Way to go, Matt & co! Our friends at PlayoffPAC have filed a formal complaint with the Arizona Secretary of State, to investigate the Fiesta Bowl and make records public.
Hopefully this will yield more results than the Fiesta Bowl’s self-investigation, which shockingly found no wrongdoing.
Deseret News columnist, Dick Harmon, is granting pre-emptive credit to Utahns for influencing the change in college football from bowl system to playoffs.
And really, he’s right… should the BCS ever actually be toppled in favor of playoffs (please, dear god!) Several Utahns have been at the front of the BCS battles.
But you could also give some credit to politicians in Texas and California who are also fighting the BCS, right?
What do you think – if the BCS empire ever falls, will you remember Utah as being one of the major players?
Playoff Problem.com was built by the BCS group to provide information, insight and commentary about the challenges associated with a hypothetical playoff in college football.
The BCS must think the average college football fan has the intelligence of a cocker spaniel, based on all the ridiculous arguments made on PlayoffProblem.com. However, it’s thrilling to me that the BCS feels so threatened that they deem it necessary to publish propaganda in an effort to bolster their indefensible position.
You’ll get many a great laugh browsing through PlayoffProblem.com. Among my favorites:
… some have advocated for a hypothetical playoff system, which would be more controversial and contentious than the BCS.
Oh really? How convenient of you to forget to cite sources for such a claim. I’d like to see the proof. Oh wait, it’s pure conjecture and can’t be proven. And you are affiliated with America’s system of higher education? Any professor at any community college would immediately fail a paper that made unsubstantiated claims like this one. Woof woof, BCS.
Just try to create an eight-team playoff based on the latest rankings (December 6th). Should two-loss Oregon (10-2, #7) and Ohio State (10-2, #8) get in but not the other FOUR teams with two losses: Georgia Tech (11-2, #9), Iowa (10-2, #10), Penn State (10-2, #13), BYU (10-2, #14)? If you think the BCS is controversial, try sorting that out. A playoff would guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans.
No source cited for this “guarantee”? Hmmm… am I detecting a pattern in my little cocker spaniel brain?
So the BCS argues that playoffs would “guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans”, based on a hypothetical 8 team playoff in 2009 using an undefined selection criteria to create the illusion of playoff insanity. Surely we buy their argument, right? It is guaranteed after all.
Wait, let’s think about this for a minute. What is the BCS really saying? Isn’t the BCS saying that a situation where 4 of 6 teams with identical records NOT reaching an 8 team playoff would be WORSE than the current BCS system? That would imply that the BCS currently does not exclude teams with identical records, right? Because if the BCS does currently exclude teams under similar circumstances, how would it make sense for them to conclude that the same situation in a different system would be “worse”?
Let’s look to see if teams with identical records to BCS #1 and BCS #2 have ever been excluded from the BCS championship game (we already all know there are countless examples, but I might as well document a few since I believe in using facts, unlike the BCS). And to compare apples to apples, let’s look at how many teams have been excluded from a BCS bowl while having an “as good as” or better record than other BCS bowl participants.
2009 Championship Alabama vs Texas, both with 13-0 record
12-0 or 13-0 teams excluded: Cincinnati, Boise State, TCU
Others excluded from BCS bowls with 10-2 or 11-2 records: Penn State, Brigham Young
Total teams excluded: 5 (Dear BCS: ruh roh! Signed, Scooby Doo)
2008 Championship Oklahoma vs Florida, both with 12-1 record
Teams with 12-1 or better record: Utah (12-0 –WTF??), Texas (11-1), Southern California (11-1), Penn State (11-1), Alabama (12-1)
Others excluded from BCS bowls with 9-4 or better record (Virginia Tech at 9-4 in Orange Bowl): Georgia Tech, Ball State, Western Michigan, West Virginia, Pitt, TCU, Brigham Young, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Georgia, Mississippi, Tulsa, Rice, Boise State (12-0!!)
Total teams excluded: 27
Virginia Tech automatically qualified for the Orange Bowl in 2008 with a 9-4 record. There were 22 other teams with at least as good a record that were entirely excluded from a BCS bowl game. Among teams invited to BCS bowls, 5 had at least as good a record as the BCS #1 and #2 teams that played for the BCS title.
Is the BCS really trying to use an argument that teams with similar records being excluded from playoffs will be WORSE than the current BCS system??? Not only does the current BCS system exclude teams with identical (or better) records, but it does so on a larger scale. So how exactly do “playoffs guarantee bigger problems, more controversy, more disappointed teams and more frustrated fans” again? Please explain, BCS.
So what do you think? Do you buy the arguments the BCS is trying to sell on their anti-playoffs website? I don’t.
Kudos to the University of Michigan and Purdue University for lobbying in favor of college football playoffs.
Meanwhile, the University of Michigan, Purdue University and the National Collegiate Athletic Association have lobbied on the separate, but similar H.R. 599, which seeks to slash federal aid to colleges participating in a Division IA college football season that lacks a head-to-head playoff.
wedemandplayoffs.com is now on Twitter. Follow @demandplayoffs for updates on the continuing effort to establish a college football playoff system.
