Bringing Down the BCS
Obama has said he wants to do it. Most football fans in America agree. But, so far, no one has taken any concrete steps to challenge the BCS's dominion over determining the NCAA football champion. Until now, that is. Utah's attorney general, Mark Shurtleff, is investigating the Bowl Championship Series for possible violations of federal antitrust laws. He argues schools like Utah have no opportunity, under the current system, to play for a national championship, which would bring them money and notoriety. Thus, BSC conferences have a monopoly on national titles. Given that Utah has now gone undefeated twice in four years without ever playing in a championship, Shurtleff may have a point. What would it take for a non-BCS team to get to the championship? Is it even possible?
The investigation is still in the early stages, and no lawsuit has been filed. Shurtleff would have to prove a conspiracy that creates a monopoly in order to prevail. Seems like a steep road, but sports writer Rick Reilly used the C-word (well, a c-word) in his column this week. Maybe a court would see it the same way. Here's hoping!
The investigation is still in the early stages, and no lawsuit has been filed. Shurtleff would have to prove a conspiracy that creates a monopoly in order to prevail. Seems like a steep road, but sports writer Rick Reilly used the C-word (well, a c-word) in his column this week. Maybe a court would see it the same way. Here's hoping!
posted by Dan at 2:30 PM
16 Comments:
Wow, I have strong opinions on this but no time to air them. Let's just say Utah's wins over San Diego State, Air Force, Weber State (what state is Weber?), Colorado State, and the other quasi high school teams in the Mountain West does not inspire confidence. No, they're not the champs. Sorry Rick. More later.
What would it take for a non-BCS team to get to the championship?
Maybe playing someone other than UNLV, New Mexico, and Wyoming?
How bout TCU, Oregon State and MOTHERFUEHEFUIIF ALABAMA!?!?!
Regardless, this post is not meant to be about Utah's (amazing) football program, but about whether or not a legal challenge to the BCS may succeed. Armen, regardless of whether you think Utah should be #1, do you really think they have a fair chance under the current system? You don't think a playoff would be better?
Armen is getting damn close to naming everyone that Utah played that wasn't Oregon State, BYU, TCU, Alabama, and Michigan (who was supposed to be good when Utah scheduled them).
Again, I'll have more to say about this later. But I think there are two issues. 1) Insanity and unfairness of BCS system (I agree with you, no arguments there) and 2) Rick Reilly's BS claim that Utah should be the champs b/c of no. 1 (Uh no). The latter point I'm very passionate about b/c the Pac 10 always get the shaft for having a deep conference (unlike say the Big East). Los 1 game and you're out. Is that really fair when 8 out of the 9 other teams in the conference have a legitimate shot of beating you? And I say this as a loyal Bruin who hates $C. But still. They'd crush Utah. As for the 'Bama win. Kudos. Anyone showing how grossly overrated the SEC is deserves my heartfelt congratulations. Now, Utah can enjoy the $10 million payout. But they don't deserve to be in the championship game.
Matt, BYU was grossly overrated for the same reasons. Arizona pretty easily demonstrated that. Michigan...come on. Oregon State...by 3 at home. TCU...good win. I'm not taking anything away from Utah. They deserved to go to the Sugar Bowl, and their ranking is about right. But let's not kid ourselves with non-sense Championship talk.
I'm with you Dan. Tier it! And call each round "the Rose Bowl Round" or whatever to maintain the marketability and sponsorship of it all. I would LOVE to see the top 8 teams knock each other's teeth out. It's not like the players need that time for finals.
I don't think I ever said Utah should be number one, though I did link Reilly's piece. I just think they should have a chance at it. Armen, your earlier posts fail to address the real issue. Part of the problem is that Utah CAN'T play teams better than those you listed.
"Maybe playing someone other than UNLV, New Mexico, and Wyoming?"
Great, so give them a chance. That's the problem with the BCS. All a non-BCS team can do is beat all the teams on its schedule. But even when they do that, it's not enough. They are locked out no matter what, barring every other team in the "real" conferences having two losses or something.
So, for the first time in my life, I say "Go, Mark Shurtleff."
Also, Mr. Die-hard Bruin. Overrated BYU beat you 59-0. WTF was that about?
That was about us sucking. But BYU still choked against the middle of the Pac-10.
On an only tangentially related note: does anyone know what the rules are for college football players regarding advertisements on their equipment? I've noticed a lot of players with company names on their eye black. Some of them have religious stuff or other personal comments, but some of them definitely have sporting goods stores on their eye black. It seems to me that this has to cross the line between amateur and professional, but I guess if the whole team does it, then it's a team sponsorship, which they all have. Thoughts?
They can't receive anything of value in return. There are fairly strict and narrow NCAA rules regarding what a scholarship athlete may or may not receive. Of course if the athlete is a walk-on...who knows. Another factor is university contracts with certain suppliers. For example, every UCLA athlete is easily recognizable on campus because of the distinct and custom made Adidas backpacks.
NPR's Marketplace just did a segment on how the BCS survives despite everyone hating it. Their conclusion: selective greed.
Explain this pickle. When a school from a BCS conference goes to a BCS bowl, it gets $17 Million to divide among every team in its conference. So the ACC gets $17 Million this year for Virginia Tech, somehow. But when a non-BCS team, like Utah, gets to a BCS Bowl, they get the same $17 Million, except it gets divided among ALL FIVE non-BCS conferences.
WHAT THE #$&(@*(!#*(@
What exactly is your complaint? That it's unfair to divide $17 million by 5 conferences or the more cogent argument that it's unfair to give any money to bush league conferences?
It's unfair to pre-determine which conferences are "bush-league." This year the Mountain West was indisputably better than the ACC, and it's been better than the Big East for the last four years. But because it was deemed a lesser conference when the BCS was created, it is forever stuck dividing any money it might make (which itself is more difficult) amongst four other conferences, while the few conferences that were strong ten years ago continue to profit without any merit. Ridiculous.
Post a Comment
<< Home