The AP reports that the Justice Department is exploring antitrust action against the college football Bowl Championship Series and may seek to force the NCAA to implement a college football playoff. The Justice Department revealed this potential move in a letter to Senator Orrin Hatch in response to the Senator’s inquiry.
In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch’s request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.
“Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason,” Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws. . . .
“The administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football national championship playoff with respect to the highest division of college football … raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties,” Weich wrote.
During the Presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama pledged he would “throw my weight around a little bit” to encourage a college football playoff system.
Anon21 says:
I hate to sound like a conservative, but I can’t possibly see how this is a worthy use of my federal tax dollars.
January 30, 2010, 9:50 amrpt says:
We hear about antitrust law so seldom these days. It’s not as if a consideration of the insurance industry would be worthy rather than this distraction.
January 30, 2010, 9:56 amtamerlane says:
I don’t remember that overseeing college football was one of the enumerated powers. I wonder how the writers of the Constitution would feel about a president who “throws his weight around” so he and a bunch of equally corrupt senators can get something they want in the colosseum. This resembles republican government less than it does a later stage of the Roman empire or perhaps, more aptly, some particularly tin-horn “third-world” country, e.g., Kenya or Indonesia.
January 30, 2010, 10:03 amBlue Neponset says:
Whatever it takes to get a playoff is fine by me.
January 30, 2010, 10:03 amDave N. says:
Make the Mountain West Conference — home of both the University of Utah and Brigham Young University — part of the BCS and I am sure all of Senator Hatch’s antitrust concerns will miraculously disappear.
January 30, 2010, 10:12 amDjDiverDan says:
Hey, I want a playoff as much as anyone else — though I really believe that some major efforts to level the playing field (like, maybe enforcing some rules on academics in places like the SEC, which is now little more than a semi-pro league for football players waiting out their shot at NFL Draft eligibility) would be a more appropriate first step. But I have to echo the posters above — I don’t see ANY BASIS AT ALL for Federal involvement here (at least not under any reasonable conception of “enumerated powers”), and, even assuming the Federal Government could get involved (presumably under the now unlimited “commerce clause”), this has to fall pretty damn low on any list of priorities when there are so many other problems that deserve federal attention.
January 30, 2010, 10:15 amkrs says:
College football seems to be replacing professional baseball as the national disease.
Of all the things about college football that might be of legitimate concern to the government, the lack of a playoff is not one of them.
January 30, 2010, 10:17 amDave N. says:
(For those of you who do not follow college football, there are certain conferences that are automatically part of the BCS Bowl process. “Lesser” conferences do not get automatic bowl bids. In 2008-2009, the University of Utah was nationally ranked but was not guaranteed a BCS Bowl. Ultimately, Utah played in a BCS Bowl. In 1985, BYU won the mythical national championship but ended up playing in the Holiday Bowl, which is a fairly minor bowl game. I thought this background might be helpful for people who were wondering why Senator Hatch cared and what I meant with my previous comment)
January 30, 2010, 10:21 amPeteP says:
I’m THRILLED that our elected leaders are addressing this urgent problem.
Lord knows it’s at the top of the list of problems to be dealt with in this country.
January 30, 2010, 10:33 amMark Field says:
I thought the baseball steroid hearings were bad; this is even more frivolous.
January 30, 2010, 10:54 amJmaie says:
Let’s look for the silver lining. Government intervention in this area ridiculous, but the time congress spends on this would otherwise be spent doing something else which would cost us far more money.
January 30, 2010, 11:09 amKazinski says:
Why can’t the President get what he wants whenever he wants it?
January 30, 2010, 11:10 amD.R.M. says:
If the five non-BCS conferences really wanted to pressure the BCS, they’d boycott the BCS and form their own bowl organization with the three oldest non-BCS bowls (Sun, Cotton, and Gator). The five conference champions and, say, the winner of the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy (if bowl-eligible) would be the six automatically-eligible teams. Order of picks from the pool would rotate through the three bowls (the third bowl picking someone at-large when the CnC winner isn’t bowl-eligible), and the five conferences and the bowls would agree to all call the victor of the #1 pick bowl the “National Champions”.
Most years, the alternate claim wouldn’t be more than a persistent annoyance, but in a year like this one, you’d get the Boise State-TCU game happening not inside the BCS framework, but in this alternate bowl alliance.
January 30, 2010, 11:14 amjcm says:
I don’t remember that overseeing college football was one of the enumerated powers.
