Congressmen introducing legislation to end college football's BCS system

[RichRodriguez]

http://www.newser.com/article/d95025t80/congressmen-introducing-legislation-to-end-college-footballs-bcs-system.html




Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn't specify what sort of playoff he wants _ only that the BCS should go.

"In some years the sport's national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title," Barton said in a statement released ahead of the bill's introduction. "Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on."

He said the bill _ being co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, and Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican _ "will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice."

The BCS was created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences. Since then, the system has been tweaked to make it easier for teams from smaller conferences to qualify for the top games. The sites for the four BCS bowls _ the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta _ take turns hosting a championship game between the top two teams in the BCS standings, which are based on two human polls and six computer ratings.

This season, Florida (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) will meet in the BCS title game Jan. 8 in Miami.

Barton cited Southern California in 2003 and undefeated Auburn in 2004 as examples of worthy teams left out of the BCS national championship game.

"This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the 'championship,' while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become 'champion,'" he said.

When an Energy and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing about the BCS in 2005, lawmakers said they weren't going to pursue legislation.

"The BCS method of determining who is No. 1 consistently misfires," Barton said Wednesday. "Simply exposing the flaws and subjecting them to discussion ... hasn't led to improvement by those who run the system."

[amazinblue]

The US Congress - this is the first worthwhile thing that they've done since passing Civil Rights legislation in the 60's. I believe it's time to write my congressman and senator and let them know that an 8 team playoff would be the right thing to do.

[LAMfan]

The US Congress - this is the first worthwhile thing that they've done since passing Civil Rights legislation in the 60's. I believe it's time to write my congressman and senator and let them know that an 8 team playoff would be the right thing to do.

I agree, and in addition, we should tell them that a 16 team playoff is a communist plot to erode our family values and all that support it should be exiled to Gitmo. No slippery slope here!

[RealSchool]

I love college football, but if I found out my representative was spending time on this type of bill I would be pissed.

[GoGreen23]

I love college football, but if I found out my representative was spending time on this type of bill I would be pissed.

I agree with you RealSchool. I know the BCS is flawed and may, including myself, would like to see a change of some kind. But I don't think it's Congress' place to change it. Don't they have a lot more important things to worry about??? I know I can think of a few things...

[goblue]

I would definitely support a playoff system, even if Congress has to get involved.

I've always heard and mostly believed in general that too much government isn't good, that they shouldn't interfere. But after seeing what's going on in this world, and what a mess things can be when government does in fact not regulate enough, I wouldn't mind them stepping in as long as it's an overwhelmingly popular choice by the people.

In this case I think it is. A playoff is what the majority of people want. Government isn't stepping in and what we've got now is a contract with the BCS that has too many flaws but won't end cause of all the money involved. To me that's worse than government intervention.

[tpilews]

I love college football, but if I found out my representative was spending time on this type of bill I would be pissed.

I see where you are coming from, but you need to look at it from an activists point of view. If you are lobbying for a playoff, this kind of publicity is amazing. Only college football fanatics voice their opinions in favor of a playoff, while the rest agree that a playoff would be good, but keep quiet. There needs to be an overwhelming majority of people that want a playoff, and for a good bit of those people to be vocal about it. The conferences need to be nagged about it until they change it.

Honestly, I think this is one step in the right direction.

[Rockie]

Its been my understanding when the goverment gets involved, they usually make things worse. Would this Congressman from Texas be doing this if Texas was in it? Probably not, but a the congressman from Oklahoma would.

[amazinblue]

I'm a believer in "minimalist" government, though I'm not a libertarian. My political philosophy is to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate. But, let's look at what Congress has done over the last 30 years - and, you know what - it hasn't been a lot.

So, I wish they would talk to the Financial Insitutions who they gave $300 billion to and tell them to "release" the money, so people can purchase things (like cars) on credit. And, since so many people out there have been casting stones at the auto companies - I wonder, why didn't the financial institutions, who "initially" asked for about 20 times what the Big Three are asking for - well, why didn't those financial firms undergo the same grilling and scrutiny that the automakers did.

I've got news for folks out there. The reason why cars aren't selling, is because people can't get loans for them. Why can't they get the loans? Because the banks won't lend the money? Why won't the banks lend the money? I have no idea...

