BCS Bill in House Committee
by UTexasCPA on Dec 7, 2009 11:20 PM CST
Email
PrintStory from Here.
That's right, the "College Football Playoff Act of 2009" would basically prohibit calling anything other than a playoff a "championship" in Division 1 football. The bill is currently in committee mark-up, with supporters believing it will eventually pass through The House with sympathetic senators (from Utah) then taking up the cause. Shall we vote amongst ourselves?
P.S. Latest word from the ticket office is 20,000 MNC tickets available which evidently puts Foundation donors of between $1,000-$2,000 snagging them up.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wish there was a playoff in college football…but Congress has NO BUSINESS legislating this. Therefore, if Congress mandated it, I would fight like hell for the BCS. This needs to come from college football, not from Congress.
Sometimes the impossible can become possible if you're AWESOME!
by ZeroIndulgence on Dec 7, 2009 11:29 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
BCS will never change without government intervention
This is business as usual for congress. This issue affects higher education (which receive federal funds), deals with interstate commerce, affects our service academies, deals with non-profit corporations, tax issues, anti-trust issues, public communications, fraud, etc.
This is absolutely within the range of our federal government. If you watch more C-SPAN and look at all the committees, you’ll find that our federal government (good or bad) is called upon to weigh in on a range of issues.
Not sure what the issue is here, because it has little to do with freedom of speech or capitalism. This is your tax dollars helping to lay the foundation for a corrupt system that oversees a funding mechanism for public institutions of higher learning.
There's a huge difference between . . .
. . . which issues Congress has a constitutional right to address, given modern-day interpretations of the Commerce Clause (basically, everything), and which issues it should address. And this ain’t one of them.
I might feel slightly different if a coalition of state governments worked together to compel changes, but I would still find that a pretty dubious use of government time and tax dollars.
Reality versus Rhetoric
If you look at all of the issues our federal government addresses and discusses (thousands of pieces of proposed legislation each year), this is a drop in the bucket.
Yet, this issue gets more media attention than the congressional hearings on weight limits on trucking, tower height limits by airports, deceptive trade practices in the garment industry, FDA guidelines on acceptable rat particles in hot dogs, acceptable % of unrelated business expenses for non-profit corporations, etc. And, there’s much more minutia that’s not covered by the media that take a whole lot more time, money and attention by our duly-elected congress.
This issue gets a whole lot more media attention than everyday business, so it’s your perception that our congressional leaders are only dealing with this issue and wasting time. That simply is false and, if you regularly follow our federal government directly on C-SPAN or on the web, you’ll see all the issues they deal with that aren’t as interesting as the BCS.
I will say this: if encouraging a playoff helps bring equity to funding the athletic departments of our higher education, then the small amount of time they dedicate to this issue is worth it. Even if you take out the scholarships, athletic success translates to academic success (more alumni,interest, applications, etc.). Time to make it a level playing field.
If you want to make a stand against government intervention in the BCS, then you should also identify the thousand of other issues the Feds deal with and make a stand there as well.
As someone who worked for years . . .
. . . in the Federal government, both in its legislative and executive branches, I am well aware of the myriad of issues, most of which receive much less media attention, with which Congress and the Executive Branch must deal.
It is absolutely not my perception that congressional leaders are addressing only this issue, but I appreciate your making that assumption on my behalf.
And it is because of these years of experience I have that I am very aware of the number of issues which the Federal government unnecessarily (though probably not unconstitutionally, unfortunately) butts its head into, regardless of how much media attention many of these issues do or do not receive. Trying to force a playoff upon college football is merely a trifling example of such overreach.
And asking me to name a “thousand” of other issues upon which I do not believe there should be Federal intervention, in order for me to justify my opinion that congressional intervention on college football playoffs is unnecessary, is patently absurd.
State Governments
So you’ve worked in D.C. and understand this to be plausible to address a nationwide issue
coalition of state governments worked together to compel changes
The governor’s meet, discuss it and make recommendations in several states to address a nationwide issue? What’s the point?
dubious use of government time and tax dollars
A few meetings to address a nationwide fraud that affects 90+ public institutions and 3 service academies is appropriate. Especially given the correlation between athletic success and academic dollars/applications. Ask Notre Dame how much they could charge tuition if they had never won their championships. They’d take a backseat to Indiana State in alumni support and recruitment.