January 30, 2010, 11:19 amThey messed with MLB , NHL,NBA so they can do it with BCS. Unlike the formers, the BCS doesnt pay to the players. They are forced to play for an “education”, while coach earn more than a faculty. The only communist system in the world : NCAA( In Russia, the government will pay athletes on a medal won basis after the Winter Olympics)
There is no reason to keep poor people, most players are ,forced to resign to lucrative contract to get a useless trophy( remember was Ali did with his Gold Medal)
LTEC says:
Of course it is silly for the antitrust people to muck around in football. They should stick to what they do best. Like computer operating systems, or insurance. They should use their awesome mental powers to decide whether or not an operating system should be allowed to contain a web browser, or how insurance companies should be run, rather than dealing with something as unimportant as football.
January 30, 2010, 11:47 amSteve says:
Do people seriously believe the antitrust laws are unconstitutional???
January 30, 2010, 11:53 amPeteP says:
“Why can’t the President get what he wants whenever he wants it?”
Because ‘You can’t always get what you want’
Mick jagger
January 30, 2010, 12:32 pmPB&J says:
1. Congress passed Sherman Act (and others) regulating antitrust pursuant to its power under the Commerce Clause.
2. Executive branch (DOJ, FTC) enforces the Sherman Act by opening investigations and bringing civil and criminal cases against potential violators.
This, of course, just makes it appropriate, as a descriptive matter, for the Executive branch to act in such a way. It does not address whether it’s a normatively-desirable use of its enforcement discretion.
January 30, 2010, 12:37 pmArthurKirkland says:
The workers who benefit most from laws governing unions are obscenely compensated athletes, perhaps the group farthest from the original inspiration for unions, those least in need of their protections (they’re practically walking, talking corporate conglomerates, complete with taxpayer subsidies), which these “rank-and-file workers” use primarily to avoid accountability for unlawful use of steroids.
Now, the antitrust laws are to be thawed (from the capsule next to the one containing Ted Williams’ head) to promote society’s interest in better competition among a bunch of institutions of higher learning
whoring themselves outmoonlighting as oily entertainment moguls.If this is evolution, maybe it is understandable that some people want to believe in something else.
January 30, 2010, 12:39 pmRoscoe says:
First, I agree that government intervention into this area is silly.
Second, as for DJ DiverDan’s cheap shot at the SEC, they generally do a pretty good job of graduating their football players (LSU is at 60% and Florida is at 69%, vs. USC at 58% and Texas at 49%).
Third, the real problem is that it is unfair to give, for example, Utah a shot at the national championship when it got its undefeated season playing a Mountain West schedule (including San Diego, UNLV and Wyoming).
Fourth, if I was boss of the world, I would fix this problem by demoting the non performing teams from the BCS conferences and replacing them with the better teams in the non BCS conferences. I understand they do this sort of thing in European soccer. So, for example, the Pac 10 could lose Washington State and pick up Utah, the Big 12 could lose Baylor and pick up TCU, and the Big 10 could lose Indiana and pick up Boise State
January 30, 2010, 12:43 pmSoronel Haetir says:
What I find humorous about all of this is that Hatch is likely in a better position to do something than DoJ. Whether or not BCS is violative of the anti-trust laws I see little reason that Congress could not use its purse to get what it wants. Threaten to turn off the spigot and schools would fall over themselves to comply. That wouldn’t even be particularly controversial.
January 30, 2010, 12:55 pmRebelyell says:
Be aware that many SEC schools have very low academic admission standards by court order, as higher standards would reduce the percentage of black students attending formerly segregated and still predominantly white schools. The federal government has essentially denied Southerners the right to a rigorous education, but now you want to deny them football, too?
January 30, 2010, 1:03 pmMark Field says:
Jim Murray had a great column on this theme about 30 years ago. He imagined Marx and Engels discussing the injustice of the treatment of a poor basket maker named Bill Walton.
January 30, 2010, 1:10 pmegd says:
Why would the Big 10 have to lose anybody? There’s already speculation that the Big 10 is looking for a 12th member (which would make in-conference playoffs a little more reasonable).
If it makes you feel any better, it’s actually your childrens’ tax dollars.
Do people seriously believe the antitrust laws are constitutional? And I really am serious.
January 30, 2010, 1:25 pmSuperSkeptic says:
That is a good job?
January 30, 2010, 1:51 pmArthurKirkland says:
Should we strive to restore the good old days, when Ole Miss was the finest academic institution in the entire nation, Harvard was full of students denied admission by Alabama, and an SEC diploma was the gold standard of academia?
January 30, 2010, 1:54 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Don’t you know? “Great aggregations of wealth” are unconstitutional, obviously – and so therefore is anything they do. I mean, it’s clearly “unfair”.
