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?
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.
This is cool – you can watch the entire webcast on the Senate’s website. You can also read the witness’ written testimony.
This is interesting stuff – I highly recommend watching.
The BCS wouldn’t exist if it weren’t true. Year after year we keep buying the same crappy, unsatisfying post-season product. Year after year we hear each other making “merit” arguments for or against a team we think should be voted higher in the polls.
“Their conference is weak this year.”
“Their conference is a cake walk compared to this other conference.”
“Their out-of-conference schedule was weak.”
“They can’t be good because they don’t have the tradition of (Michigan, Notre Dame, etc).”
We have these conversations at water coolers, in bars, at tailgate parties and everywhere else. They all boil down to trying to figure out who deserves to be in the BCS title game. But how often do we question the criteria used to determine who deserves to play for a so-called championship? Fans are sheep because we don’t question, we just accept that “the voters” decide who deserves it.
But what criteria do the voters use to determine worthiness? Is it the same for all voters? Are there rules governing how they vote?
The answer, of course, is no. Voters can vote however they like. This is worse than any sport that uses judges to determine winners and let’s face it, the voters in college football are judges. Same thing.
Sports like gymnastics and figure skating require their judges to be trained and able to judge based on a fixed criteria. The athletes go in knowing, more or less, what they have to do to earn a certain amount of points, as long as they perform without flaw. Gymnastics and figure skating judges are then required to score performances according to the pre-defined criteria used by all. If they deviate too much, they will be discovered and appropriate action can be taken by the sport’s governing body.
Not so in college football. No voter is ever held responsible for how they vote. Nor are they asked to vote on any criteria besides “decide who you think is best”. This can be interpreted a million ways (and is).
In other words, college football voters are free to be totally and completely subjective.
For a sport like football to determine it’s top 2 teams using a system of complete subjectivity, which is known for its competitiveness and clarity of structure (cross the goal line with the ball, get 6 points; kick the ball between the uprights, get 3 points, etc), is ridiculous.
But the fans are okay with it. Why?
Because we are sheep and we do whatever we are told.
Votes have no place in determining a college football national champion, first and foremost. But in non-common-sense-land we like to call college football, one of the three main factors in deciding BCS #1 and #2 is the Coaches Poll. The final votes are going to be held secret again after 4 years of being made public.
Great idea.
Less transparency in the process of pairing #1 vs #2 for the “mythical national championship” sucks. College football decision makers are idiots. Instead of making progress, they move backwards.
Perhaps this is all a secret ploy to fuel the fires of calling for playoffs, as suggested by Rivals, but the skeptic in me (or is it realist?) says it is what it is: coaches wanting to avoid public scrutiny in the BCS mess.
Well, so much for hopes that incoming PAC-10 Conference Commissioner Larry Scott would be reasonable with regards to playoffs vs BCS.
“[PAC-10 Commisioner-to-be, Larry Scott] will reflect the position of the Pac-10, and the position of the Pac-10 is that it is very supportive of the bowl system and doesn’t see positives in a playoff”, [current PAC-10 Commissioner, Tom] Hansen said.
No positives in a playoff, eh? If anyone can interpret that statement in any way other than “we lose money on the deal”, please, enlighten me. What this says to me is that the PAC-10 is NOT interested in fairness, equality, competition or setting a good example for its students.
Shame on the PAC-10.
I hope PAC-10 fans can see the positives in a playoff and really rail on their elected and appointed officials for being so narrow-minded.
A popular criticism I’ve seen recently surrounding the BCS vs Playoffs debate is that Congress is wasting time thinking about college football and our political leaders have much bigger fish to fry than an amateur game’s rules.
Ridiculous argument.
Here’s why the BCS should be on Congress’ radar:
The BCS member institutions don’t want to compete with smaller schools for money, players or coaches. It is anti-competitive. It is against the law. It’s that simple and it’s for that reason that Congress needs to get involved and say enough is enough.
The only reason it’s lasted as long as it has is because people continue to say “but football is just a game – worry about more important things”. It’s not just a game – it’s big business. That means it has to live by the laws our country has in place to govern and regulate big (and small) business.
Interesting poll results on ESPN.com here. 93% of voters would change the BCS to some form of playoff system. Unsurprisingly, 8 or 16 team systems are the two most popular options. Either one would be fantastic.
How would you restructure?