What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

U.S. Department of Justice asks NCAA why there's no playoff for football

JimmyBuff

Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department wants to know why the NCAA doesn't have a college football playoff system and says there are "serious questions" about whether the current format to determine a national champion complies with antitrust laws.


Critics who have urged the department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series contend it unfairly gives some schools preferential access to the title championship game and top-tier end-of-season bowls.


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; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players.


"Your views would be relevant in helping us to determine the best course of action with regard to the BCS," she wrote.
"Serious questions continue to arise suggesting the current Bowl Championship Series system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in the federal antitrust laws," Varney said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6479279
Damn about fricking time Obama got to some more important things in this country. Tired of LAME BOWL GAMES. Send in the Navy SEALs after these clowns at the NCAA!!! :gun::gun::gun:
 
You'd think that DOJ has better things to do. But nooOOOoooo, they have interest in collegiate athletics.


You say there's Al Quida cells here in the U.S.? Hah! Everyone knows that's not troo. Let's go get the BCS!

You say the Mexican drug cartels are ready to redraw our southern borders? Sheesh, come on, everyone knows they don't have crayons down there. But the BCS, now.......

You say there are companies ready to go "enron" on folks, and there are schiesters taking folks IRA money? Do scammers pay taxes? And your point is? Can't say that about the BCS, can we......
 
You'd think that DOJ has better things to do. But nooOOOoooo, they have interest in collegiate athletics.


You say there's Al Quida cells here in the U.S.? Hah! Everyone knows that's not troo. Let's go get the BCS!

You say the Mexican drug cartels are ready to redraw our southern borders? Sheesh, come on, everyone knows they don't have crayons down there. But the BCS, now.......

You say there are companies ready to go "enron" on folks, and there are schiesters taking folks IRA money? Do scammers pay taxes? And your point is? Can't say that about the BCS, can we......

God I'm sick of people bitching about all the problems they'd rather have the feds dealing with. Look, there will always be sh*t going on in the country that needs to be dealt with. It's called multitasking. When you get a dirty BCS system that is nationally hated and ultimately allocate millions of dollars to public institutes that are awarded these games, they need to be regulated. Thank goodness Obama, congress and the justice department are saying something. Think of it as a side project. At least now these BCS assholes are going to sweat.
 
The NCAA doesn't control the BCS -- the Big 6 Conferences do (and then by extension, the Universities themselves). The NCAA lost an antitrust case brought by (I think) Oklahoma in the 80's that allowed conferences to sell their media rights individually (which has brought us the deal we found out about today).

I also wouldn't be so sure that if an antitrust suit is brought and won that it would result in a playoff. It may result in locked in bowls like there was before the BCS.
 
God I'm sick of people bitching about all the problems they'd rather have the feds dealing with. Look, there will always be sh*t going on in the country that needs to be dealt with. It's called multitasking. When you get a dirty BCS system that is nationally hated and ultimately allocate millions of dollars to public institutes that are awarded these games, they need to be regulated. Thank goodness Obama, congress and the justice department are saying something. Think of it as a side project. At least now these BCS assholes are going to sweat.

Bull. Sports and entertainment are way low on the list of priorities of the fed.
 
Simple fact, college football is a business, both the NCAA and the BCS are organizations that have been established to facilitate the opperation of that business by the member institutions. Anyone who doesn't like how those institutions function is more than welcome to find like minded schools and start their own.

What this is all about is the schools that don't generate the money wanting to take from those that do. If the schools in the MWC want more money put more than 25k fans in a stadium. Why should Tennessee have to support Wyoming financialy.

This isn't about "fair access" to bowls, etc., this is about those schools that don't generate huge amounts of money tryint to take from those that do.

The government is sticking it's nose in to a place it doesn't belong and in the process will screw it up. You can talk all you want about David vs. Goliath and a fair shot for the little guys but all you have to do is look back and see that the three lowest rated BCS bowl games in recent history were Utah-Pitt, Boise-OU, and Boise-TCU. These mid-major schools aren't mid-major because of some grand conspiracy to hold them down, they are mid-major because they don't have the fan base that is willing to put up the bucks.