January 30, 2010, 1:56 pmDjDiverDan says:
Hey, I never claimed that the SEC did not graduate its football players. I do, however, seriously question the academic value of those college degrees. I’m willing to bet that a not-insignificant percentage of LSU football players who obtained “college degrees” still can’t read above an 8th grade level. And how many Florida athlete-graduates got credit for coursework taken by someone else (before the rampant cheating was discovered by the NCAA)? And it’s not as if this problem is confined to the SEC (although I do think the SEC is a prime offender). The problem was endemic throughout most (not all) of the Big 10 some 30+ years ago; I was personally aware of a few Michigan State grads from the early 70′s whose degree in Recreation was based on credited coursework like “500 Playground Games,” “the Construction and Use of the Monkey Bars,” and “Bowling Alley Management.” The Science and Math credits allowed to these athletes consisted of courses that many high schools would treat as remedial level. But the Big 10 and PAC 10, and even the Big 12 (to a lesser extent) made serious efforts to limit or eliminate special athletic admissions, and require greater rigor in academic programs directed at athletes. The SEC made no such efforts. The bottom line is that, if I were an employer, I would personally view a Bachelor’s Degree from LSU, Florida, or Georgia in the hands of a former football player as questionable, without a careful review of the transcript and independent verification that the holder of the degree actually earned the credits. I would view a degree in the hands of a former football player from Stanford, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Northwestern with far less, if any, skepticism.
January 30, 2010, 2:01 pmMatthew says:
Third, the real problem is that it is unfair to give, for example, Utah a shot at the national championship when it got its undefeated season playing a Mountain West schedule (including San Diego, UNLV and Wyoming).
But it’s fair to give SEC a shot when they schedule Louisiana-Monroe, Rice, and St. Sisters of the Poor the first three games of every single season?
January 30, 2010, 2:25 pmSteve2 says:
Soronel’s hit on the one reason I’m ok with legislative meddling in intercollegiate athletics: 1)most of the universities involved are either straight-up public schools or state-funded land grant schools, with their football programs getting taxpayer subsidies and 2) most schools lose money on their subsidized football teams. Now, Congress may not be the most appropriate legislature to be looking at why public funding for educational institutions is getting used in a protectionist manner to guarantee some athletic programs are locked out at a competitive disadvantage, but then again it may well be.
January 30, 2010, 2:35 pmJust not sure says:
Because they strike directly at regulation of interstate commerce, I am having some trouble with your seriousness. There may be an argument that the Sherman Act is vague or overbroad on its face (“every contract . . . in restraint of trade or commerce”), but judicial construction and application of the act have avoided these problems. Perhaps there’s an argument that it is an improper delegation to the Executive and Judiciary Branches? Help me out.
January 30, 2010, 2:38 pmD.R.M. says:
One out of three Mountain West Conference teams finished in the AP Top 20 this year; same percentage as the SEC managed, and better than the percentage for the Big Twelve (16.67%), ACC (25%), Big East (15%), or Pac-Ten(10%). Only the Big Ten did better (36.36%).
January 30, 2010, 3:04 pmegd says:
Really? I thought that most schools used their football (and basketball/hockey/baseball, depending on your region) to fund other sports programs. Does this apply to the BCS schools?
Just curious if you have some information for further reading.
There are two definitions for Constitutional: “What I think” and “Reality.”
In reality (modern judicial interpretation of the Constitution), it’s hard to imagine any Constitutional limits on the Commerce Clause. Drug prohibition is constitutional, ‘free speech zones’ are Constitutional, etc.
In “libertarian fantasy world,” the Commerce Clause is not limited to Congress’ imagination, but rather is authority for the Federal Government to overrule protectionist measures by the states. It doesn’t allow for Federal criminalization of activities related to business. It also doesn’t allow the government to designate favored industries or groups to be exempt from the law.
In libertarian fantasy world, the Sherman Antitrust Act is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom to contract and freedom to associate.
In the real world, Congress can do whatever it wants (unless it involves sex) and the Court will grant some level of deference to Congressional action.
January 30, 2010, 3:14 pmStormy Dragon says:
Texas Representative Joe Barton has also been very involved in pushing federal involvement in college football. He’s also one of the poster boys for the supposed resurrgence of limited government principles in the GOP.
January 30, 2010, 3:18 pmq says:
I’m pretty libertarian, but potential anti-trust action is well-deserved. I see several complaints in this thread:
1) “This isn’t one of the Executive’s enumerated powers!” Congress delegated to the Executive their power under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce. This includes anti-trust regulation. We are, after all, talking about the NCAA, a national organization. The constitutionality of anti-trust regulation is hardly in dispute. It’s one thing to regulate one farmer’s local use of his wheat; it’s quite another to regulate a cartel operating in all 50 states and whose consumers belong in all 50 states.