Since the BCS is so fond of saying Congress has more important matters to deal with besides college football, why do they spend money on lobbyists? And why do their television network partners lobby against football playoffs as well?
You can follow us at http://twitter.com/DemandPlayoffs
Playoff PAC is a new federal political committee that has been launched by a group including Washington DC political attorneys. Their stated purpose is to “help elect pro-reform political candidates, mobilize public support, and provide a centralized source of pro-reform news, thought, and scholarship”.
I personally see this as a good thing. I know there are many college football fans that believe the government should stay out of sports, but this sport is commerce and as such, deserves as much oversight and regulation as any other industry in our country.
Fellow fans of “The Usual Suspects” will recognize this quote:
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
When it comes to college football, it’s almost the opposite. Everyone believes the BCS (ahem, devil) exists, but it really doesn’t, not legally anyway.
In this must-read article, Clay Travis of Fanhouse says the BCS never legally organized itself into an entity because it KNEW it violated antitrust laws. But if there is no organization to prosecute… how does one go about doing so?
My friends, the greatest trick the BCS ever pulled was convincing the world it DID exist.
1. The BCS doesn’t exist! I don’t know why this gets ignored so often. Per the written statement of the Mountain West attorney, Barry Brett: “The BCS is not a corporation or other entity formalized by filing in any jurisdiction. It is not a party to the proposed ESPN television agreement …The ESPN agreement states that the BCS is not a joint venture (i.e. “ESPN recognizes that there is no Bowl Championship Series entity or BCS entity).”
How astounding is this? We heap such scorn on the BCS, we know it exists, but as a legal entity, it’s a vacuum.
Why begin here?
Because the BCS lawyers are being crafty in setting up their cover argument. I guarantee someone was sitting around the conference table and said, “This is great and all, but how are we going to avoid antitrust scrutiny by pulling out six conferences from the overall NCAA football pool and making them richer at the expense of smaller conferences and schools?” And millions of dollars later, this was their solution. If an entity doesn’t exist it can’t violate the Sherman Act.
That’s smart from a legal perspective, but it doesn’t pass the eye test. If the BCS lawyers have cemented this figment to such a degree that ESPN doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the BCS, shouldn’t this raise a red flag for the rest of us? What are they trying to avoid by their structure?
Being found to be doing exactly what they are doing, violating the Sherman Act.
So all this only matters if the non-existent BCS actually does violate antitrust laws. Travis’ article outlines in great detail and surprisingly easy reading how the BCS is in violation. Read the whole thing, it’s fantastic.
Here’s another snippet that I found particularly enjoyable because it addresses the question so many pose as to why Congress should interfere with college football.
Does the BCS as presently constituted violate United States antitrust laws?
It’s a simple question with a complicated answer, but after reviewing the submitted documents, the testimony of those called before the committee, and applying my legal education that set me back almost $150k (that I’m still paying off), I’ll give you an answer: Yes.
As a preliminary point, one of the best stories I’ve ever heard about the value of a legal education goes something like this. Someone takes the stage to speak to the graduating lawyers and begins, “Before you entered law school, if someone asked you a question about the law you could say with true sincerity, ‘I have no idea.’ Now, three years later, if someone asks you the same question, you can look them directly in the eye and say with great sincerity, ‘That depends.’”
The story gets at the complexity of legal analysis and how opinions can govern our own perception of what’s just. Even for lawyers, these can be difficult questions. That’s why I think so many of the articles that came out of Tuesday’s hearing focused on two main points of analysis, the tired arguments for and against a college football playoff and the rationale or lack thereof for Congressional analysis. This was summed up by ESPN radio host Colin Cowherd, “Let sports take care of sports,” he eloquently argued.
I’ll leave aside the first. I’m in favor of a playoff, but I don’t think the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee lends itself to another rationale for making the same argument that could be made any day of any month of any year. Many just used it as an excuse to opine on a playoff once more as the dog days of summer reach us. That opinion didn’t require any actual time. The second tack, that sports should be left alone by Congress, is more interesting. Because the only assumption that could justify the opinion is if sports aren’t a business. Cowherd and his ilk wouldn’t confront another monopoly by saying, “Let oil take care of oil,” or “Let banks take care of banks.”
[...]The reality is sports is big business, and if a sports entity is guilty of violating the Sherman Act, Congress has every bit as much interest in reviewing their actions as they would to look at oil companies, banking entities or, for that matter, the movie industry. A violation of the antitrust act by any industry in America today is an assault upon the fabric of commerce. A congressional hearing can shine a spotlight on a situation and make the BCS squirm in a way that no one else can. Not even the President.
The first of Frohnmayer’s “fatal” flaws was the claim that the pundits and broadcasters (and presidents of the United States) were completely ignoring the academic calendar. Seriously? Let’s walk through this one more time: A college football tournament, whether it was the proposed eight teams or 12 or even 16 would require far less missed class time than the NCAA basketball tournament does in March. Most, if not all, of the games could be played in January, virtually all of them between semesters. Teams would miss less class time during the tournament than they miss during the regular season. Final words to Frohnmayer and the other 66 BCS presidents on this issue: Shut up.
You tell ‘em, John. STFU BCS a**holes!