This is clearly a case of sour grapes but an interesting angle to go after the BCS.

First let’s look at these intrepid lawmakers and what interests they could have in what the hell the NCAA does with its championship formula.

Westmoreland is from Georgia and probably bought into the lame idea that UGA should have played in the National Championship game last year.

Simpson is from Idaho and remember it was Boise State that was the big BCS buster in 2007.

After the beat down Hawaii took in the Sugar Bowl, I’m surprised Abercrombie even showed up for the argument.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Forget government corruption or corporate fraud. Three members of Congress want the Justice Department to investigate whether college football’s Bowl Championship Series is an illegal enterprise.

The measure also would put Congress on record as supporting a college football playoff.

I can’t think of a single college football fan that likes the current BCS system. You have to understand how the NCAA is structured and functions. It’s almost like a feudal, tiered structure of power. Those at the top (BCS conferences) want to keep the monopoly on the biggest games of the year.

The reason is simple; money.

Aside from a few Congressmen whining, what about the antitrust angle? It might be more valid than it first appears. You just have to see the enormous amount of money that is being withheld from some schools based solely on a discriminatory system that favors only the top conferences.

Here’s a quote from another recent AP article:

The University of Hawaii will receive nearly $4.4 million for playing in the Sugar Bowl, a record payout to a non-Bowl Championship Series school.

Boise State was paid about $4.3 million for its 2007 Fiesta Bowl win over Oklahoma.

So, the money is real and a large number of universities are arbitrarily forbidden from a shot at it.

In most tournament proposals I’ve seen, a team would have to win the second round or at least get to it to have a shot at the big bucks. So, when Utah, Florida Atlantic, Cincinnati, New Mexico, BYU and East Carolina all won their Bowl games last year (all Bowls with very small payouts) they were not allowed an opportunity to compete for bigger bowl games because their conference affiliations were simply not up to snuff.

The NCAA will argue quality of competition and protection of the tradition of having a worthy game. That sounds good but its total crap and they know it.

Of the four BCS Bowl games last year, only the Orange was even close to a competitive game. The other three were decided by an average of 27.6 points. That’s not good football but it sure funneled the money to the right folks.

A tournament does not guarantee great competition but it does mean that you have to win to advance. The NCAA’s current approach, if applied to basketball, would mean that teams like Memphis, George Mason, Marquette, Utah, Seton Hall, etc… would have never been allowed to play in a regional, no less a final four.

It is unlikely that a team from a small conference could run the gauntlet and win it all but I remind you that Villanova (an eight seed) did it in 1985.

Can anyone from the NCAA explain why Division I football is the only sport at any level that does not have a tournament to decide a champion?

Write a comment