2) “This is a waste of money.” Acually, is there any consumer of college football who would prefer a BCS system over a playoff? I doubt it. So as far as market inefficiencies go, this is quite a huge one, especially given college football’s popularity. So what if it’s the college football market? Was it just as much as a waste of time for DOJ to go after ADM for price-fixing the lysine market? I mean, who cares about lysine? But, EVERYONE cares about college football. (And yes, going after ADM was definitely justified and I doubt any economist would disagree).
January 30, 2010, 3:28 pmNickM says:
As if a playoff system isn’t a restraint of trade as well.
Nick
January 30, 2010, 3:33 pmMark Field says:
No, no you’re not.
January 30, 2010, 3:36 pmq says:
I don’t think it has to be one or other, though your description of how things are in reality is mostly correct. Still, given the language of the clause, it’s hard for me to interpret it as only allowing the Federal Government to overrule state protectionism. I’m fairly certain the Drafters understood what the word “regulate” meant.
What if the NY AG went after the NCAA instead? I suppose you’d feel better about that situation? (I wouldn’t; I certainly trust DOJ more than I do NY AG’s office in properly handling this matter).
January 30, 2010, 3:37 pmbyomtov says:
Why isn’t the NCAA rule against paying players an anti-trust violation?
January 30, 2010, 3:51 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
Acually, is there any consumer of college football who would prefer a BCS system over a playoff?
Yes, there are many people who do not want the football season to be a glorified exhibition so that the media can cover a nice, easy to follow, playoff at the end of the year. If you want that, go watch college basketball- look at how exciting their season is.
The current idea behind the college football “system” is to identify the best football team over the course of the year. That they miss from time to time is nothing like having a goofy end-of-year, single elimination tournament and proclaiming the winner of the tournament your “champion.” The former makes all games relevant, the latter makes all games broadcast on CBS relevant. I prefer the former, and so does the viewing public- the same public that is currently ignoring the college basketball season because it is largely meaningless.
If we end up with a 4 team “playoff” I’ll deal with it and enjoy the show. If they expand beyond that to some 8 or 16 team monstrosity- complete with multiple neutral site games- the college game will suffer.
More importantly, this Presidents complete inability to imagine that someone who disagrees with him is behaving in good-faith makes him the least suitable person on Earth to resolve this issue. He should keep flailing on Health Care- at least that’s fun to watch.
January 30, 2010, 3:59 pmSuperSkeptic says:
And I’m fairly certain that they didn’t mean the commerce clause to mean what it means today.
January 30, 2010, 4:01 pmyankee says:
It would be a better use of their time to go after them for collusive efforts to underpay the players. The NCAA amateurism rules prohibit
January 30, 2010, 4:06 pmminor-leaguecollege football teams from paying salaries; all the players get are worthless scholarships and dreams of the pros. These are professional players who make big money for the schools and the rules that prohibit their employers from paying them are appalling.q says:
I believe the comparison to college basketball is inapt. The NFL regular season is quite important despite their 10 team playoff. Nobody cares that much about the college basketball regular season because the NCAA tournament is 65 teams and the season is long (see the popularity of the baseball and basketball regular seasons). And college basketball starts to pick up steam around the conference playoffs, as we get more appealing matches and people vying for good seeding or even a chance to enter the tournament.
Yes it’s true the bowl system makes the regular season pretty exciting in that one loss is a significant burden on one’s chances to the national championship game. But expanding it to an 8-team playoff wouldn’t diminish that excitement that much as you’ll still need a pretty good record to get in. It’s easily balanced by the excitement of a playoff instead of our current two-team playoff where only one game is usually of general interest.
Also, you greatly overestimate the excitement of the college football season. Most games aren’t even broadcast nationally. So if a high ranking team loses, usually I’m stuck with watching highlights on SportsCenter. Not to mention all the 50-3 stompings that make up most of the games involving the high caliber teams.
January 30, 2010, 4:15 pmq says:
Which has nothing to do with this thread. If “regulate” and “interstate commerce” are to have any meaning, then surely it would include regulating the NCAA.
January 30, 2010, 4:16 pmApep says:
Most of the regular college season and all but one or two of the bowl games are now meaningless. This is in stark contrast to what existed prior to the Bowl Alliance when, for example, an Orange Bowl loss by Miami could mean that Arkansas is suddenly playing for the national championship. (I know I have the teams confused, but it was when Switzer’s OU played Holtz’s Arkansas.)
