BCS: Is it illegal?

[cjkalt]

The precedent he's setting by this is INCREDIBLY dangerous though. It opens the door for politicians to use lawsuits to change whatever they don't like in the world of sports. I don't like them having that power

Precedent: Congress got involved into MLB to curb steroid use, that was the precedent

Let me ask you all a few questions

1) You get protection from Congress that allows you to run your 500 million dollar buisness
2) Congress then asks you to change one thing about your company
3) The change is supported by the majority of your consumers

How many of you wouldn't make that change they asked you to make for your own company?

[browntown653]

A ruling like this sets a precedent, absolutely it does.

Well what precedent is this setting? Government getting involved in sports? They've already been involved plenty of times, in basically every sport. So what's the precedent?

[NYgiantsfan5689]

Precedent: Congress got involved into MLB to curb steroid use, that was the precedent

Let me ask you all a few questions

1) You get protection from Congress that allows you to run your 500 million dollar buisness
2) Congress then asks you to change one thing about your company
3) The change is supported by the majority of your consumers

How many of you wouldn't make that change they asked you to make for your own company?

If the NCAA thought changing the BCS was good for them, they'd have done it a long time ago.

[NYgiantsfan5689]

Well what precedent is this setting? Government getting involved in sports? They've already been involved plenty of times, in basically every sport. So what's the precedent?

In the past, they've been involved in scandals, in stuff that was semi-illegal, such as steroids. Buying some anabolic steroids is illegal, not just banned in sports. In this case, it's just a case of a government official not liking how the league is run, so he is changing it to his liking. Yes it may be what the majority of fans want, but it opens the door for more things like this that fewer fans may be in support of

[cjkalt]

NYGF,

Since your knowledge on the BCS is lacking let me give you the history, because the NCAA DOES NOT RUN the BCS

The whole principle for the BCS began in 1991 with the Bowl Coalition which was an agreement between the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, Big East, and ND and 6 Bowl Game Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Gator, and the Sun Bowl. The agreement was that the bowls would invite the conference champions plus 5 at large teams, which would come from the previously mentioned conferences runner-ups or SEC #3 team. Gator and Sun were Tier 2 Bowls while the other 4 were tier 1's. A championship game would occur every year where the top 2 teams determined by the Bowl Poll (AP+Coaches) would play with, the higher seed's team tie-in bowl being the host.
(You can read more here: Bowl Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

The next step came in 1995, when the Bowl Alliance was formed between the SEC, Big 12, ACC, Big East and ND (this was after the SMU Death Penalty and destuction of the SWC) The Rules followed the the Bowl Coalition

This was in effect until 1998, when the Big X and Pac-10 finally agreed to join with the Rose Bowl game and form the BCS as we now know it.

So in conclusion, always started by the conferences, always controlled by the conferences. Hence why its not fair to members of the NCAA not in the aforementioned conferences.

[NYgiantsfan5689]

Whatever!! Fine, I will amend my statement to your liking. If THE CONFERENCES thought it would be good for THE CONFERENCES to change the BCS, they would have a long time ago.

Better? It's the same thing, makes no difference.

[cjkalt]

Well of course the conferences don't think its in their own good, WHY WOULD THEY GIVE AWAY THEIR MONEY. Thats why congress has to put pressure on the NCAA and BCS conferences otherwise they wouldn't do it. But the overall "company" is the NCAA, and it can be destroyed by congress if they want so don't mess with them.

[NYgiantsfan5689]

How would they be giving away money by switching to a playoff? They'd be getting MORE money because every game would be considered a BCS game instead of just 6 bowls or whatever it is.

[henks]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff120208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

An interesting article posted on rivals.com

[cjkalt]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff120208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

An interesting article posted on rivals.com

This is the same method I proposed in the Should NCAAF have a playoff thread?, and I still think its the way to go.


Also NYGF, if you had to spread revenues between 11 conferences instead of 6, thats less per conference

[henks]

Honestly, I don't know if it necessarily illegal, but if it does actually violate anti-trust laws then it should be looked at. If that AG can actually prove without a shadow of a doubt that the BCS is biased and is in-fact creating a monopoly, then yes the system should be changed.

[cjkalt]

Honestly, I don't know if it necessarily illegal, but if it does actually violate anti-trust laws then it should be looked at. If that AG can actually prove without a shadow of a doubt that the BCS is biased and is in-fact creating a monopoly, then yes the system should be changed.

How is it not? 6 Conferences get automatic paydays, while the other 5 have to reach astromomically high goals to get a small piece of the pie?

[ljshorty89]

I don't know if I'd call it illegal, but it certainly is flawed. I don't get why the government spends so much time getting involved in sports, but I don't think this is going to result in anything.