If we are going to do this why not go after the fast food business as well. Subway now has more stores in the US and worldwide than McDonald's but those mean, nasty McDonald's people keep making more money. In fact the per store profit for a McDonald's is estimated at over 5 times that of a Subway. This isn't fair, from now on the McDonald's owners need to pitch in and send some of their profits the Subway owners to make things fair and equal.

This is just another big political grandstand. The BCS should have the right to run their business any way they want to as long as it doesn't restrict the rights of others to compete. This doesn't mean that they have to help the others compete any more than McDonald's should have to send customers to Subway. The other schools can get into the BCS by proving that they can compete on the field and that they can bring monetary value to the business in which case they will be welcomed with open arms.
 
This isn't about "fair access" to bowls, etc., this is about those schools that don't generate huge amounts of money tryint to take from those that do.

It's not really about that anymore, which is why it's starting to get more traction. It's about Public Institutions involved in an alliance that refuses to switch to a playoff system which by most all projections would bring them significanlty more money overall. When states and schools around the country are cash strapped and making cuts and raising tuitions, it's a valid question the government should ask: Why are you, as publically funded institutions, holding onto a flawed championship system that brings in significantly less money than a playoff? The schools and their presidents will have to have a good answer to that, and they probably won't, other than it's just what they've always done. And they'll have trouble going back to the old bowls, because they'll make even less money than with the BCS.
 
The federal government needs to get the **** out and stay the **** out. Market forces will eventually push the NCAA to the peoples' will. When viewers start voting with their wallets and remote controls the NCAA will be forced to take action. They have no incentive from the fans to do so now. Don't expect the government to solve non-governmental problems, you will get half assed results that neither side really want at the expense of the tax payers while the feds pat themselves on the back and ridicule us for not liking their pronouncements.
 
The fact of the matter is that the NCAA could, if it wanted to, institute a playoff system for college football. Remember at one time the NIT was the only tournament around, then the NCAA decided it would sanction it's own tournament. Eventually it became a much bigger deal than the NIT.

Same thing could happen in football if they wanted it to.
 
The NCAA and BCS maintain that they do have a playoff. It's a 2-team playoff, but it's still a playoff. Basically, they're contending that Justice is trying to force them to expand their playoff and that's none of their business. No different, they claim, than Justice demanding that the basketball playoff expand from 64 to 96 teams.
 
It's not really about that anymore, which is why it's starting to get more traction. It's about Public Institutions involved in an alliance that refuses to switch to a playoff system which by most all projections would bring them significanlty more money overall. When states and schools around the country are cash strapped and making cuts and raising tuitions, it's a valid question the government should ask: Why are you, as publically funded institutions, holding onto a flawed championship system that brings in significantly less money than a playoff? The schools and their presidents will have to have a good answer to that, and they probably won't, other than it's just what they've always done. And they'll have trouble going back to the old bowls, because they'll make even less money than with the BCS.

Because it makes them a GREAT DEAL MORE money for the regular season. As the new PAC-12 deal has just illustrated.
 
Because it makes them a GREAT DEAL MORE money for the regular season. As the new PAC-12 deal has just illustrated.

Completely correct. A playoff might make more money than the bowls, although that is not in any way guaranteed. At the same time college football is the only sport where the regular season has not been devalued by a playoff, every game counts. How many people care about college basketball in December. Even if you have two top teams it gets little notice because both will likely be in now 68 teams in the tourney. Pro basketball, pro baseball, even the NFL individual games are not that meaningful because the who idea is to "just get into the post season." or maybe even to get home field, but individual loses mean little go individual games mean little.

In college football when two ranked teams meet in September it could mean elimination for one of them, the fans care. Attendance and TV ratings have continued to grow for regular season college football, the same can't be said for most other sports.
 
I had an assignment for a political science class last year in which we had to write a policy brief for proposed legislation to a US senator. I wrote on the illegality of the BCS and the need for govornment intervention, basically what this thread is about. It's kind of long but im attaching it below if anyone wants to read it.