And, what issues will this committee have to table to address the BCS? As you know from your experience, special interest groups represent the #1 cause for gridlock in the Beltway. Other issues will not be impacted by the discussion of the BCS.
Simply put, the argument that this is a waste of time is a media controversy and does not represent an actual drain on our resources.
The point of mentioning a “coalition of state governments” was to point out that, if there were an appropriate level of government to address this issue, it would be at the state level, since the majority of universities affected by the emergency of not having playoffs are funded primarily at the state and not the federal level. But as I said, I’d still find that a pretty “dubious” use of taxpayer dollars.
We differ on the importance placed on the necessity of Federal intervention into the playoff structure for intercollegiate athletics. I believe it is absolutely a waste of my tax dollars for Congress to spend one second on this issue. You believe it is not wasteful. That’s fine. That’s why we have elections.
But simply put, the argument that this is a waste of time is not merely a “media controversy.” Addressing this issue requires the time of Members of Congress and untold of hours of time put in by congressional staffers, whose salaries we are paying the whole time. Addressing the issue requires the publishing of legislation (again on the taxpayers’ dime) and holding hearings so that Members can grandstand in front of the camera, again on the dole, about this vital national emergency. All of this activity takes time and money, and it is a drain on our resources, no matter how “minimal” it might appear to those who support bloated Federal government.
And, no, I don’t apologize for not going so native while in DC that I fail to equate a “minimal” drain on resources, and a “minimal” spending of taxpayer dollars, with being no drain whatsoever.
You’re vastly overestimating the dollars football generates to the academic side of the university.
Ask Notre Dame how much they could charge tuition if they had never won their championships. They’d take a backseat to Indiana State in alumni support and recruitment.
And if you can find a strong positive correlation between athletic success and academic donations – well that’s a paper I’d like to see. Pretty sure McCombs didn’t build a business school because of the football team, and that very, very little of Pickens’ money has ventured over to the academic side of the university. Ever think there might be an inverse correlation?
proud to swim home
Notre Dame actually does give 20% of athletic revenue to the university at large
They are unusual in this, though. Most schools, including Texas, it’s 1% or so.
Are these people completely insane?
Who, exactly, is this mandate for? The NCAA already doesn’t recognize a national champion in college football. The public is not going to stop referring to the game between the BCS #1 and #2 as the national championship game. And surely these two idiots don’t think they can tell the press (AP poll) that they can’t name a national champion. This isn’t going to encourage a playoff. It’s just going to force the BCS to come up with some lame name like “The National Trophy Bowl” or some stupid shit like that.
Congress is out of control. They have gone completely fascist. I want my taxes back.
I'm all for it
Congress can actually prove themselves to be useful for once.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
You don't want Congress setting precedents like this
I know it seems trivial, but this is the sort of thing Abraham Lincoln was talking about when he said America will never be destroyed from the outside, and if we lose our freedoms, it will be our own doing. Congress has no business whatsoever getting involved in this, and the BCS and their army of lawyers will not go down without a fight about constitutionality.
Deceptive Advertising
This is not a constitutional issue. If someone is committing fraud across state borders, it’s within the pervue of Congress. Happens all the time. Watch more C-SPAN.
I think it is more of a ‘false advertising’ thing. They are not trying to stop you, me, or any other random person on the street from calling whoever we want the national champion. This is directed at the BCS. The BCS makes MILLIONS off of crowning the NC. Schools make millions getting to play for it.
Schools also lose millions not getting to play for it. The last numbers I saw were 4 mil for the BCS bowls, and 14 mil for the NC. That means that Cincy, TCU, and Boise are EACH losing a shot at 10 million since they were not ever really, truly in the discussion. The favorite teams from the beggining of the year, before any games were played (when Ga, USC, and OU were all top 10 teams), had to lose at least one game for any of them to get a shot.
But that's my point
This isn’t going to change anything other than the name of the national title game. They’ll come up with something else to call it, and it will still mean exactly the same thing it means now. It’s not going to cost any of the big teams any money, and it’s not going to give the smaller teams any money. The BCS will continue to do exactly what they want.
MONEY
The BCS is all about the money and it is that simple. College football will never go to a playoff system without being forced because the guaranteed money in the bowl system is so good. I am in full support of anything that will create a playoff in college football.
Some onw will kill this bill
I have a hard time thinking that this will make it through all the subcommittees to the House floor to get voted on. Just another small school alum throwing a hissey fit.