Oh, but this is about football... for sure, another good thing for congress to get involved with. Maybe Waxman can lead the committee...

[elno lewis]

We're fighting wars on two fronts, in the worst economic situation in a century, have out of control health care costs, crumbling infrastructure and dire energy needs--and these idiots are spending time on this?

No wonder this country is in such a mess.

[Bossgobbler23]

Its been my understanding when the goverment gets involved, they usually make things worse. Would this Congressman from Texas be doing this if Texas was in it? Probably not, but a the congressman from Oklahoma would.

I'm glad things have gone down as they have and don't care the reasons or motives a congressman has to do "the right thing" as long as it is done. Its obvious that the BCS does not care what the little guy wants although 99% of their money is derived from the little guy. They run the show like communists. I'd be very happy if my congressman spent a little time doing "the right thing" and voting for a playoff. After all, is not a congressman's job to pursue the wishes of his constituents? Sure, there are other issues, many more important than football, but if we can't take a little time to get our minds off of the lousy economy through something we enjoy like football and get fairness out of it, we might as well continue to be led around like sheep and help contribute to their corrupt system. Do you not remember when Michigan got ripped a few years back after they lost to #1 OSU in a shootout and got jumped by #4 Florida for the NC? Did you think that right? If it takes congress to right a wrong, so be it!

[LAMfan]

I'm glad things have gone down as they have and don't care the reasons or motives a congressman has to do "the right thing" as long as it is done. Its obvious that the BCS does not care what the little guy wants although 99% of their money is derived from the little guy. They run the show like communists. I'd be very happy if my congressman spent a little time doing "the right thing" and voting for a playoff. After all, is not a congressman's job to pursue the wishes of his constituents? Sure, there are other issues, many more important than football, but if we can't take a little time to get our minds off of the lousy economy through something we enjoy like football and get fairness out of it, we might as well continue to be led around like sheep and help contribute to their corrupt system. Do you not remember when Michigan got ripped a few years back after they lost to #1 OSU in a shootout and got jumped by #4 Florida for the NC? Did you think that right? If it takes congress to right a wrong, so be it!

I actually did think it was right that M's chance for the title ended with that loss. I hate to think of the big rivalry games meaning nothing. Now, it should also mean that when OK lost the B12 title game, there shot was over too, but somehow there is more love for the B12, and that surely fuels the fire for a playoff.

[1OSUNUT]

That is exactly what our Conress should be worried about right now - college football. Let's forget about the fact that the economy is falling apart, the US automakers are flat broke and we are still sending home young Americans in body bags. Let's get to the real important stuff - football.

We live in a country that has things so wrong it's not even funny. People are losing their jobs left and right and are in a struggle to keep their heads above water or a roof over their head. Yet we sit back and watch banks getting bailed out to the tone of 700+ billion dollars and a MLB pitcher getting $160.000,000.

Now because a congressmen's team does not make the BCS title game we need to look into a playoff. Sports should be the last thing on the minds of our elected officals. Because if things do not get better economy wise sports will be the next thing that suffers.

[Todd]

Go away you meddling politicians! Quit intruding where you don't belong! Do your job and figure a way out of this mess that you've created for America! I find it difficult to stomach that the BCS would fall anywhere on your agenda whatsoever! People are losing their jobs, homes and families because of you jokers, and here you are worried about legislating college football??? Are you freaking kidding me!?!

[1OSUNUT]

Maybe the economy is the best thing for us to move in the direction of a playoff. If things keep going the way they are then there will not be enough businesses that could afford to sponsor the bowls. Then the NCAA will have no choice but to have a playoff system that they will sell I'm sure to the highest bidder. None of us will be able to afford attending a game and we will be lucky to have a house to watch it in - but we will have a playoff system.

[blueisbetterthanred]

Maybe the economy is the best thing for us to move in the direction of a playoff. If things keep going the way they are then there will not be enough businesses that could afford to sponsor the bowls. Then the NCAA will have no choice but to have a playoff system that they will sell I'm sure to the highest bidder. None of us will be able to afford attending a game and we will be lucky to have a house to watch it in - but we will have a playoff system.

Behold, an osu fan making sense.

Anomaly noted and logged.