PSCI 3041: The U.S. Congress
Legislative Brief Assignment
11/20/09

Policy proposal brief for Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) of the 111th US Congress:


The BCS, a system used to determine college football’s postseason matchups, is prejudicial and violates the antitrust trust act. The six major conferences and the BCS operate as a cartel restricting the ability of others to enter a market and giving themselves a competitive and financial advantage. Because of the way the system is set up, it is very difficult for a small conference team to be selected to play in one of the lucrative and prestigious BCS bowl games and is nearly impossible for them to play for a national championship. Legislation should be introduced to eliminate the monopolistic BCS and implement a playoff system. A playoff is the fairest system (both financially and competitively) and is overwhelmingly favored by the American public, including your constituents in Utah. Although it’s not viewed this way, collegiate football is a multi-billion dollar business and warrants the same level of congressional oversight and reform as any other major industry. Passing the legislation may be tough, but there is mounting support for the cause.

Since 1998, NCAA Division I football, has utilized a system known as the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) to determine which two universities will play in the annual NCAA national championship game as well as in four other lucrative and prestigious BCS bowl games (Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar Bowl). Overall, the BCS is exclusionary, bias, unjust, and wildly unpopular amongst Americans. Specifically, it is in violation of the Sherman Antirust Act (competition law). The Antitrust Act essentially outlaws monopolies, cartels and contracts or agreements which restrict free trade and competition.(1) According to the Supreme Courts, “The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself” (Supreme Court 1993). The six major conferences operate as a competition limiting (both on and off the field) cartel while the BCS in essence employs a monopoly over the major bowl games and the national championship game and knowingly restricts the ability of a select group to take part in the market. The system restricts certain schools through pre-arranged contracts between the conferences and BCS rather then performance. Large conference schools are put at both a competitive (by being placed in more prestigious bowl games sometimes undeservingly) and financial (the payouts/exposure of these games) advantage over others. This advantage is a direct result of collusion between the major conferences as a means to protect their own interests at the expense of others. It is congenital inequalities of the system which perpetuate these advantages rather then athletic competition. It is evident the practices of the BCS are in blatant violation of the antitrust act. (2, 3)

The BCS uses combination of computer data and arbitrary human polls to rank and ultimately place teams in bowl games. Each school that reaches a BCS bowl game receives a payout of $17 million where as payout from non BCS bowl games range from just $300,000 to $4 million. (4) The winners of the six “major” conferences (SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, ACC, Big East, Big 10) automatically receive a spot in one of the BCS Bowl games while the schools which earn the top spot in the less heralded conferences (Sun Belt, Mountain West, MAC, Conf. USA, WAC) do not receive an automatic bid. These schools must finish in the top 14 of the BCS rankings just to qualify to be in BCS Bowl. It should be noted that on several occasions, including this past year, larger conference winners who received automatic bids have not always finished in the top 14. (5) The BCS rankings themselves are highly prejudicial as a major component of them is subjective human polls which instinctively show some level of bias against non “powerhouse” programs. Even when one of these schools have qualified, it is still unlikely that they would be given the opportunity to play in a BCS Bowl. Representatives of the bowl games themselves get to choose who the at large bids go to and almost always take a more high profile conference school (regardless of who is ranked higher) simply because they assume it will increase ticket demand, publicity, and television ratings. Since the systems installment, just 4 times (of a possible 94) has a small conference school played in BCS game. This is despite the fact that almost half of all DI football programs are in the smaller conferences. For the record, in three of the four BCS games featuring small conference schools, the small conference school defeated the major conference school. (5)

A portion of the $17 million payout going to BCS bowl participants is shared with the other schools in each team’s conference. (3) So, not only are specific schools put at an advantage, but the entire conference is as well. As a result, 54% of the DI programs (the preferred conferences) have received 87% of total BCS funds over the years while the other 46% shares 13% of the revenue. (2) The rich get richer. A perpetual cycle is in effect created. By earning more revenue, the top conference schools have more funds to spend on improving athletic facilities, athletic scholarships, and to pay top tier staff and coaches. Ultimately, these financial advantages as well as increased exposure gained through appearing in BCS games greatly aid large conference schools in recruiting thus allowing them to field more talented teams then other schools. The greater exposure and pageantry of playing in a major bowl game also would figure to increase fan support, booster donations, and ticket and merchandise sales. (3)

