools at a disadvantage because of their wealth and bargaining power.
Anti-trust laws, such as the Sherman Act, prevent the ability of wealthy and powerful bargainers from marginalizing weaker bargainers. This is nothing new, it takes its philosophical roots from ancient common law doctrines of contract. Equity courts, once run by the Church of England, saw that powerful lords and ladies in England could, and did, force less powerful people into disadvantageous contracts.
These contracts of adhesion were against public policy and, because of this, equitable defenses arose to combat these practices.
Anti-trust law acts similarly, but it deals with systemic problems that do not affect the contracting parties, but rather affect society as a whole. The government exists to protect society, and this is what it seeks to do via anti-trust law. (Some argue it should not exist to protect society, but that’s a whole other debate.)
Here, the actions of the BCS and the power conferences harm the chances of weaker conferences, and their teams, from competing in the College Football market. This market is the market for endorsements, contract deals, donations, and more. This is real money, not the intangible good-will that leads one recruit to Texas rather than TCU.
It creates this harm by effectively locking out mid-tier teams from the national championship. Money comes with both crowning and being crowned the National Champion. The BCS is an agreement designed to keep that money amongst the big-five conferences and the big-four bowls.
The plight of Utah last year is instructive. Florida had trouble defeating a tough Alabama team in the SEC championship game. Florida then manhandled Oklahoma in the BCS national championship game. Florida, it should be noted, had 1 loss going into the game. Oklahoma had none.
Utah was also undefeated. It played Alabama, the same team Florida had such trouble defeating. Utah manhandled Florida much the same way Florida manhandled Oklahoma.
Who deserves the National Championship? The answer is indeterminable. Nevertheless, it is clear that Utah deserves consideration.
The BCS takes away the ability of Utah to be considered. The old bowl system, pre-BCS, might have allowed a dual national championship. Florida and Utah might have shared the title.
No longer. Since the LSU/USC shared title, the BCS has taken active steps to marginalize the Associated Press poll. Even before that, it was difficult at best for a non-AQ conference team to break into those BCS bowls.
Can it happen? Sure. Will it? Unlikely. But that’s not the point of the anti-trust laws.
The money, whether a non-AQ team like Utah wins it or not, still remains in the hands of the BCS. So does the power.
This is why the BCS harms the College Football market. This is why and can, and should be, investigated by the Department of Justice.
Does this mean it will be broken up, or forced to change? That is much tougher to say. Perhaps, perhaps not. That’s for the courts to decide.
Even so, anti-trust review of the BCS by the Department of Justice is a threat. A very credible and dangerous threat. A threat that, hopefully, will lead to meaningful and positive reforms.
Third, and finally, the BCS is not American. Rather, it is European, by being more aristocratic than anything. Like the contracts forced upon lesser nobles and peasants by the elite of England, the BCS and its power conferences forces schools of lesser noble ranks to bow to its whims and desires.
The BCS is a system of nobility. As a student of history, and a graduate of the University of Georgia, I respect and admire the nobility of teams in the SEC, their history, and their overall program strength. I also admire the nobility, history, and program strength of other schools.
Admiration, and belonging to a powerful group, does not change what the BCS does. It is that most European of things — an elitist organization formed to protect the interests of its elitist members to the exclusion of those non-elite members.
America, on the other hand, is a populist idea, a dream against elitism, and a testament to the importance of allowing anyone and everyone a chance. We threw off the shackles of elitism and created something more — a meritocracy. Ultimately, those who work hard reap profits, and those who do not stagnate and fall in Society.
The BCS protects its members against merit. It rejects an open polling and bowling system like we once had. It also rejects an even more meritocratic playoff system.
Look, the pageantry, magic, and convenience of the bowl system is all well and good. I love it. I love January 1st being a day to watch dozens of fantastic games. I love the ability to endlessly argue who is truly the best team.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t change the un-meritocratic method we have of selecting the national champion. And, in a nation of merit, it is wholly un-American.
OKAP.
The Lack of a Clear Chamption Isn't a Bug
It’s a feature.
The market (the main way we pick winners and losers in this country) doesn’t pit people head-to-head in a winner-take-all, single elimination bracket challenge. The market works by a thousand million little decisions that affect the whole. Let the players play the games, let the people watch, let the teams make their case. I’m okay with ten champions.
The best way to bust the BCS is to stop caring about it. If the BCS is illegitimate, ignore it.
We are trying to determine the best team in America out of 120 teams by playing 13-15 games. That number of games won’t get you enough data to make an objectively correct determination. My solution is to stop pretending that a playoff will “objectively” fix it. A coin flip would be about as accurate.