The reason the regular season is meaningless is because most of the games are boring. I don’t want to see Texas or Florida play all of their non-conference games at home against basement dwellers. I’d rather see them play the traditional Notre Dame schedule: against (traditionally) good teams.
To sum it up: I would like a football playoff. I would like it limited to certain conferences where membership is determined similar to membership in European football leagues (winning or losing your way in or out). I would like the games of those conferences televised because I like the variety of offenses and defenses in the college game.
Most importantly, even in a libertarian fantasy world, since most of the BCS schools are state actors, it amounts to certain states erecting barriers to trade. Even using the Barnett definition of “regulate”, that’s permissible regulation. End of story.
January 30, 2010, 4:21 pmAnon21 says:
Somehow, even with all the glibretarian enumerated-power gadflies in this thread, this one little statement steals the prize for “stupidest remark.”
January 30, 2010, 4:21 pmq says:
I wish I had a rolleyes emoticon. Obviously I’m engaging in hyperbole, and it’s amazing that you were able to read my post and yet lacked the intelligence to recognize my use of such a common rhetorical device. But you cannot deny that college football is very popular and definitely of more general interest than lysine, which if you didn’t suck at reading was the comparison I was making.
January 30, 2010, 4:28 pmSuperSkeptic says:
You know, I took “glibretarian” (sic) as a compliment until I got to “gaflies”. Nevertheless, I will depart uplifted, having preserved the thread’s motif.
January 30, 2010, 4:35 pmAnon21 says:
Well really, the more relevant comparison is “Who cares about food derived from animals?” And there, I think you’ll find the answer is “More people than care about any semi-pro bloodsport.”
January 30, 2010, 4:41 pmq says:
The effect of the price of lysine on the price of animal products is not very large. So, no, people don’t really care all that much about the fact that ADM was able to raise the price of lysine by 50 cents per pound.
Moreover, I believe the deadweight loss and transferred consumer surplus amounted to around $150 million over the year or so ADM was able to fix prices. The rather large inefficiencies from the bowl system we’ve had for decades very likely tops that.
January 30, 2010, 4:54 pmRoscoe says:
Wow, I stirred some folks up. Well as we used to say in my aviation days, when you are drawing a lot of flack, you must be over the target. A couple of points in response:
Obviously not someone from the South. Some of the SEC schools, Georgia, Florida, Vandy, Bama, are pretty good schools. My wife graduated from LSU, and got a pretty good education. Now, I am not doubting that they all run some courses to help sports guys stay eligible (even my Lehigh had a geology course we called “Rocks for Jocks”). But I am tired of the assumption that the SEC is worse than other traditional football schools in other conferences.
Good point. But still, a good way to fix the problem of teams like Utah and Boise St. never getting to play for a national championship would be to let them join a major conference.
Look, to get to the title game, Alabama had to play Va. Tech, Auburn, LSU, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Miss. St. and then Florida. That is a hell of a tough schedule, and I don’t blame them if they squeezed in North Texas in during an off week.
The Mountain West has only 9 teams. 3 of them are good, the rest are pretty marginal. It just doesn’t look like a BCS conference yet (although in fairness neither did a couple of the BCS conferences).
January 30, 2010, 4:56 pmJones Scott says:
Initially, it sounds like a waste of time having the president “throw his weight around a little”, as things like that easily could be handled by a third party. But I guess its a form of saying: “hey guys, I like you too, I haven’t forgotten you at all, vote me for alright *blink*.”
January 30, 2010, 5:32 pmGary says:
The man who can’t even close Gitmo is gonna take on the BC$. Good luck with that.
January 30, 2010, 5:37 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
The NFL regular season is quite important despite their 10 team playoff.
The NFL allows 12 teams into its playoff. More importantly, the two remaining teams in this year’s tournament didn’t even compete in their final regular season games. Not only did such a course render those games an unwatchable farce, they also allowed another team (the Jets) to sneak into the playoffs by playing against teams that were making no effort to win in their final games. College teams don’t get to lose on purpose if they want to be champs.
The fact that most games aren’t broadcast nationally is a function of the fact that there are 119 teams in Division 1 (I believe.) That’s a huge volume of weekly games. There is no way to put all of them, or even all of the “important” ones, on national TV.
Now there are problems with the college game to be sure. The insistence by Big 12 (and SEC to a lesser extent) teams to avoid anything even approaching a decent non-conference game is rather embarrassing. However, an 8 team playoff (which is practically unworkable- where do you play all those games and who goes to them) isn’t going to fix that. It would be very difficult to improve on what we have now without dumping half of the programs from Division 1 (which nobody is willing to do)- as such I suggest that Barry and Orrin focus elsewhere when trying to look busy.