An alarming thought is the fact that the BCS is run by the DI colleges themselves. Its primary leadership is comprised of the 12 conference commissioners (plus the Notre Dame AD because they have no conference affiliation) and bowl representatives. (5) Yes, the individuals who run the BCS are also those who benefit from it most. There is representation of the smaller conferences within the BCS leadership but they are outnumbered by large conference representation and do not have as much power. The BCS operates as an independent entity, and thus, while it is sanctioned by the collegiate sports governing body (the NCAA), it essentially “reports” to itself and little, if any, practical oversight exists. The NCAA gets no revenue generated by the BCS and has no authority to create change within the system. Congressional involvement seems to be the only vehicle through which change can occur. (2)

As far as actual legislation to propose regarding this issue there are a couple of different routes you could take. The legislation could force major reform of the BCS to make it more just, or could ban the system from being used all together on the basis that it is unlawful. In addition to or independent from these ideas, you could introduce legislation which would force NCAA Division I Football to adapt a playoff system as a means to determining a national champion. A bill forcing a playoff would be my personal recommendation, and is an idea which appears to be overwhelmingly favored by the American public. Given the current framework of college football, there is a way to structure a playoff so that it works, while at the same time preserving the integrity of the game, competiveness of the regular season, and the tradition of the bowl season. It is the fairest (both financially and competitively) and most exciting method for fans, student athletes, and universities alike, and is the most logical way to determine a nation champion each year.

I do realize that this proposal inevitably leads to the issue of whether Congress should get involved in athletics when there are “more important things” to worry about. While most people don’t see it this way, the reality is that professional and collegiate sports leagues are a business and represent a major industry in this country with approximately $213 billon in combined annual revenue, a figure twice as much as the automobile industries annual revenue. (6) College football specifically is a multi-billion dollar business with revenue being earned through lucrative television contracts, sponsorships, ticket and merchandise sales, bowl payouts, and booster donations. Considering this all, congressional oversight, inquiry, and potential legislation is just as warranted in collegiate football as it is in other major American industries such as banking or steel. (2) This is especially true if the BCS is in fact in violation of the antirust act. Regardless of their true merit, athletics, specifically at the collegiate and professional levels, are an important part of our society and are of great importance to many Americans. There is also a precedent of congress passing legislation with regards to athletics. Some examples include: Title IX, The Student Right to Know Act, Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, The Professional Boxing Safety Act, Amateur Sports Act, Sports Agent Responsibility act, and the MLB antitrust act. Also, in recent years, their have been congressional hearings regarding steroid use in professional baseball, recruitment of collegiate athletes, and on two separate occasions their have been hearings regarding this very issue with the BCS. (7)

This also figures to be an issue of importance to your constituents in Utah where there are three collegiate Division I football programs (Utah, BYU, and Utah State) all of whom are in “smaller” conferences (WAC and Mountain West) that are continuously overlooked by the BCS. This is specifically true in the cases of Utah (your proud alma mater) and BYU. These are two universities rich in football tradition and success (both are currently ranked in the top 25 nationally) and yet under the current system will never be able to play in a national championship game and will have difficulty getting into one of the lucrative BCS bowl games. Just this past season Utah went undefeated and yet two big conference schools, each with one loss, were place in the championship game ahead of them. Legislation against the BCS would certainly increase your popularity back home.

The legislation against the BCS would go through the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Because this issue deals with sports, it would mostly likely garner little attention on the floor compared to other pieces of legislation. However, I believe if you can raise awareness on the true gravity and extent of the issue, specifically highlighting the fact that this is not so much about athletics as it about reform of a major American industry, then I think the bill could gain some momentum. As I mentioned earlier, there have already been hearings regarding the legality of the BCS, and while no legislation came out of them, at least that “seed” has been planted. For a change, this is one issue that would figure to be completely bi-partisan. To gain support for the legislation I think you should target fellow male senators, simply on the basis that men tend to be more interested in sports then women. I also think that Senators representing states with other successful small conference football programs (i.e. Idaho, California, and Texas) would have an inherent interest with the topic. Also, many politicians, have already voiced support for a playoff in collegiate football including, Rep. Edolphus Towns, Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, your fellow senator from Utah Orrin Hatch, and, most importantly President Obama during an interview with “60 minutes.” (8) At the very least, even if the legislation is not passed, congressional involvement will help to escalate awareness of the issue and put pressure on the BCS cartel.
 