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
What happened to the Constitution?
I heartily dislike the BCS system.
That said, every branch of our government has strayed so far from their original Constitutional mandates that the absurdity is growing exponentially each day.
Congress needs to concern itself with the true business of the people. Regulation of the BCS and the NCAA is not the business of the people.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Dec 8, 2009 10:52 AM CST reply actions
The interstate commerce clause has been bastardized mightily
I’m more on the strict constructionist side. As such, the unfettered expansion of government intervention into anything and everything disgusts me. I would love to see a valid argument that this is what the Framers intended – but it doesn’t exist.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Dec 8, 2009 2:33 PM CST up reply actions
From a strict contstructionist point of view
The ICC gives the congress the power to “regulate commerce…among the several states.” It may be to a much greater extent than originally envisioned, however it is strictly allowed by a literal reading of the Constitution. I agree forcing a playoff would be beyond the scope of Congress, but the BCS Bill is merely regulating (truth in) interstate commerce, which is allowed.
Waste of governments time
A bill to revise the nomenclature on the BCS? Ridiculous.
As I understand it, its just to say that they cant call it a championship. Oh ok. Its now the Bowl Challenge Series, with a Challenge Champion Trophy. Who gives a rats ass even if this does pass. It changes nothing, not to mention its ridiculous even its nature. You cant have a champion without a playoff? Absurd. Was a Big 10 Champion not crowned? Wheres the house bill on that.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 8, 2009 10:54 AM CST reply actions
yes, but every team in the Big 10...
has an opportunity to post the best record and head to the Rose Bowl. Cincy, TCU, Utah last year, Auburn 2004, USC 2003, Horns last year…all were essentially discriminated against by some cockamamie formula which “determines” who is worthy for the two slots.
Fix this nonsense…and fix it quickly.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Dec 8, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions
Your post has nothing to do with mine.
Good luck on your playoff campaign though.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Dec 8, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions
Actually it does...
You pointed out that the Big 10 champion was crowned in spite of not having a playoff format…in essence conferences have a round robin playoff format tied to them to a certain extent…But a conference champ and a national champ are certainly two different birds. Excluding two unbeatens who have resumes similar to our beloved Horns simply because they are not “the right kind” of program makes no sense. Cincy is in a BCS conference and ran the table…how are they less worthy than Texas? It cannot be spun except for the weak argument of play a better schedule, etc. Our schedule this year was not lights out…it was lights out last year, however, where drew the short end of the stick due to Big XII tiebreaker rules which were left exactly the same for this season and subsequent ones.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Dec 8, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions
"we drew"
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Dec 8, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions
The Big Ten can have two undefeated teams
and often has two teams with the same win/loss records. If they didn’t play each other that season, it’s no different than naming a national champion.
I am aware of this...
and with a week off due to the CCG’s, perhaps the Big 10 could actually settle it on the field. What a concept.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Dec 8, 2009 7:35 PM CST up reply actions
for the record, i am not for congress becoming involved...
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." - Will Muschamp
"Somebody will always break your records. It is how you live that counts." - Earl Campbell
by Mulliganville on Dec 8, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions
Bigger fish to fry
While this would probably not take a whole lot of time, it’s time that could be spent serving the larger interests of constituents. For example, while the post-9/11 GI Bill was terrific legislation, I’ve been waiting a full 15 weeks now to receive my benefits. In fact, the semester ends tomorrow, and it’ll be ridiculous if the semester ends before I receive even the first installment of GI Bill benefits for the same semester. I agree with my congressman on some issues, and disagree with him on others, but I think we can all agree that college football semantics should take a backseat to economic, environmental, military, health, housing, diplomatic, and countless other types of matters.
by burntorangehorn on Dec 8, 2009 11:37 AM CST reply actions
It shouldn't just take a backseat, it should get off the whole damn bus
Even if Congress had absolutely nothing else on its plate, there would be absolutely no justification for it sticking its nose into this. I’m a playoff proponent, but I would never want it to be foisted upon the colleges by Congress. Let public opinion and/or financial considerations in the form of a TV deal that cannot be refused guide the colleges towards a playoff, not unnecessary federal government intervention.
