Congress tackles college football... for a loss?
by BearStage on May 2, 2009 9:20 PM PDT
Email
PrintFear not friends - the time for discussing the BCS controversies is over! No longer do we need to wrack our brains with questions of "bowls or playoffs?" or "bowls +1?" The answers, as all great answers (and world leaders) do, come from the great state of Texas.
Back in December, Texas Rep. Joe Barton(R) set out on a most holy quest to right the one of the great wrongs in this world - namely, that Texas got snubbed in the BCS that Rep. Barton's alma mater, Texas A&M, gets no BCS love that the little guy gets stomped on by the big guy in the crazy world of college football. Why should a few big bad conferences get all the money and attention? What about the little guy? What about the scrappy little MAC's of the world? The Sun Belt's, the CUSA's? Who will speak for them? Who will be the Lorax of college football? This... this isn't really about sport at all... it's a struggle for equality.
*sniffle*
Well, yesterday, only six short months after this legislation was introduced, Congress finally got around to discussing it. By 'discussing', of course, we mean 'doing what congressional committees do best - rounding up people we're mad at and verbally brutalizing them til we go hoarse'. That tongue-lashing was delivered by the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee - or CTCPSHECC, as it's known on the street. (It takes 22 minutes to flash their gang signs.)
Right off the bat - all business. Looking across the dais, the three members of the 30-member committee who had bothered to show up were raring to go. That's right, ten percent of subcommittee members actually made an appearance. Just look at all those occupied seats!
Clearly, this was a big deal. The opening remarks certainly set the tone. Briefly given by Rep. Bobby Rush(subcommittee chairman and the only member present not from Texas), the remarks thanked everyone for coming to "this rare... Friday... a.m. ... subcommittee hearing", certainly giving the impression that there was nowhere else Rep. Rush would rather be.
Ah, but now it was time for the drama of sports-related congressional hearings! Who got subpoenaed? Who were the big names forced to testify against their will? Actually... no one. The CTCP subcommittee doesn't subpoena people. Sadly, everyone who was there was testifying of their own free will. Damn.
But surely NOW we would hear the wonderful plan that Rep. Barton has created! Surely the secrets lain forth by his legislation will fix the BCS! Why else would he call for this hearing, a hearing virtually identical to one that this subcommittee held three years ago on the exact same topic? After referring to the BCS system as being akin to communism, after saying that "sooner or later you're gonna have to try a new model" - you have a new model for us, yes? So Rep. Barton, your answer is to...
Oh. Turns out he doesn't actually have an answer. The bill he introduced doesn't actually suggest a way to fix the BCS, contains no suggestion for a playoff of any kind. But here's what it does have:
[the] bill "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."
So this is how Rep. Barton is trying to keep Congress' nose clean: they can technically say that they're not trying to legislate the BCS, since the bill itself doesn't address the actual problem - it just finds a roundabout way to keep the BCS from doing what it's doing. Basically, it's Congress trying to nail the BCS the way the feds finally nailed Al Capone.
Rep. "Mean" Gene Green (also from where? Texas!) mainly contributed to the conversation by talking about the University of Houston, his alma mater, and mentioning the other Texas schools that his kids attended. He spends most of his 5-minute intro assuring the general public that even though Congress was not actually in session that day and they basically came in on a day off to have this hearing, the subcommittee is totally working on a ton of other stuff and this is totally not a waste of taxpayer time and money. Plus, he added that extra air of gravitas to the hearing by bringing a prop:
'Cause, you know, nothing screams "the hallowed halls of government" like a football helmet.
The subcommittee's contribution to the hearing mainly consisted of Rep. Barton venting at the BCS commissioner about how everything is about money blah blah blah, Rep. Barton asking inane questions about where BCS money actually goes, Rep. Barton talking about Texas football, etc. etc. etc. Rep. Rush had a few interesting questions about the equity of financial redistribution, but that was the closest they came to constructive input. But wait - the subcommittee also had major political pressure to bring to the fray! Hanging overhead was the serious (yet hollow) threat that Rep. Barton had been told by President Obama three separate times - three times!! - that he'd sign the bill into law if it reached his desk. Of course, Barton has chosen to ignore the fact that the chances of this waste of legislation actually making out of committee, through the House, through the Senate, and onto Obama's desk... are virtually nil. Most of Congress actually have bigger fish to fry.
I will say this: with the BCS Commissioner and Alamo Bowl CEO on one side and the MWC Commissioner and Boise State AD on the other, there were interesting testimonies and good arguments on both side of a complicated issue. Sharing the monies in a different fashion, access to the BCS for non-power conferences, the question of whether or not of there should even be power conferences - good stuff. The problem is that all this could have been discussed somewhere other than Congress - the subcommittee, again, added almost nothing constructive to the party. If you're gonna help, fine - but if you're just gonna point fingers and bitch, why waste our time?
