PDA

View Full Version : Utah AG, Justice Department meet about BCS Antitrust



JBHuskers
11-04-2010, 11:39 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5763731

WASHINGTON -- Utah's attorney general met with Justice Department officials this week to discuss a possible federal investigation into college football's Bowl Championship Series.

The attorney general, Mark Shurtleff, is looking into possible antitrust violations and wants the Justice Department to do so as well. Shurtleff says that department officials have clearly done "their homework" on the issue.

Justice Department officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. In January, the department said the Obama administration is considering reviewing the legality of the BCS.

Under the BCS, the champions of six conferences have automatic bids to play in top-tier bowl games, while the other conferences don't.

cdj
11-04-2010, 12:25 PM
Yeah, getting the federal government involved always ends with an improved system.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan

When the non-AQ conferences quit taking BCS money, I think they may actually develop a leg to stand on.

JBHuskers
11-04-2010, 01:03 PM
I don't agree with the government getting involved because this is more about the money rather than a shot at the nationship championship. If their main purpose was to have every school get some sort of a fair shake to a national championship after a good season, then these "meetings would be okay. I highly doubt that is what they're trying to get out of it.

I still think we can use the BCS, keep the bowls, the players won't miss much more school than they already do, and have a playoff of 4, 6, or 8 teams. Hopefully some part of this meeting deals with that. But it isn't, and it's kinda weird that the Utah Attourney General is getting with the governement to meet....well I guess it makes sense if he's a Utah State fan because Utah is going to be with the big boys.

cdj
11-04-2010, 01:16 PM
There's just some general discussion and theories going around that this could ultimately backfire and lead to the BCS conferences going their own way and some (most?) of the non-BCS schools getting pushed down to the FCS ranks. Not sure if there's a 1% or even a significant chance of this, but the non-AQs need to be careful what they ask for. Like I said, AFAIK none of them have ever turned down that BCS money they get each year.

IIRC, Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) has been upset about the BCS ever since Utah didn't make the title game back in 2004 after going undefeated. This is likely a continuation of that.

JBHuskers
11-04-2010, 01:17 PM
That would probably force the super conferences of 16 then if that was the case. This will definitely ramp up if a 1-loss Alabama team wins the SEC and jumps an undefeated Boise State in the BCS. Part of me hopes it happens.

cdj
11-04-2010, 01:25 PM
But I thought you wanted the little guy to have a title shot? :D Playoff supporters kill me. "We want undefeated non-BCS conference programs to have a shot at the title!....but I want a 1-loss team to jump them this year!" :smh:

The conferences won't be going to a playoff anytime soon. They have enough money coming in and are happy. They may push the whiny little brothers (non-BCS conferences) out of the picture though.

JBHuskers
11-04-2010, 02:37 PM
But I thought you wanted the little guy to have a title shot? :D Playoff supporters kill me. "We want undefeated non-BCS conference programs to have a shot at the title!....but I want a 1-loss team to jump them this year!" :smh:

The conferences won't be going to a playoff anytime soon. They have enough money coming in and are happy. They may push the whiny little brothers (non-BCS conferences) out of the picture though.

Well in order for some action to be taken the "little guy" has to get royally f'd over....

cdj
11-04-2010, 02:54 PM
Well in order for some action to be taken the "little guy" has to get royally f'd over....

So you're saying they haven't so far? That's an interesting admission. :P Boise must also realize that conference affiliation hurts them since they are leaving for the MWC.

I still think things work out more often than not in CFB. Alabama seems to be the team that can screw things up more than anyone else. Lose to Auburn and some combo of Boise/TCU/Utah/Oregon get left out. Alabama wins out and some combo of Boise/TCU/Utah is likely be on the outside. The night of the South Carolina loss, the hype from CBS and ESPN on not dropping them far and already asking if they should make the NC game with one loss began. The small schools had better hope for LSU to beat Bama this weekend, then for Bama to beat Auburn later in the year.

JBHuskers
11-04-2010, 02:58 PM
See, all of those scanarios you just listed have to happen for TCU or Boise to have a shot, even if they're undefeated....that's why even a 4-team playoff, or the +1 is needed, but I think 8 or a +2, but no more than 8. Everyone says well it's their conference, well they can't just up and join a big boy conference like that. This recent movement is a rare thing.