January 30, 2010, 5:42 pmJones' Cell Mate says:
In any case q, all apologies if my tone seems a bit harsh. I’m a huge college football guy and I’m not excited by some of the “improvements” I’ve seen mentioned. That’s a lousy excuse of course, but this is way more important than some silly health care business- that may be life and death, but this is important. ;-)
January 30, 2010, 5:45 pmrmd says:
I’m going to contact my congressman and senators and demand that they work on this critical issue to the exclusion of all else for at least several months, the longer the better.
January 30, 2010, 6:25 pmhattio says:
Roscoe says;
But, for example Boise State has a hole in their schedule in either 2012 or 2013. They’ve offered to play ANY team, and sent specific offers to most of the big football programs. NO ONE has accepted. If the “big conference” schools want some of the smaller schools to play tougher schedules, they have to be willing to take on some non-conference games against teams like Boise State, and risk losing them. But, they aren’t willing to do that. (not that any of this justifies Federal intervention).
Jones also says
Aren’t schools in conferences for all sports though? What will you do when a team like, has a horrible football team but a bad ass basketball team. If the conference is different for every sport, that doesn’t make it much of a conference.
January 30, 2010, 7:04 pmArthurKirkland says:
I have a broad range of experience with the regulatory side of college athletics (including football), from investigating allegations of infraction to committing a few infractions.
Our nation confronts much larger problems, but the current college athletics system unnecessarily demeans institutions, administrators, alumni and student athletes. The largest beneficiaries of current arrangements are coaches, institutions with loose morals, coaches, twisted alumni, coaches, broadcasters and coaches. Most often victimized are the student athletes.
The regulation of college athletics involves much bigger problems than complaints concerning the football bowl system, but that system could benefit from improvement. I would start by associating academic achievement with rankings in revenue-generating sports.
I also would institute lifetime eligiblity for many athletes (for tuition, room and board, at least until an undergraduate degree is awarded and in many cases for postgraduate study), extensively reorganize the “academic support” function, provide additional compensation for certain athletes, impose identical transfer restrictions on coaches and athletes, and require apparel contracts to benefit the athletes who wear the shoes and shirts (perhaps as part of the student body) at least as much as they benefit coaches and institutions.
Finally, the SEC isn’t alone at the bottom of the barrel, but it is at the bottom of the barrel.
I have seen no reasonable argument that any elected official, or anyone else, should spend time on the bowl system before addressing the broader issues that disadvantage student athletes and the more admirable institutions. I am willing to be persuaded, however — but it will be difficult to persuade me that any institution that uses a cartel to avoid a free market for student athletes is in any position to whine about antitrust issues.
January 30, 2010, 7:11 pmhattio says:
That should be Roscoe also says in my previous post. Both quotes from the same person. It should also read, in the last paragraph read “What will you do when a team like, Duke, has a horrible football team but a bad ass basketball team.”
I know Duke’s not in one of the power football conferences, but there must be somebody like Duke in one of the conferences.
January 30, 2010, 7:11 pmArthurKirkland says:
I
The Big East has that problem on steroids — it is a Catholic college basketball league bolted to a group of all-sports universities. The problem is “solved” by letting the small colleges play intramural football. So far, it works well for basketball but not for football.
January 30, 2010, 7:26 pmHans Clapton says:
The narrow-a$$ed little Marxist has no weight. Now that wife of his…
January 30, 2010, 7:47 pmBarbara Skolaut says:
Nice to know Bambi and Hatch have their priorities straight….
/sarc
January 30, 2010, 7:55 pmRoscoe says:
hattio: Duke plays football in a BCS conference, although they usually aren’t very competitive. And ArthurKirkland is right, there are a lot of schools in the Big East (Villanova, Seaton Hall) that play basketball but not football in conference. But I agree that most conferences won’t want to do it that way. I don’t follow basketball that closely, I was just assuming that a school with a top notch football program is probably at least competitive in other major sports (but I could be wrong). And if a conference wants to keep a bad Football team around because they play good B-Ball, this would be their choice.
As for the complaint that it is hard for someone like Boise State to schedule the big BCS schools, that is certainly valid. However, you have to look at it the other way. Next year LSU has a run of West Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, McNeese St., Auburn and Alabama. It is easy to say LSU should drop McNeese St. and plug Boise St. in there (assuming this is the week BS is available), but the fact is the kids need the break. So at the end of the day, if you want to play a tough schedule, you have to be in a tough conference.