Even the commissioner of the Mountain West Conference stated in his testimony that "criticism without a solution solves nothing." Unfortunately, that's pretty much all this hearing was.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
34 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Republicans call everything un-American that they do not like, don’t they?
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 2, 2009 9:52 PM PDT reply actions
Hopefully, this conversation will stayed focused more on the college football aspect to this story than the potential political realities of the story.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I should have known and I apologize.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 2, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Our tax dollars at work…I’m so proud to be an American right now…
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
To be fair, Andy Staples on SI.com pointed out that college football is subsidized by tax dollars to the extent that both public and private universities receive funding from the government. So how they end up distributing money from bowl contracts and the like should be under review, especially if the system that redistributes that money is inherently unfair.
Still holding out hope that Ryan Anderson will capitulate and grant him that interview he's been asking for for months now.
Well, I’m sure there are some programs out there who eventually drain on public resources, but Cal’s Athletic Dept. at least is supposed to be self-sustaining, not relying on any public funding whatsoever, and I know other athletic departments are the same way.
More to the point, I wasn’t lamenting the fact that Congress was getting involved (although they do have many more pressing issues to tackle) so much as I was disappointed that they were going about it in such an idiotic way.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I think an argument could be made that the brand name of a university is valuable not just for athletics, but attracting academic faculty and top-flight policymakers and administrators. And they do draw from public funds. I remember reading this story about a now world-famous liver surgeon pioneer who chose UCLA back in the 70’s because he had heard of Lew Alcindor (he was an immigrant). In other words, a prominent athletic program can help extend brand image and attract talent. And don’t try and tell me part of Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Steven Chu as energy secretary was 100% Chu’s policies and had NOTHING to do with Cal’s reputation as a top notch forward-thinking progressive university.
Therefore if a school like Utah can make a case that its image is hurt by never being allowed in the NC game, and that they take a hit in publicity due to unfair BCS practices, that could possibly be construed as an under-utilization of public funds. This would further arouse the ire of congressmen.
CGB: Our points are reliable. Our logic is infallible. Our past records are illogical. And our ham is dynamite!
by Spazzy Mcgee on May 3, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that was a point that Rep. Rush made...
…again cementing him as the constructive member of the committee. Now, I see what they’re saying – we help fund you, so we should have a say in where the money goes. But one of the testifiers (I forget which one?) pointed out that the constituency that Congress is claiming to represent in this case already has representation in the form of university officials. I think it’s a fair point – we need to let people do their jobs they’ve been hired to do. I’m not saying that change isn’t necessary – I think it is – but the people who know the system need to be the ones that fix it. The real question is whether or not they actually have the will to change the system.
One interesting part of the proceedings was when Rep. Rush asked each of the four testifiers whether or not Congress has any business getting involved in the BCS. Even though there were varying opinions on the BCS issue, all the testifiers agreed on one thing: they all preferred that Congress stay out of it, that change come from within the system.
The Boise State AD did say, however, that he thought intervention was necessary, as he didn’t see a way for change to actually come to pass without external intervention.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
From My understanding
congress is not in session hence all the empty seats.
This was done basically on “their own time”…I appreciate their effort but like was mentioned above you can talk all you want but if have no solution its a waste of time…
So, I can talk all I want?? Sweet!
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Forget declaring Mack Brown an "enemy combatant"
Why not just declare him Sanchez?
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
I declare Mack Brown
Sanchez! in fact a Double Sanchez!
Go Bears Go
Double Sanchez?!?! Is that possible???? Do we even have the technology?!?!?!
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
Not quite long enough for a separate fanpost...
I posted something pretty similar in the comments field of another SB blog, but I thought I’d reproduce it here with some minor edits because it’s definitely germane and gets at the reality of a playoff situation.
I didn’t have the opportunity to watch the C-Span coverage, but based on what I read, the playoffs “team” decisively handled the “BCS” team. The reason is because Thompson, MWC commish, and Bleymaier, Boise AD, were arguing the moral case, "Fairness!", but the only way you can defend the BCS is on economic grounds, namely "Profit!" As long as Swofford, BCS Chair, and Fox, Alamo Bowl, attempt to defend it on semi-moral grounds, they, and all other BCS proponents, will fail. This playoff debate is essentially another intersection of the eternal moral and economic debate of fairness versus efficiency. Considering that question has yet to be resolved, I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that a playoff is a lot further away than anybody thinks.
CFB is definitely a business and when it comes time to evaluate the post-season that should not be forgotten. (Here is the relevant information on the decisive court case.) To give credit where it’s due, most of what I’m about to argue/point out is cribbed from MJ’s arguments in the comments of this posting. (Hat tip: Dr. Saturday.)