Last edited:
Completely correct. A playoff might make more money than the bowls, although that is not in any way guaranteed. At the same time college football is the only sport where the regular season has not been devalued by a playoff, every game counts. How many people care about college basketball in December. Even if you have two top teams it gets little notice because both will likely be in now 68 teams in the tourney. Pro basketball, pro baseball, even the NFL individual games are not that meaningful because the who idea is to "just get into the post season." or maybe even to get home field, but individual loses mean little go individual games mean little.

In college football when two ranked teams meet in September it could mean elimination for one of them, the fans care. Attendance and TV ratings have continued to grow for regular season college football, the same can't be said for most other sports.


I understand the argument for the value of regular season games, but it just kind of flawed.

1) As the season goes on some teams get better. Remember in 2001 when the Buffs lost the opening game to Fresno St? That pretty much busted their chance and cost them the national title game, but they were obviously a better team overall than that game.

2) The top 10% of teams may be so close to eachother that the difference is simply who is home versus away. This means that some the best teams that lose close away games are just eliminated all together. I don't know if a playoff system would reward the top ranked teams with home games for the early rounds that makes every regular season game pretty essential.

3) An NCAA playoff would be my favorite sporting event of the year, and I think the same would go for you end most other people in this blog. It would be March Madness on steroids.

4) There would be zero argument about the national champion. The top teams all duke it out. One remains. And you can still be proud if you get to the final four and whatnot.

5) Last thing, I guarantee the players would have no problem playing extra games. In fact, they'd love it. I hate that argument. You worried about being injured? Go to a crappy school that won't go deep into the playoffs.
 
I don't believe for a second that a 16-team playoff would devalue the regular season in any way.
 
I don't believe for a second that a 16-team playoff would devalue the regular season in any way.

Well what is the playoff qualification based off of, Wins and Losses? If I were an AD I would ensure I have a few Wyomings, Idahos, or some other Cupcake U were on my schedule. Heck if I could win a national championship I would cover a lesser schools TV cost to ensure we had a chance at the championship. The field is too large to cut all of the FBS (80+, not sure the total) teams it down form to only 16 teams.
 
I don't believe for a second that a 16-team playoff would devalue the regular season in any way.

16 team playoff would almost guarantee that you would either have a couple of 3 loss teams in it or you would have conference champions from pathetic leagues in it. You then add four games to the schedule, it only takes a single bad week for the team that has been the best overall team from the entire season to be out meaning the best team is not your champion.

Best example of this is the NCAA basketball tourney. No argument that the tourney is a lot of fun to watch, it would be more fun if you could actually make a correlation between the tourney champ and the team that was best all year. Far to often we end up with 3,4, or even 5 seeds winning the tourney, I call that a crap champion, yes they are the tourney champion but they are not the best team that year only the hottest at the end with the best draw.

I would not have a major issue if you wanted to have a plus one format. In this case you would have four teams that legitimately could claim to be that seasons best team contending. The problem is that you then get the mentality that teams 5 and 6 say "We are just as good as team 4, expand the bracket." Eventually you end up with the same fiasco that the basketball tourney is, teams that just get hot at the end winning over teams that were quality all year. You also get what I described before with games that don't mean anything because individual losses don't mean anything as long as you "qualify" for the post-season.

The college football regular season is far and away the best regular season of any sport, a playoff would grossly devalue that to many fans including me.
 
16 team playoff would almost guarantee that you would either have a couple of 3 loss teams in it or you would have conference champions from pathetic leagues in it. You then add four games to the schedule, it only takes a single bad week for the team that has been the best overall team from the entire season to be out meaning the best team is not your champion.

