What are politics if not manifestations of public sentiment? A democracy’s core principle is governing in the public’s interest, after all. However, public interest and public sentiment aren’t necessarily the same. Today there’s plenty of sentiment suggesting the current college football championship process needs reform, but that doesn’t mean political intervention is the means to bring it.
Public demand has spurred the Department of Justice to involve itself in the Bowl Championship Series.
The Sherman Act was crafted as protection for the masses, against price gouging and other conspiratorial business tactics. Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to pursue widespread antitrust governance under the Sherman Act. Coincidentally, the 26th President of the United States is also responsible for spearheading efforts to reform college football, a game that at the turn of the 20th century was violent and dangerous.
Federal intervention to make a more safe game was necessary when young men were losing their lives. Boise State not playing for a national championship is a much different situation.
The reforms put in motion under Roosevelt’s presidency included the formation of a governing body to oversee all college athletics. The NCAA was eventually born of this. Nearly a century later, two of Roosevelt’s lasting impacts intersect in a most unpleasant way. Accusations of antitrust made against the Bowl Championship Series via the NCAA are the latest in a widespread public upheaval against the current football championship system.
Perhaps public opinion pushed Roosevelt into action on football reform. A staggering 18 on-field deaths in 1905 had certainly whipped outcry against the game into a fever pitch. But Roosevelt’s love of sports is well-documented. His brand of leadership wasn’t guided by popular sentiment. It’s not presumptuous to believe he’d have pursued action regardless — consider his fervent antitrust policies. These policies weren’t exactly popular with his own party, and helped fracture the Republicans nationally until the 1920s.
Whether the DoJ letter to NCAA president Mark Emmert is the Obama Administration politically posturing is irrelevant. The die is cast and the BCS is taking one shot to the chin after another, this letter and discussion of antitrust coming on the heels of malfeasance uncovered at the Fiesta Bowl.
Yet, public outcry doesn’t stem from antitrust nor from misuse of bowl game funds. Desire for a playoff is the root of anti-BCS, and anything pertaining to antitrust or misappropriation of funds is just means to an end. Take the Playoff Political Action Committee, one of the most ardent banner carriers against the BCS. It’s purpose is stated right there in the title, but to further drive home the point, its mission statement proclaims:
Playoff PAC is a federal political committee dedicated to establishing a competitive post-season championship for college football. The Bowl Championship Series is inherently flawed. It crowns champions arbitrarily and stifles inter-conference competition. Fans, players, schools, and corporate sponsors will be better served when the BCS is replaced with an accessible playoff system that recognizes and rewards on-the-field accomplishment. To that end, Playoff PAC helps elect pro-reform political candidates, mobilizes public support, and provides a centralized source of pro-reform news, thought, and scholarship.
A “competitive post-season championship…with an accessible playoff system,” is clearly spelled out as the crux of the mission. Playoff PAC is one small yet apt example that what this has to do with is simply bowl system vs. playoff. Everything is just a means to that end, even if individual instances of corruption have no relation to how champions are determined.
The improprieties committed by the Fiesta Bowl Committee’s John Junker needed to be addressed, but what one thing (Junker) has to do with another (a playoff) is perplexing. Yes, the BCS is a faulty system in need of reform. When an 8-4 Connecticut team, unranked an boasting zero wins against the top 25 is playing among the nation’s best then there’s an obvious flaw. An easy solution is flexibility in automatic qualification standards.
The BCS was born of a third split national championship in seven years, yet has resulted in a split decision and a few more that could have been split. A plus-one in situation that dictate it and more flexibility in bowl match-ups would solve that problem.
Unfortunately, “BCS reform” has become synonymous “institute a playoff.” Should a BCS competitor come along proposing a postseason alternative that didn’t include a tournament, I can’t help but wonder how passionate a support base it would have.
The supposed antitrust that the anti-BCS ilk decries relates to NCAA bylaws 17.9.8.2, 18.02.4, 18.7.1(f) and 18.7.2. The gist: teams can participate in a single, officially licensed bowl game. Where cries of antitrust stem are from Bylaw 3.2.4.11 further dictates the NCAA can boycott membership to those in non-compliance — with any NCAA bylaw, not just those pertaining to bowl game participation.
So an NCAA partnership institution must compete in an NCAA-sanctioned event. Makes sense, right?
A problem might arise if the NCAA was blocking attempts at the formation of an alternative postseason. That hasn’t happened. In fact, precedent with such tournaments as basketball’s NIT show willingness for alternatives. Additionally, these are bylaws that change regularly. The guidelines are a living document flexible to change. Unless there’s NCAA/BCS conspiracy to keep proposition of change off the table, there exists no antitrust.
Behind these antitrust allegations is supposed to be protection for the little guy, like Roosevelt’s antitrust crusades against price gougers and monopolizers like JP Morgan US Standard Oil. Turn-of-the-century commerce giants were prevented from crushing the common man through elimination of competition.
So if an eight or 12-team playoff is born of federal intervention, what of the common football program? What of the San Diego States, Navys and Tulsas who have a great seeason and can end their seasons with a postseason victory? Where is there opportunity for competition once they’ve been eliminated from playoff contention? Many would contend, and rightfully that “rewarding” a 6-6 team with a bowl bid cheapens the honor, but for these non-BCS conference programs that win eight, nine, 10 games and earn national television revenue from a bowl bid, what do they play for in a playoff? Barring a 32-or-more-team tournament, there seasons become largely meaningless. With a massive tournament bracket, the concept of the tournament’s cheapened.
President Roosevelt laid out a fine road map for pursuing both antitrust, and federal legislation in sports. The current course of action against the BCS doesn’t follow either.
Add us as a preferred source on Google