Each Big Six conference gets about $17.5 million to split for placing a team in the BCS. If they place two teams, that figure jumps by $4.5 million. Not every conference distributes it evenly, but the fact is the BCS, win-or-lose, offers an enormous payout. This payout is vital to the continued success of college football. The reason is that most athletic departments can only operate as a result of the revenue generated by their football programs. At Cal, football and MBB were the only sports to turn a profit. At Vanderbilt, only football turned a profit. Check up on your (2nd) favorite school at the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool website. Click "Get data for one institution," and then get to work.
Any playoff has to match or exceed the payout the conferences will get by participating in the BCS, otherwise athletic departments across the country will be driven into insolvency. If only one team, from the Pac-10 or Big East say, is included within the playoff, that means that for an 8-team playoff the quarterfinal game has to be worth $17.5 million, adjusted for inflation.
To return to the fairness argument made by the MWC and Boise St., my initial reaction is just to shrug. It is not fair that the MWC, WAC, or anyone else gets less than the Big Six teams. On the other hand, it is only by virtue of the existence of the BCS that any of these teams would have a shot at those payouts to begin with. Does anyone honestly believe that the Fiesta or Sugar bowls would invite Utah, BSU, or TCU last year before Oregon, Ohio St., or Texas Tech if they had any choice in the matter? The payouts aren’t great compared to the amounts Big Six teams receive, but I’m sure that Utah preferred that to whatever TCU and Boise St earned in the Poinsettia Bowl.
The BCS is the creation of the Big Six conferences. As the creators, they certainly have the prerogative to set unequal levels of compensation for the participating teams, particularly if the participants are from non-member conferences. It’s not fair, it’s not right, it’s just business.
by Nashville on May 3, 2009 11:36 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Maybe there could be another BCS bowl called the mid-major bowl. They get their payout, they get a nationally televised prime time game, it will be a hyped game because both teams will be ranked highly (Poinsettia bowl this year was super hyped because of the great matchup).Of course, if a team goes higher than they go to the NC and whatnot. I think it is a way for mid-majors to get money and to have more than one team in the BCS. There are flaws with this plan though.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
One other thing
I am not opposed to a playoff. I should add that right now. I just value the regular season more than whether or not we are certain we’ve crowned the right team as NC.
If this crazy playoff scheme could be introduced in an economically, logistically feasible way, I would be the first to buy tickets.
I am entirely against a playoff. I agree with your point about the regular season being better then the NC.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on May 4, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Eh.
It’s likely that a I-A/FBS playoff would be at least as lucrative as the bowls (a sixteen-team playoff would almost certainly bring in more than all current bowls combined, while an 8-team playoff would almost certainly bring in more than the BCS), given how much CBS pays for the NCAA basketball tournament and that football generally gets better ratings. The thing is that the BCS conferences and the bowls would no longer have control over who got the money.
Meh
I think that for the championship game participants, you could absolutely bring in a larger haul. But only two teams, and potentially one conference, would be party to that treasure. It’s probably true that the BCS hangers-on want control over who gets the money, but the key thing is that they want it to be split evenly among member conferences. You get an extra team in, you get an extra $4.5 million great. Theoretically everyone has that chance. But a playoff necessarily brings a tiered finish not just in the rankings, but in the share of the loot. Championship game participants would expect to receive more than quarterfinalists. Again, unless you can guarantee that quarterfinalists (and their conference) would receive $17.5 million+ irrespective of their later performance, the idea is just a non-starter given the razor thin margins under which most athletic departments operate.
Let’s assume that the financial question is solved though and somebody will agree to televise the event at a price that ensures no drop-off in the financial situation of participating conferences. Who will own the rights? That is, the NCAA doesn’t own the bowls, the bowl committees do. So let the bowls host the playoffs, except that there’s no way there will be enough fan support to fill the stadiums and make it a winning proposition for the bowls. I can’t remember if it was you who argued this was immaterial because fans travel for the NCAA tournament on such short notice, but that is like comparing clementines and watermelons. The respective capacities of each stadium involved in the BCS:
Rose Bowl – 92,542
Superdome (Sugar Bowl) – 72,003
University of Phoenix Stadium (Fiesta Bowl) – 73,719
LandShark Stadium (Orange Bowl) – 76,500
That is at least double the size of even the largest basketball arenas. Thompson-Boling in Knoxville, TN holds 21,000 spectators and that is among the largest in the country. There is no way that these bowls could expect fans to travel on such short notice and fill the stadiums to the point that it is a winning proposition. Also, how will you determine who gets to host the semi-final and final games? One bowl will lose out. So it’s not economically feasible for the existing BCS bowl system to host the playoff.