Best example of this is the NCAA basketball tourney. No argument that the tourney is a lot of fun to watch, it would be more fun if you could actually make a correlation between the tourney champ and the team that was best all year. Far to often we end up with 3,4, or even 5 seeds winning the tourney, I call that a crap champion, yes they are the tourney champion but they are not the best team that year only the hottest at the end with the best draw.

I would not have a major issue if you wanted to have a plus one format. In this case you would have four teams that legitimately could claim to be that seasons best team contending. The problem is that you then get the mentality that teams 5 and 6 say "We are just as good as team 4, expand the bracket." Eventually you end up with the same fiasco that the basketball tourney is, teams that just get hot at the end winning over teams that were quality all year. You also get what I described before with games that don't mean anything because individual losses don't mean anything as long as you "qualify" for the post-season.

The college football regular season is far and away the best regular season of any sport, a playoff would grossly devalue that to many fans including me.

In the first place, I'm not convinced that a three loss team would make it into the field of 16. That would have to be one seriously solid three loss team. In that case, they probably deserve it. A scenario like where Florida loses on the road at Tennessee, Alabama and LSU, all by less than three points, but still has a BCS ranking of 15 or thereabouts.

A playoff that is seeded strictly based on BCS rankings would eliminate the issue you're referring to with craptacular teams sneaking in and winning their conference championships. It would also keep a high value on the regular season.

QED.
 
In the first place, I'm not convinced that a three loss team would make it into the field of 16. That would have to be one seriously solid three loss team. In that case, they probably deserve it. A scenario like where Florida loses on the road at Tennessee, Alabama and LSU, all by less than three points, but still has a BCS ranking of 15 or thereabouts.

A playoff that is seeded strictly based on BCS rankings would eliminate the issue you're referring to with craptacular teams sneaking in and winning their conference championships. It would also keep a high value on the regular season.

QED.
:bowdown:

Back off, folks! A Latin scholar is in the house! :five:
 
I recently concluded a case prosecuted by the antitrust division of the DOJ, and I can confidently say that they suck. The denouement of their investigation was the criminal conviction of two small time employees of a contractor who accepted bribes and a "civil" case against the corporate bribers. Then, after letting the big fish off the hook, they had the balls to come to court and ask for the employees to go to prison.

Rest assured that if these guys sue the BCS, there will be no playoff for decades--they will screw it up that bad.
 
Completely correct. A playoff might make more money than the bowls, although that is not in any way guaranteed. At the same time college football is the only sport where the regular season has not been devalued by a playoff, every game counts. How many people care about college basketball in December. Even if you have two top teams it gets little notice because both will likely be in now 68 teams in the tourney. Pro basketball, pro baseball, even the NFL individual games are not that meaningful because the who idea is to "just get into the post season." or maybe even to get home field, but individual loses mean little go individual games mean little.

In college football when two ranked teams meet in September it could mean elimination for one of them, the fans care. Attendance and TV ratings have continued to grow for regular season college football, the same can't be said for most other sports.

It can be said for the NFL. Every playoff system is not equal. A sixteen team college playoff wouldn't even be as inclusive as the NFL's, and it's not even in the same ballpark as the NBA or NCAA basketball. On the high end of the polls, you might lose the gravity of a few regular season games, but it would be insignificant to the amount of substance it would add for those teams ranked 4 thru 25, eight or so weeks in, who now have a shot to play in games that matter after the season instead of playing for a holiday vacation to Orlando instead of Shreveport.
 
Any argument against a playoff system is foolishness. As I've asked before on this board, why does major CFB have it right and every other sport in the world have it wrong? Please don't cite some obscure soccer league in Albania that does not have a playoff. Why not give Brazil the world cup instead of playing the tournament? How about the NHL President's Trophy winner, just give them the Stanley Cup, why bother with playoffs? A playoff belongs in CFB, end of subject.
 
Bull. Sports and entertainment are way low on the list of priorities of the fed.


I'm with you RedDirt. What a friggin' waste of money. At least they don't have to come up with solutions to any real problems. As for the DOJ, I thought they were too busy going to gun shows to worry about football. I wish these idiots would just leave us all alone. I guarantee you that if Congress gets involved with this, their solution will make the problem worse.
 