January 30, 2010, 8:02 pmhattio says:
Roscoe,
January 30, 2010, 8:11 pmBut they CAN’T be in a tough conference. There’s just not really that much conference switching going on (though I know it happens). And, let’s be real. Boise State can’t get the big conferences to even play them one game. What conference is going to want to let in a small school like Boise State that is not competitive at the national level in anything except football? They don’t want to play them ONCE now. Why do you think they’d be willing to play them once a year (and further divide their share of the money). The fact is, I understand why football teams don’t want to play Boise State. But, for those same reasons, they wouldn’t want to play Boise State once a year.
Elliot says:
Can someone summarize the anti-trust issue here?
January 30, 2010, 10:34 pmanti says:
Elliot,
The thrust of the argument is that the BCS schools have rigged bowl eligibility in favor of BCS schools, so that non-BCS teams that are just as good or better than a BCS team get excluded from bowl games, costing them millions of dollars. There’s an interesting story on it here.
January 30, 2010, 11:01 pmTGGP says:
Some economists did award the NCAA the title of “most effective monopoly“.
January 30, 2010, 11:54 pmDave N. says:
Actually, the issue (at least to the extent Senator Hatch cares) looks like it MIGHT solve itself this summer. There are rumors that the Mountain West Conference (which includes Utah and BYU) will expand by adding Boise State, Nevada, and Fresno State and as a 12 team conference receive an automatic BCS bowl bid and the right to play for the BCS championship.
With expansion, there goes Senator Hatch’s grandstanding.
January 31, 2010, 12:36 amDavid Nieporent says:
“The business is giving exhibitions of [football], which are purely state affairs. It is true that in order to attain for these exhibitions the great popularity that they have achieved, competitions must be arranged between clubs from different cities and States. But the fact that in order to give the exhibitions the Leagues must induce free persons to cross state lines and must arrange and pay for their doing so is not enough to change the character of the business. According to the distinction insisted upon in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 655 , 15 S. Sup. Ct. 207, the transport is a mere incident, not the essential thing. That to which it is incident, the exhibition, although made for money would not be called trade of commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words. As it is put by defendant, personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce. That which in its consummation is not commerce does not become commerce among the States because the transportation that we have mentioned takes place. To repeat the illustrations given by the Court below, a firm of lawyers sending out a member to argue a case, or the Chautauqua lecture bureau sending out lecturers, does not engage in such commerce because the lawyer or lecturer goes to another State.”
And don’t call me Shirley.
January 31, 2010, 1:18 amCornellian says:
According to the distinction insisted upon in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 655 , 15 S. Sup. Ct. 207, the transport is a mere incident, not the essential thing. . . . That which in its consummation is not commerce does not become commerce among the States because the transportation that we have mentioned takes place. To repeat the illustrations given by the Court below, a firm of lawyers sending out a member to argue a case, or the Chautauqua lecture bureau sending out lecturers, does not engage in such commerce because the lawyer or lecturer goes to another State.”
By that logic, the Commerce Clause would cover only transportation companies, like FedEx. Nothing in the text of the Commerce Clause itself suggests such a narrow reading.
January 31, 2010, 1:52 amDavid Nieporent says:
Except the word “commerce.”
January 31, 2010, 1:59 amJoe Triscari says:
The Obama justice department is unlikely to come up with anything more insightful than this.
January 31, 2010, 3:39 amSteve2 says:
I’m trying to find the NCAA report for the last year on their website again. It says most football programs, including the BCS ones, operate at loss. It’s also been reported on by several news outlets when the latest one came out about a month ago, and the report seems to say the same thing every year. For instance, . See also, , which links to and analyzes the 2008 version of the NCAA report, which covered 2004-2006 (during which time 44-48% of FBS football programs lost money).
Only if you accept the court’s bizarre redefinition of “commerce” to exclude transactions in which a good or service is exchanged for a thing of value. The court could not be more wrong: every time a dollar or a cent changes hands, that’s an incident of commerce.
January 31, 2010, 10:21 ampublic_defender says:
College football is big business and is pretty clearly interstate commerce by any rational definition. Still, government intervention in the BCS is as stupid as the BCS. Also, the senators most interested in regulating the BCS always seem to come from states with teams that think they got cheated out of “their” spot in the system. Sour grapes. And how can Senator Hatch claim to believe in limited government when he supports federal regulation of post-season college football?
Those of us who think the BCS process is stupid are free to watch any one of the 20 gazillion other sports out there. College football is unfair. So what? Get over it.
January 31, 2010, 1:13 pmStormy Dragon says:
It’s the GOP. No one has to actually do anything about limiting the goverment, they just have to talk about.
January 31, 2010, 1:50 pmRuss says:
When I saw this story, I threww up my hands and cheered, for this surely meant that the government has solved the budget problems, health care, illegal immigration, and terrorism. I mean, come on – no way they’d waste time on this if there were other pressing issues, right?