Which leaves two options. 1) The universities host with home-field advantage and seeding. That’s fine and would solve the attendance issues but would render impossible the television contract because, all together now, who would own the rights? The home team? The participating teams? The participating conferences? The owner of the site where the game is played (because remember, not every CFB team plays in a stadium they own. Many, including both USC and UCLA I believe, lease)? And that’s not to mention the difficulty of negotiating a television contract in the span of a single week – which for full disclosure is a process of which I have no special knowledge and am therefore assuming – amongst three parties and deciding upon a fair fee for that specific game, with the knowledge you would have to do it again the next week when at least one new counterparty is involved. Plus, what’s to stop another network from swooping in and offering a better package in the middle of negotiations? And that leaves the final remaining option: 2) The NCAA hosts. This would work wonderfully, except for two small issues. First, the NCAA doesn’t own the bowl sites so they’d have to either lease them or lease NFL stadiums around the country, and oh wouldn’t you know that the playoffs would be happening in the middle of the NFL season. Second, the NCAA cannot negotiate television contracts on behalf of schools/conferences as decided in the Oklahoma Board of Regents court case I linked to above. And for what it’s worth, though this is mostly symbolic, third, the NCAA doesn’t recognize the college post-season anyway.
So, yes, I’m hoping the romance of a playoff works out without hurting the regular season. But I’m not holding my breath because there are a mountain of economic, legal, and logistical obstacles in the way of instituting any kind of viable championship playoff.
The BCS is about money, true, but also about preserving tradition...
…which I’ve realized is important to me. People talk about how every other college sport has a playoff system, etc. etc. so football should change too. But no other college sport has as much tradition tied into its system as college football does. I love the Rose Bowl. LOVE it. I love everything about it. I love Pac-10/Big Ten. I hate the fact that it has to host a national championship game every four years. I love the Rose Parade. I want to be there when the Cal marching band parades through the streets of Pasadena. Against all that, I could give a flying f*** about a playoff system. I know I’m not the only one – tons of us love it, and we like it the way it is.
This is similar to the point that the Alamo Bowl CEO was making – there are entire communities involved in these bowl games – that’s the fun of it. It’s never just about that one game – it’s a whole week of activities, it’s something to look forward to! If we switch to a pure playoff system, all that goes away. Teams who know they don’t have a chance at a notional title will have nothing to look forward to anymore. Bowls are a great way to keep the fan base excited, especially the ones that have local area tie-ins. A football playoff system wouldn’t be like basketball, where just being chosen to participate is a great honor – people just wouldn’t get excited about it. Obviously, you can’t have a 64-team playoff bracket for football (although, sadly, Rep. Barton actually suggested this in the hearing) because… okay, sorry, not gonna get into that argument here. But a pure playoff system would ruin college football for so many people that I just don’t think it should go that way. Yes, 1-AA does it, but that’s just a different animal. It’s not fair to compare 1-A football to 1-AA football – it’s just on a different level, with smaller fan bases and no financial backing for bowls.
Yes, the BCS is unfair right now – it’s bull that some schools get so much money and others don’t (why Notre Dame gets so much is beyond me). It reminds me of the nuclear weapons debate, in that the ‘haves’ dictate all the rules and tell the ‘have-nots’ that they’re always gonna be ‘have-nots’ and there’s nothing they can do about it. Yes, there should be better access to the national championship game for smaller conferences. Hopefully, someday change will come from within. But until then, we can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
The attitude of the BCS toward the non-Big Six
Reminds me of the game theory question. (I think it’s game theory at any rate.)
You and and another person are randomly taken off the street and offered the following instructions: You will be given $1,000 (or any value). The money is yours. You can choose to share as much or as little of the money as you want with the second person. There is no negotiating the value you share. However, the second person can refuse whatever you offer, and in so doing invalidate the entire payout. How much do you share?
This obviously isn’t exact because the non-Big Six conferences aren’t going to have the BCS payouts taken away from them if the MWC or refuses the sum they are given, but it does reflect the manner in which the Big Six seem to approach it. Any amount you are given will be a windfall, even if it isn’t an evenly distributed windfall.
1998 Michigan vs. Washington State
1999 Wisconsin vs. UCLA
2000 Wisconsin vs. Stanford
2001 Washington vs. Purdue
2007 Southern California vs. Michigan
2008 Southern California vs. Illinois
2009 Southern California vs. Penn State
Sure looks like a lot of Pac-10/Big Ten in the BCS era to me.
Plus, 2003, 2004, and 2006 also had Pac-10 teams in the Rose Bowl. So in the BCS era, there have only been two Rose Bowls that haven’t involved the Pac-10.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