While I feel the DOJ haters would feel differently if it were a Republican in office, I digress.

I think a sixteen team playoff is a pipe dream, but eight is enough for me. It doesn't devalue the regular season whatsoever because each team better win every conference game or it might be on the outside looking in. Not a lot of two loss teams would be cracking that bracket. And if you give home-field advantage to seeds 1-4 in round one? Regular season matters even more.
 
Any argument against a playoff system is foolishness. As I've asked before on this board, why does major CFB have it right and every other sport in the world have it wrong? Please don't cite some obscure soccer league in Albania that does not have a playoff. Why not give Brazil the world cup instead of playing the tournament? How about the NHL President's Trophy winner, just give them the Stanley Cup, why bother with playoffs? A playoff belongs in CFB, end of subject.

I disagree completely, why should major college football have to follow other sports. Just because others do it doesn't make it right or better. I would argue and many agree that the college basketball season has lost much of it's meaning. Pro hockey has dilluted the regular season to the point that they can't get a decent TV contract, nobody cares until the playoffs start.

The idea that a tourner determines the best team is plain stupid, your examples highlight this. A team plays at the top of its game for an entire year, head and shoulders above everyone else and then has one bad game and suddenly they aren't the champion, some team that barely got into the playoffs then got hot is.

College football is a special sport. Over the entire fall each game contributes to making one special team the champion. No "well we had a bad week but it doesn't matter because the top 16 (then 32, then 64, because all the whiners keep making the brackets bigger) get in and we will win it then." College football is enjoying unprecedented success at a time when many other sports are barely holding even or even declining. Having a meaningful regular season is a huge part of why this is happening.
 
Any argument against a playoff system is foolishness. As I've asked before on this board, why does major CFB have it right and every other sport in the world have it wrong? Please don't cite some obscure soccer league in Albania that does not have a playoff. Why not give Brazil the world cup instead of playing the tournament? How about the NHL President's Trophy winner, just give them the Stanley Cup, why bother with playoffs? A playoff belongs in CFB, end of subject.

Shooting down your argument is laughably easy. College football's popularity is skyrocketing and ACCELERATING during this "travesty" of a BCS era. A single conference on the West Coast just landed a $3 Billion dollar television contract. Why? Because it works!!! Add a plus one? Sure I got no problem with that. Add more? Why? So some team that had a solid, but not great regualr season gets hot at the right time and wins the title best in the nation, when they really aren't? No thanks. If you make it 8 teams, then the 9th team will bitch, make it 16 and the 17th will bitch. I love the fact that the regular season IS a playoff and isn't diluted. Are there issues with the BCS? Sure, nothing is perfect.
 
in the first place, i'm not convinced that a three loss team would make it into the field of 16. That would have to be one seriously solid three loss team. In that case, they probably deserve it. A scenario like where florida loses on the road at tennessee, alabama and lsu, all by less than three points, but still has a bcs ranking of 15 or thereabouts.

A playoff that is seeded strictly based on bcs rankings would eliminate the issue you're referring to with craptacular teams sneaking in and winning their conference championships. It would also keep a high value on the regular season.

Qed.

^^^^^this^^^^^
 
Simple fact, college football is a business, both the NCAA and the BCS are organizations that have been established to facilitate the opperation of that business by the member institutions. Anyone who doesn't like how those institutions function is more than welcome to find like minded schools and start their own.

What this is all about is the schools that don't generate the money wanting to take from those that do. If the schools in the MWC want more money put more than 25k fans in a stadium. Why should Tennessee have to support Wyoming financialy.

This isn't about "fair access" to bowls, etc., this is about those schools that don't generate huge amounts of money tryint to take from those that do.

The government is sticking it's nose in to a place it doesn't belong and in the process will screw it up. You can talk all you want about David vs. Goliath and a fair shot for the little guys but all you have to do is look back and see that the three lowest rated BCS bowl games in recent history were Utah-Pitt, Boise-OU, and Boise-TCU. These mid-major schools aren't mid-major because of some grand conspiracy to hold them down, they are mid-major because they don't have the fan base that is willing to put up the bucks.