I want a college football playoff system as much as the next man(my alma matter, Appalachian State, does play in such a system), but for the federal government to get involved in what is basically a personal interest is foolish…and dangerous.
January 31, 2010, 2:44 pmcory says:
Outside of the fact that it is an obviously stupid thing for the DOJ to be worried about, why is a playoff inherently better than what the BCS?
January 31, 2010, 9:56 pmIs it to find the best team? obviously not, since a playoff is far more likely to result in an upset and the best team not winning. Upsets being what they are.
Consider – a playoff would either have to be four teams or eight teams. Four teams is clearly not enough. Alabama or Florida would have been left out both of the last two years – the number five team is often quite close to #3-4. A team of that caliber will get left out – and usually not for Boise State.
An eight team playoff is more likely to include the best teams – but, besides #9 getting screwed (and they might be just as good as #7 or 8), what happens the first time #8 beats # 1 and then loses the next round? You can be sure people will bitch that the best championship game was left on the table. Especially if a # 8 has already been beaten by a #1, not an impossibility. And quite often a Cinderella Brigham Young, Orrin Hatch’s dream, would be #9 anyway so they won’t get there.
There is no completely “fair” way of doing it in football, not at one game/week, unlike basketball.
Someone will always get screwed. If you look at the history of the BCS, it’s by no means perfect but in general either the best team has won, the best match-up has occurred or it has been pretty close to that. A couple of times a better match-up might have taken place but more often a worse match-up would occur in a playoff system. Sure Boise State doesn’t get their chance but this system has probably benefited them more in terms of publicity than a playoff would.
Dotar Sojat says:
…and rather than risk another Boise State/Oklahoma debacle, the BCS powers put TCU and Boise State together in the Unwanted Interlopers Bowl. Thrilling game, but it could have been a couple of thrilling games if the BCS had any honesty (or cojones).
February 1, 2010, 11:22 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The BCS Antitrust Bowl -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James Weikamp and Jeff Walden, Anthony Lee. Anthony Lee said: "The BCS Antitrust Bowl" and related posts http://tinyurl.com/yzw3g74 [...]
February 1, 2010, 11:54 amDeezRightWingNutz says:
Right, another Boise St./Oklahoma debacle, can’t be countenanced. How embarrasing for the BCS conferences that the worst Oklahoma team in six years lost on a series of miraculous plays to Boise St.’s best team ever.
As for those who say that Boise St. can’t get anyone to play them, I call BS. They just want unrealistic financial terms, if they can’t get teams to play them. Schedules are 80% filled years in advance, and teams usually have 100% of the “name” opponents they want by then. So you can’t whine that “no one good will play us in 2011″ in early 2010.
You’re not a big boy, face it. Make like Gonzaga, get on the road, don’t demand the paydays that the Idahos of the world get, and play three to four name programs every year. I’m guessing you’ll fair just as well as Gonzaga has in basketball, winning your fair share, but in the end, proving that you’re not an elite team year-in and year-out. If you prove yourself, you’ll even start to get the home and homes that Oklahoma schedules with Miami, Ohio State schedules with Texas, etc.
I’ve also heard that in 2008, Utah backed out of a game with Texas. I understand that they already had Michigan, who turned out to be terrible, on their schedule, but I’d like to know if that is true. I’ve seen numerous reports, but no solid original source stories. If true, I lost all sypathy for them, too.
February 1, 2010, 12:30 pmTexasFan says:
Texas fan and first-time poster. Utah and Texas were scheduled to play a three-year series, with the 2006 and 2008 games in Austin and the 2007 game in Salt Lake City. Utah canceled the series after TCU was added to the MWC due to some scheduling complications which supposedly arose as a result.
Texas would have benefited from having Utah on its 2008 schedule just as much as Utah would have benefited from having Texas. The strength of schedule bump Texas would have received from beating Utah almost certainly would have lifted the Horns above Oklahoma in the race for the Big XII title. And had Utah kept Texas on the schedule and won, it’s quite likely they would have advanced instead of Florida to the championship game.
February 1, 2010, 3:07 pmCJColucci says:
The Justice Department is reviewing Hatch’s request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.
False start. Ten-yard penalty. Repeat first down.
February 1, 2010, 3:38 pmA Senator representing two non-BCS powers, Utah and BYU, asks the Justice Department to do something about the BCS system. The designated responder says the Department will review the Senator’s request to determine whether to open an invesitgation — which, if opened, may not end up to Sen. Hatch’s liking.
Got to learn how to read between the lines. This is the brush-off.