Abandon objectivity! Embrace the subjective! Make your case, award your trophy, and may the best team win!
[Consider the NFL – it has 1/4 the teams, more regular season games, and a 12 team playoff. And there are still maddingly complex tie-breaker scenarios that come up in placing teams in the playoffs.]
The BCS is illegetimate as a title match
It is still dern good football.
Unless you are talking about the Orange Bowl.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Logic be Damned
T. Kyle – Love your blog, but I couldn’t disagree more on the issue. I will attempt to at least unsettle your BCS stance with one hypothetical scenario… Auburn 2004 = Dawgs 2011. You cannot tell me that if an SEC team goes undefeated (especially that one), they don’t deserve to at least play for a national title. In the hypothetical I describe, I’m wagering that if you’re not participating in the torch raid on Birmingham, you’re at least pulling for the rioters.
Hallucinogenic love drugs, sir. The pagans were taking them. We were trying to fit in.
I wouldn't presume to speak for the Mayor...
…but seeing as how we hold to the same position, I’d say this. If UGA goes undefeated in 2011 but is denied a berth in the BCS championship game, I pity the fool who tries to tell me that we didn’t win a national championship. Unless we didn’t earn it.
My position is totally subjective, but this ain’t science.
Heck, the season is barely long enough to allow for us to get a meaningful SEC champion, much less a national champion. Science won’t work – so let the teams argue about it. It will be messy and uncertain, but that is exactly what it is supposed to be.
by first and thom on Feb 1, 2010 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
I think most BCS apologists (like myself)...
… are still in favor of what is popularly called the “plus one” system. In this system, the top four teams in the polls would be paired off against each other in New Years’ Day bowls, and the winners would play one week later in the National Championship Game.
This would preserve the current bowl structure, even down to the devaluation of New Years’ Day by allowing MAC teams to play on a day between New Years’ and the MNC game.
And if you can honestly make a contention that a 13-0 SEC Champion would not be in the top 4 teams in the polls… then, sir, I would like to have some of what you’re smoking.
Plus-One is a fair compromise.
Or at least a reasonable experiment that gets closer to solving the problem. But it’s one not even being seriously discussed by the powers that be. That is what disturbs me the most. “The status quo is fine, the system works, the Big-10(1) and Pac-10 aren’t shameless cockblockers, Dawgs vs. Idaho State next year would lose its inherent importance, look at the shiny spinning objects over there…”
Hallucinogenic love drugs, sir. The pagans were taking them. We were trying to fit in.
plus one from Ed Gunther
this breaks down several different popular new systems and shows the different results you get: somebody’s always going to get hosed
Vineyarddawg, you said it earlier, there are so many teams, so many conference issues, there is simply no perfect system and there simply can not be one.
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
Good post on a basic tournament selection truth:
If you have a fixed field to fill, the last team in and first team out can be arbitrarily close. Selections between close teams is by definition contentious. The wider the field the greater the selection controversy, as more teams end up with a finger in the pie.
Expanding the field will not reduce controversy, unless it is expanded in a way that replaces a fixed field with fixed eligibility criteria and a flexible format to accomodate the range of teams expected. A flexible format produces logistical issues and would need to be very robustly designed.
There may be no perfect system, but there are designs better than what we have. The biggest problem is the lack of any sort of robust process for evaluating alternatives within the BCS.
The heart of what I want to see is for the BCS to adopt a Saban-like process oriented approach to improving the design paradigms used.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
The overarching point being there are no perfect systems
If you read Ed Gunther’s entire piece on playoff’s, he makes very valid point that the bowls have power, particularly the Rose Bowl. Most any system would deflate the bowls and they don’t want that – and I don’t blame them.
You are correct, we could do something better, but it would require stripping things down to bare wood to begin again, which is basically impossible.
"I look forward to developing an aggressive, physical, attacking style defense that offenses will not look forward to playing against." - Coach Grantham
i really really hate these arguments each and every year
not because i find one side of the discussion more or less valid than the other. but because it means we’re officially in the long long long off-season.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Hatch Wants a True Champion, My Foot
Orrin Hatch would be pleased if Utah or Boise never made the championship game as long as they could siphon off some vig. Senator Hatch’s ideas of fairness evidently don’t extend to: the teams that put the tushes in the stands and in the Lazy Boys get to take the checks to the bank. Thank goodness for Jerry Jones and his palace. The Cotton Bowl shall return and provide a couple more teams with BCS payouts.
by Hogbody Spradlin on Feb 1, 2010 6:32 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