In all honesty, you do it in the entire month most teams have off when the smaller bowls are being played...it's not going to affect the tradition or the money. The first two rounds the higher seed is home, then you have your BCS Championship at the rotating site like it is now. Everyone has money, there are still bowls, and now there is a playoff.

cdj
11-04-2010, 03:01 PM
It messes up the tradition and logistics quite a bit. People don't plan vacations one-week in advance, they do it in about a month's time. Not to mention the small schools will still get hosed on locations and seeding. Then we'll be seeing 2-3 loss teams make the field versus a 1-loss non-BCS conference and the crying returns.

JBHuskers
11-04-2010, 03:17 PM
It works in every single other sport, including all other divisions of college football. It could still work. I highly doubt we'd see a 3-loss team in the top 8 of the BCS which I would use to determine seedings. Tradition, that went out the window long ago when teams reached for the dollar. If anything messed with tradition, it was the BCS. There's no way they're going back to the way things were prior to the BCS....therefore, it's BCS or Playoffs....or you can have both.

People have to plan one week in advance when the NCAA announces their basketball brackets...in what is probably the most popular of all playoffs. Adding two games to the schedule, or even just one game is not going to mess with tradition any more than it's already been messed with.

steelerfan
11-04-2010, 04:14 PM
There have been alot of traditions that have fallen by the wayside in the name of progress (in all facets of society - not just football). There needs to be a playoff system.

As JB said, every other sport and every other division of football pulls it off regardless of logistics.

cdj
11-04-2010, 04:36 PM
I still remember under the old system when 'all we need is #1 vs. #2 to play each other at the end of the year and things will be perfect!' How's that working out? :smh:

Major college football is different than other sports as it aims to crown a champ based on the entire season.

With that said, I hate the playoff discussions that start each year - especially those during the season. Damn you two for discussing it! :mad: :P And damn me for allowing myself to get involved! :smh:


I did see this and I think most agree, regardless of playoff stance:
BCS boss on possible Justice Dept probe: "hard to imagine bigger waste of taxpayer money". He does have that one right! They should work to find some sort of solution among the conferences and not by getting a bunch of paper-pushers who don't know if a football is stuffed or pumped involved.

JBHuskers
11-05-2010, 01:07 PM
I still remember under the old system when 'all we need is #1 vs. #2 to play each other at the end of the year and things will be perfect!' How's that working out? :smh:

Major college football is different than other sports as it aims to crown a champ based on the entire season.
With that said, I hate the playoff discussions that start each year - especially those during the season. Damn you two for discussing it! :mad: :P And damn me for allowing myself to get involved! :smh:


I did see this and I think most agree, regardless of playoff stance:
BCS boss on possible Justice Dept probe: "hard to imagine bigger waste of taxpayer money". He does have that one right! They should work to find some sort of solution among the conferences and not by getting a bunch of paper-pushers who don't know if a football is stuffed or pumped involved.

And by using the BCS to determine the 6 or 8 or even 4 teams (out of 120)....that still is relevant.

jaymo76
11-05-2010, 11:45 PM
Wow! I can't believe the government is actually spending tax payer money to look into college football. That's even too socialist for me... and I'm Canadian...

JeffHCross
11-06-2010, 11:51 PM
That's even too socialist for me... and I'm Canadian...
Definitions of socialism on the Web:
a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
an economic system based on state ownership of capitalExactly ... how ... does that statement fit?

Rudy
11-07-2010, 04:26 AM
Gary Patterson of TCU said he preferred the bowl system and BCS over a playoff and he said this last year before his bowl game and while he was undefeated. He loves the bowl experience and doesn't see how a playoff makes it any easier for him to win a title.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2010-01-04-fiesta-bowl_N.htm

Rudy
11-07-2010, 04:28 AM
Exactly ... how ... does that statement fit?

Canadians have a lot more socialist things than the U.S. We have a national health care plan and some things like hydro are still publicly owned. So our government has more fingers in the pie than the U.S. Jaymo was just saying that we don't mind gov't intervention and yet thinks this is a bad idea. Quite frankly the gov't needs to stay out of this. It's a complete waste of tax payer money just because some elected official is a fan of a college football team and is ticked off.

jaymo76
11-07-2010, 11:06 PM
Exactly ... how ... does that statement fit?

My bad. Sorry Jeff. I guess I should have preficed it by saying that I was talking more to the Canadian experience as a "welfare state" where government involvement in all levels is common policy. Whether it be healthcare, welfare, social services, employment insurance, provincial insurance policies, etc... Governmet is everywhere in Canada. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying that there are certain places even I (someone from this background) says enough is enough. In this case, college football should be out of bounds re: government policy.