:)

[ButlerWolverine]

Yet, we continue to vote for these idiots. After we elected Bush...twice....I think our right to vote should have been taken away...clearly we aren't intelligent enough to handle that responsibility.

Now this. As I watch my IRA dwindle, and the business in my town fold up shop, I will sleep much better tonight knowing that a playoff for college football is on the way.

And to think...we actually PAY these people to run our country.

On another note, I agree with above that a playoff of sorts could take away from big rivalries. "Oh..we lost to OSU..that's ok, we get another shot". Sort of takes the fun out of it. If there is a playoff, it #1 needs to be dictated by ranking and #2. You need to win your conference outright to be eligible. Period.

[GoGreen23]

QUOTE=ButlerWolverine;1480]And to think...we actually PAY these people to run our country.

On another note, I agree with above that a playoff of sorts could take away from big rivalries. "Oh..we lost to OSU..that's ok, we get another shot". Sort of takes the fun out of it. If there is a playoff, it #1 needs to be dictated by ranking and #2. You need to win your conference outright to be eligible. Period.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%, if there is to be a college playoff, you need to win to win your conference to be eligible for it. Fill in the extra slots with the current non-BCS schools, and then we will finally have a fair playoff/national championship system!

By the way, amazinblue and elno I agree with you both too.

[tpilews]

QUOTE=ButlerWolverine;1480]And to think...we actually PAY these people to run our country.

On another note, I agree with above that a playoff of sorts could take away from big rivalries. "Oh..we lost to OSU..that's ok, we get another shot". Sort of takes the fun out of it. If there is a playoff, it #1 needs to be dictated by ranking and #2. You need to win your conference outright to be eligible. Period.


I agree 100%, if there is to be a college playoff, you need to win to win your conference to be eligible for it. Fill in the extra slots with the current non-BCS schools, and then we will finally have a fair playoff/national championship system!

By the way, amazinblue and elno I agree with you both too.


What happens when you run into the problem like we have this year. Texas, Oklahomo, and Texas Tech would all have legitimate arguments for being in the tournament. If you just pick one of them, or one is left out of the conference title game, then this goes against the purpose of a playoff.

In the Big10, you've got PSU and tuos. Who goes?

I look at it this way. If you go into the season knowing you will be playing your rival twice, then yeah, that sucks. But, you won't know that. If both teams are highly ranked, they will be on opposite sides of the bracket. So, everyone is excited about the first game because the winner has a higher seed, therefore, an easier draw. The likelyhood of both team meeting would been remote, but still possible. And while being on opposite sides of the bracket, this means they're in the nc game. Who isn't going to be jacked up for that?

I just don't buy that people won't be excited about their rivalry games anymore because there is a remote chance they will play in the playoff.

[LAMfan]

What happens when you run into the problem like we have this year. Texas, Oklahomo, and Texas Tech would all have legitimate arguments for being in the tournament. If you just pick one of them, or one is left out of the conference title game, then this goes against the purpose of a playoff.

In the Big10, you've got PSU and tuos. Who goes?

I look at it this way. If you go into the season knowing you will be playing your rival twice, then yeah, that sucks. But, you won't know that. If both teams are highly ranked, they will be on opposite sides of the bracket. So, everyone is excited about the first game because the winner has a higher seed, therefore, an easier draw. The likelyhood of both team meeting would been remote, but still possible. And while being on opposite sides of the bracket, this means they're in the nc game. Who isn't going to be jacked up for that?

I just don't buy that people won't be excited about their rivalry games anymore because there is a remote chance they will play in the playoff.

I think the difference you and I have is in the philosophy and definition of title contender. I don't think we should play the whole regular season and then take the teams that have the best argument. We should play the season and take those teams that meet the criteria set out. I agree we have a problem now because the criteria are so arcane, and this drives the problems we have discussed, including weak schedules, lobbying for votes and uncertainty. With clear rules, like win your conference, we can remove much of this, but some times there will be ties. For me, the best option is 8 teams, the big 6 conference winners then 2 at-large. This in effect, makes the conference championship games semi-finals, and in B10, Pac10, some years the rivalry game is that as well.

