DoJ won't punt on college football

Politico44 ^ | 05/04/11 | POLITICO STAFF

[ColdOne]

The Justice Department has telegraphed its intent to tackle anti-trust concerns over the NCAA’s lack of a college football playoff system at its highest level, the Associated Press reported.

In a letter this week, the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports, and what steps the NCAA has taken to create one.

Critics of the Bowl Championship Series, which decides the Division I champion via bowl games, contend it unfairly gives some schools preferential access to the title championship game and end-of-the-season bowl contests.

The NCAA said Wednesday it would respond to the government's questions when it receives the letter

[muawiyah]

Let's see ~ why a playoff system isn't used in football ~ could be the wear and tear on the players.

Christine Varney needs a penis and some testicles first ~ then she could have it all explained to her. If I were the NCAA that'd be my first response ~ a demand that she undergo corrective surgery.

[Tax-chick]

Oh, good Lord.

[hellbender]

And where in the Constitution is the Federal govt. given jurisdiction over sports?

[OldDeckHand]

"And where in the Constitution is the Federal govt. given jurisdiction over sports?"

Commerce Clause. If the NCAA didn't have those big TV contracts, that argument is probably diminished. But, they do.

BTW, that not is an endorsement of this "investigation". I think it's an absolutely egregious waste of taxpayer money.

[Thom Pain]

Just happy that the DoJ has it's priorities straight. Maybe when they finish with the NCAA they can turn their attention to all those children running lemonaide stands, people with under-inflated tires,...

Good thing they don't have to waste their time on the illegal invasion of the Southwest border, or those annoying voter fraud issues.

Sigh.

[antidemoncrat]

Deflecting attention from the real problems America faces. But on the other hand, the New Black panthers don’t have to worry about being prosecuted for intimidating white voters.

[Glenn]

Since they control student loans, I can see where they might be a tad insecure about not having control over "scholarship" (which is a really ironic word to use for a lot of guys whose SAT scores resemble good games of bowling) players as well.

[hellbender]

Other scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress, and thus a broad interpretation of the word "commerce" was clearly never intended by the Founders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[scrabblehack]

Candidate Obama did say on Monday Night Football that that was the #1 thing he would change in sports. I don’t even remember what McCain’s response was.

I myself would like to see a playoff. To reduce wear and tear, I’d be inclined to limit the regular season to 11 games — and no all-star games for those in the tournament.

Hmm...
1. ACC champ
2. B10 champ (with 12 teams)
3. SEC champ

Then
4. B12 champ (with 10 teams)
5. Big East champ
6. CUSA champ
7. MWC champ
8. WAC champ
9. You’d need provisions for an Independent like Notre Dame
or BYU to make the tournament or force them to join a
conference.

MAC has 13 teams and has to play a conference championship the same week as the ACC/SEC/B10. I think I’d encourage them to play in an NIT-like also-ran tourney.

SBC’s winner this year was Fla. Intl, at 7-6. The winner of this conference is rarely much above 0.500. I’d encourage the same for them.

Let’s see...pare the group of 6 down to 3 the week of the conference championships, so you’d have 6 teams making the tourney. Then top 2 get byes. 6->4, 4->2, 2->1. That’s still a maximum of 15 games — the most any school played last year was 14...not sure if any player played in more than one All-Star game (East-West Shrine, Senior Bowl, NFLPA game).

Like the NCAA basketball tourney, it probably wouldn’t be stable. The outs would want in, and eventually the field would be expanded to 8 or even 16.

On the other hand, I’d be reluctant to see government force a playoff.

[OldDeckHand]

Yes, I'm familiar with this treatise by Bork. The problem is the Founders couldn't begin to imagine the concept of broadcast television, and the commerce that springs from it. So, it is absolutely impossible to imagine what they would think about such a transaction - a transaction where a interstate organization is negotiating and implementing broadcast copyright claims - something else left plainly to the federal government - across state lines, in fact across every state and international line .

Whatever they would or would not think however, the practical legal reality is that the way the commerce clause is interpreted today, the feds clearly have authority to assert jurisdiction in this silly matter.

Like I said though, without those television rights - which drives a BIG part of this entire BCS conversation, their federal concern becomes much more diluted.

[Richard Kimball]

The Feds have more legal authority to address this than they do a lot of other things.
There are quite a few reasons why there’s not a playoff system in college, and it all comes back to the money. Just a few thoughts:
First, teams like Texas, Notre Dame, SoCal, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Florida don’t want to lose both the money and recruiting advantages that the contenders, such as West Virginia, Boise State and TCU would get if they actually had a chance to play for a title game. The old round robin of they don’t play as tough a schedule as the big teams but the big teams won’t play them cause they’re not an easy win is getting old.
The big teams are looking out for their own interests. Alabama would sell out playing air, and they already have a tough enough schedule that if they’re undefeated they’re national champions. They have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by playing Boise State. All of the big boys have enough tough teams on their schedules, so they schedule a bunch of patsies early.
Second, a national title game between Boise State and TCU would draw less television eyeballs than a game between an 8-4 Nebraska and an 8-4 Notre Dame.
Third, for the playoffs, there’s a real chance some of them wouldn’t sell out. If they tried to do the traditional bowl games as playoff games, Hawaii and Washington State might not be a big draw in Dallas. If they did highest ranked home team, they might end up playing in a 35,000 seat stadium (lost ticket sales) or out in Wyoming or Utah with teams that don’t have a national following.
The bowl committees have a lot of clout. The big bowls do not want to lose the status of the Orange, Rose, and Sugar Bowls.
The current system is the definition of a camel as being a horse designed by a committee.

[muawiyah]

I still think that Christine chick should undergo corrective surgery before she gets into the business of how many football games are appropriate for the players.

She's clearly an unfeeling outsider at the moment.

As they said in that Robocop movie "They can fix everything now".

Time to fix her. Then we talk.