If we are going to do this why not go after the fast food business as well. Subway now has more stores in the US and worldwide than McDonald's but those mean, nasty McDonald's people keep making more money. In fact the per store profit for a McDonald's is estimated at over 5 times that of a Subway. This isn't fair, from now on the McDonald's owners need to pitch in and send some of their profits the Subway owners to make things fair and equal.

This is just another big political grandstand. The BCS should have the right to run their business any way they want to as long as it doesn't restrict the rights of others to compete. This doesn't mean that they have to help the others compete any more than McDonald's should have to send customers to Subway. The other schools can get into the BCS by proving that they can compete on the field and that they can bring monetary value to the business in which case they will be welcomed with open arms.

I am confused..... I thought a a lot of these state schools were supported by taxpayer dollars.... but they are a private business? Maybe the private schools can have their own tournament and the state schools can have a federal government sponsored tournament......


in all seriousness.... this was brought about because an undefeated Utah team was denied access to the millions of dollars it could have received by going to the Championship game instead of the Sugar Bowl....

It is the government's job to investigate this because there is wrong doing. The Fiesta Bowl problems are enough to give probably cause to investigate every major bowl game. People are using a tax exempt status to steal money from tax payers.....

The fact that there are terrorists in Pakistan has NOTHING to do with an anti-trust problem in the US. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there are 2 different groups that would be managing those affairs.....
 
I disagree completely, why should major college football have to follow other sports. Just because others do it doesn't make it right or better. I would argue and many agree that the college basketball season has lost much of it's meaning. Pro hockey has dilluted the regular season to the point that they can't get a decent TV contract, nobody cares until the playoffs start.

The idea that a tourner determines the best team is plain stupid, your examples highlight this. A team plays at the top of its game for an entire year, head and shoulders above everyone else and then has one bad game and suddenly they aren't the champion, some team that barely got into the playoffs then got hot is.

College football is a special sport. Over the entire fall each game contributes to making one special team the champion. No "well we had a bad week but it doesn't matter because the top 16 (then 32, then 64, because all the whiners keep making the brackets bigger) get in and we will win it then." College football is enjoying unprecedented success at a time when many other sports are barely holding even or even declining. Having a meaningful regular season is a huge part of why this is happening.

Shooting down your argument is laughably easy. College football's popularity is skyrocketing and ACCELERATING during this "travesty" of a BCS era. A single conference on the West Coast just landed a $3 Billion dollar television contract. Why? Because it works!!! Add a plus one? Sure I got no problem with that. Add more? Why? So some team that had a solid, but not great regualr season gets hot at the right time and wins the title best in the nation, when they really aren't? No thanks. If you make it 8 teams, then the 9th team will bitch, make it 16 and the 17th will bitch. I love the fact that the regular season IS a playoff and isn't diluted. Are there issues with the BCS? Sure, nothing is perfect.

OK, so you both agree that no playoffs are better than playoffs because the team with the best record might lose? Nonsense.
 
I am confused..... I thought a a lot of these state schools were supported by taxpayer dollars.... but they are a private business? Maybe the private schools can have their own tournament and the state schools can have a federal government sponsored tournament......


in all seriousness.... this was brought about because an undefeated Utah team was denied access to the millions of dollars it could have received by going to the Championship game instead of the Sugar Bowl....

It is the government's job to investigate this because there is wrong doing. The Fiesta Bowl problems are enough to give probably cause to investigate every major bowl game. People are using a tax exempt status to steal money from tax payers.....

The fact that there are terrorists in Pakistan has NOTHING to do with an anti-trust problem in the US. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that there are 2 different groups that would be managing those affairs.....

Yes many are state schools. That means that they have the responsibility to make the decisions that best enhance and protect their financial viability. College football generates millions of dollars while providing publicity that money could not buy. Now let's screw it all up so we can have a playoff system that negates what makes the college football season unique and interesting.

Sorry but I am not a fan of second chance losers always getting another shot in a playoff. If you want playoffs watch the NFL, don't mess up college football.
 
Back
Top