Finally, any system of picking the top 2, 8, 16 will be flawed. Heck in bball, they used to argue about who was number 64. Now with the play-in game (wow, isn't that one exciting), it fell to why are we #66 with teams lobby before hand about strength of schedule, quality wins and then complaining about being left out. This would surely happen if we had a field of 16, as it is tough to tell the difference between about 12-20 IMO. We just haven't had the reason to argue strongly about it before.

Final point about excitement around rivarly games. IMO, what makes M vs. OSU great is that the winner, often, was the one who got everything, B10 title, Rose bowl, while the loser stayed home, or went to a lesser bowl. If this becomes a game that, when both teams are strong, is less life and death and more about seeding, then the intensity is diminished and over time I think, opinion here, the game does lose its significance.

[amazinblue]

What happens when you run into the problem like we have this year. Texas, Oklahomo, and Texas Tech would all have legitimate arguments for being in the tournament. If you just pick one of them, or one is left out of the conference title game, then this goes against the purpose of a playoff.

In the Big10, you've got PSU and tuos. Who goes?

I look at it this way. If you go into the season knowing you will be playing your rival twice, then yeah, that sucks. But, you won't know that. If both teams are highly ranked, they will be on opposite sides of the bracket. So, everyone is excited about the first game because the winner has a higher seed, therefore, an easier draw. The likelyhood of both team meeting would been remote, but still possible. And while being on opposite sides of the bracket, this means they're in the nc game. Who isn't going to be jacked up for that?

I just don't buy that people won't be excited about their rivalry games anymore because there is a remote chance they will play in the playoff.

TPI,

I believe that a major conference champion is an automatic qualifier, and - it's up to the conferences themselves to determine who that champion is. In the case of the Big 10 & 12 this season, you'd have Penn State and Oklahoma - which is based on those conferences structures.

I do belive that the field should be limited to 8 teams, and that leaves two spots for "at-large" teams which can either be highly ranked major conference "non champs" or champions of "mid tier" conferences.

If a team has a rivalry, they'll be juiced for the game, no doubt about it. And, the overall philosophy is simple - win or go home, as has been stated here before.

[tpilews]

I think the difference you and I have is in the philosophy and definition of title contender. I don't think we should play the whole regular season and then take the teams that have the best argument. We should play the season and take those teams that meet the criteria set out. I agree we have a problem now because the criteria are so arcane, and this drives the problems we have discussed, including weak schedules, lobbying for votes and uncertainty. With clear rules, like win your conference, we can remove much of this, but some times there will be ties. For me, the best option is 8 teams, the big 6 conference winners then 2 at-large. This in effect, makes the conference championship games semi-finals, and in B10, Pac10, some years the rivalry game is that as well.

Finally, any system of picking the top 2, 8, 16 will be flawed. Heck in bball, they used to argue about who was number 64. Now with the play-in game (wow, isn't that one exciting), it fell to why are we #66 with teams lobby before hand about strength of schedule, quality wins and then complaining about being left out. This would surely happen if we had a field of 16, as it is tough to tell the difference between about 12-20 IMO. We just haven't had the reason to argue strongly about it before.

Final point about excitement around rivarly games. IMO, what makes M vs. OSU great is that the winner, often, was the one who got everything, B10 title, Rose bowl, while the loser stayed home, or went to a lesser bowl. If this becomes a game that, when both teams are strong, is less life and death and more about seeding, then the intensity is diminished and over time I think, opinion here, the game does lose its significance.


I guess I can see the some aspects diminishing over time. I still just think that even if the end result of the game is about seeding, both teams are going to play the arsses off for bragging right to the winner of the game. I think that that keeps the rivalries interesting and important. But, I see where you are coming from.

[The Michigan Man]

http://www.newser.com/article/d95025t80/congressmen-introducing-legislation-to-end-college-footballs-bcs-system.html

I'm fine with Congress getting involved. Let them get distracted with this and it will minimize the damage they can do in more important areas.

Where were these Texas politicians when the BCS chose Texas to play USC for the NC a few years ago? The system was okay with them when the results went in their favor.

[LAMfan]

I'm fine with Congress getting involved. Let them get distracted with this and it will minimize the damage they can do in more important areas.

Where were these Texas politicians when the BCS chose Texas to play USC for the NC a few years ago? The system was okay with them when the results went in their favor.

They were probably busy arranging donors to pay for their tickets, travel and entertainment.