Ari Fleischer or someone else can help out instead
Needs to be fixed, but not by Congress. Regardless of affiliations, I like the idea of an outside private firm working on a solution. At least it’s something.
by Infield Elephant on Dec 8, 2009 12:09 PM CST reply actions
Actually, this is more of an attempt to improve the image of the current system, but the concept of a third-party helping to fix it sounds good. More here.
by Infield Elephant on Dec 8, 2009 12:16 PM CST up reply actions
Onward
Now that Congress has the steroid problem under control, it is time to turn its attention to the next most urgent problem facing our nation. After that, they can look into the DirecTV/VS affair.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
YAAAAAWN
Same old song and dance we get every December. I can think of a few things Congress should be doing, legislating college athletics is not one of them.
Clarence Thomas will not be happy with this use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
proud to swim home
I don't like it
I’m all for the separation of Church and State. College Football is my religion.
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
Since the BCS controls the state
There is no seperation. The BCS affects the financials for public institutions and 3 service academies.
Hell, let's get involved in other collegiate sports as well
In Division I Men’s Basketball, it has been clear for years that the selection committee discriminates against mid-major programs on behalf of mediocre teams from the power conferences. Too often, a 25-4 team from Wisconsin-Green Bay will be overlooked in lieu of a 19-11 Auburn team.
It’s clear that the corrupt cartel which runs intercollegiate men’s basketball is looking out first and foremost for the interests of the power conferences.
Given the financial stakes, interstate commerce and vital national importance involved, I would like to see Congress draft and pass legislation which would prohibit the NCAA, and any other organization which oversees intercollegiate athletics, from calling the winner of any post-season tournament with less than 128 teams a “champion.”
Expanding the post-season tournament to 128 teams will prevent the corrupt cartel which runs intercollegiate men’s basketball from continuing to conspire to keep mid-major teams out of the tournament and reaping the financial rewards which come from playing in the tournament. Only by doubling the tournament size to 128 teams can we ensure that there are enough spaces available for all worthy teams.
Please, Congress, drop whatever else you’re doing and start acting.
FAIL
Every conference in D1 basketball gets to send their champion to the playoff. Your attempt at sarcasm by comparing a 64-team playoff to a 2-team playoff with a bowl payout to 6 of the 11 conferences misses the mark and is unreasonable.
College basketball playoffs are also run by the NCAA, as are all the other collegiate sports except for college football.
OUCH!
Doesn’t matter that every conference champion goes to the playoff. The non-profit corporation which oversees the men’s basketball tournament has created a system for selecting teams for that tournament which most often allows multiple teams from power conferences to receive bids, and the financial benefits which come from those bids, at the expense of teams from the mid-major conferences which are often lucky to receive just one at-large bid in any particular season.
That non-profit corporation which oversees the tournament engages in interstate commerce.
The decisions of that non-profit corporation affect our service academies. (There have, in fact, been controversies in recent years as to whether or not Air Force merited a bid as an at-large team.) They affect other aspects of higher education as well.
Our tax dollars are involved, given the large number of public universities — not to mention all the private universities which receive federal grants — whose financial bottom lines may be affected by whether their basketball teams are selected to compete in the post-season tournament.
Ask Duke how much in tuition they’d be able to charge if they never won championships. Why, the school instantly whacked 1,000 students from its waiting list when it won its first championship, as the school knew that that many more students would want to attend a winner and it was pointless to keep so many additional students on its waiting list.
There’s little to do with free speech here.
Congress’ addressing this issue could lead to a more equitable distribution in the funding of athletic departments throughout the country, and the small amount of time which would be required to address the issue would be worth it. Congress could make it a more level playing field in terms of access to the financially lucrative tournament for the major and mid-major schools.
So if Orren Hatch believed that it was worth his time and effort to become involved in regulating the structure of post-season basketball, I’m all for it. It’s absolutely within the range of our federal government.
by Hopkins Horn on Dec 9, 2009 11:03 AM CST up reply actions
I don't like the govt...
and people say that this is a small non-issue and that we should be worrying about the big issues. But nearly every time I turn around the big issues, and even the small stuff the govt does, ends up costing us billions or even trillions. So if the government is going to put some focus on fixing NCAA football then I don’t really have a big problem with that. It’s not like the NCAA has made any effort to fix it and I doubt they ever would without some outside pressure. Not to mention that it isn’t like all of Washington stops in place and focuses solely on one issue at a time. Also, it was Joe Barton who said recently “We can chew gum and walk at the same time.”
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
