Blog Entry

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

Posted on: March 31, 2009 4:08 pm
Edited on: March 31, 2009 5:46 pm

Eight Capitol Hill legislators sent a letter Tuesday to BCS coordinator John Swofford urging "a new, more equitable approach in determining a national football champion."

The letter is the latest in a series of attacks from politicos against the BCS. The momentum has built since the end of last season. Last week, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch promised hearings on the BCS. A staffer told me those hearings probably won't convene until the fall. There is still no word on who Hatch and the committee might call to testify.

The main authors of the letter are familiar to those who have followed the BCS/Capitol Hill battle -- Reps. Gary Miller (R-Cal.), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) and Joe Barton (R-Texas).

Tuesday's letter was also sent to BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Chairman Dave Frohnmayer, Oregon's president.

Miller said: "While the current BCS system was created to identify a broadly accepted national champion, its implementation has failed to determine who is, without a doubt, the best team in college football. There is no reason the NCAA should continue to disadvantage certain schools when every other major college sport's championship is settled through a playoff."

Barton said: "We are serious about trying to move forward and trying to encourage the NCAA to ditch the BCS and go wtih something where the champion is decided on the field and not by some complicated algorithm."

Both representatives are still under the misguided assumption that the NCAA controls the football postseason. The NCAA, by itself, isn't going to institute a playoff. NCAA president Myles Brand is on record as saying the association would help run a playoff but any alteration of the postseason is most likely going to have to come from the commissioner and presidents.

Here is my latest story on the subject, featuring Miller. Here is copy of today's press release and a copy of the letter to Swofford and the oversight committee.

It should be noted that many of the same congressional leaders sent a letter to President Obama on the same subject. To the best of my knowledge it has not been answered.





Category: NCAAF
Tags: BCS, Oregon, Utah

Since: Jan 16, 2007
Posted on: April 6, 2009 11:01 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

Crap, you got me.  I had forgotten they played Oregon St.

Either way, wins over Miami AND FSU trumps wins over Oregon St and Michigan. 

Since: Apr 1, 2009
Posted on: April 1, 2009 4:54 pm

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

Utah had better wins than Michigan (and at least Utah plays non conference games on the road).  They beat Oregon St, which handed USC its only loss.  Oregon State was one game away from playing in the Rose bowl too if they would have shown up against Oregon.  When Utah scheduled Michigan who would have known they were going to be pathetic.

Why wasn't Florida penalized for playing the Citadel or Hawaii?  By the way Utah State beat Hawaii and Weber state made into the second round of the 1AA playoffs.  What did the Citadel do?  The MWC was 2-0 against the SEC, which isnt a big stat, but leads me to beleive the MWC was just as good as the SEC, especially when the worst MWC team be a lowly SEC team and Utah beat the 2nd place SEC team, both on the road!

Since: Jan 16, 2007
Posted on: April 1, 2009 4:30 pm

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

My point is that Utah's OOC schedule kept them out of the title game, those two games in particular.  I think they would have had a chance to win had they made the title game. 

Utah's conf. schedule isn't weak (especially last year) but the SEC's was stronger, as was the B12.  Thus, those teams get buoyed up a bit by their schedules.  The difference isn't as wide as people make it out to be.

There's a perception/complaint by the non-BCS schools that they have no shot at the title game, and my argument is that this statement isn't entirely true.  Some don't have a chance, but others (like Utah, TCU, BYU, S Miss, etc) would very much be in the mix.  If Florida's best OOC win last year was against a 3-9 Michigan team, they too would have been left out even with their SEC schedule.  The gap isn't as wide as people are making it out to be.



Since: Dec 7, 2007
Posted on: April 1, 2009 11:58 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

Wanted to make a point here about the fact that the NCAA does not run the BCS or the bowl system.  Recall that the NCAA didn't run the NIT when it was the preeminent CBB postseason tourney. 

The NCAA has the power to start its own post-season playoffs, with or without the bowls or the BCS.  Now, the BCS conferences may boycott and such a play may never get off the ground for other reasons.  But I think one of the corrupt features of the current system is that the NCAA does not run it.  Probably because then the revenues would have to be shared with the "lesser conferences".   

Since: Apr 1, 2009
Posted on: April 1, 2009 11:23 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

Utah didn't HAVE TO schedule Weber St and Utah St; had they been undefeated and replaced those two with (for example) Arizona and Tulsa they would have been in the championship. 



 Florida didn't have to schedule the Citadel, what is your point?  Florida, and teams like them, only schedule non confernce games at home.  It is really hard for some of these BCS schools to win, so they need to schedule 7 or 8 home games to pad their record.

Oh by the way the MWC was 2-0 against the SEC last year, both road games too!  Wyoming the worst team in the MWC (8-9th place) beat Tennesee on the road (that was the SEC 7th or 8th place team) and of course Utah(1st place team MWC) beat Alabama (2nd place SEC, and half a quarter away from going to the BCS championship game) in the Sugar Bowl.  

Plus the strength of schedule (SOS) argument is often skewed just like in recruiting.  Teams from BCS conferences automatically have their SOS higher just because they are in BCS conferences.  Why was the MWC rated at the end of the season lower than the PAC -10 in some rating systems when the MWC went 6-1 agianst the PAC -10 during the regular season.  Also, these wins were not all against one team either.

Since: Jan 16, 2007
Posted on: April 1, 2009 10:09 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

Apparently the fine senator from Texas is a moron.  It's not a complicated algorithm.  Play a better schedule if you want to get into the championship game. 

Utah didn't HAVE TO schedule Weber St and Utah St; had they been undefeated and replaced those two with (for example) Arizona and Tulsa they would have been in the championship.  The TX OOC schedule wasn't as strong as OU's and the gap was big enough to offset OU's loss to TX.  I'd have preferred to see TX there as well but they approved the tiebreaker system in the B12.  I like Clemson, but had they gone undefeated last season they would have been behind TX, OU, FL, and Utah, and I'd have been fine with that bc their OOC schedule was shockingly weak bc of the two 1-AA teams on it.

Are there more equitable means of determining a champion?  Probably.  But everyone knows the system that's in place now, and to whine about it is really dumb when their exclusion from the title game is largely self-imposed.

To summarize, I'm probably better than average with numbers, but wouldn't have to be to understand how a team gets into the title game. 

Since: May 14, 2008
Posted on: April 1, 2009 8:38 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

Here's another point......


All sorts of people make this arguement that BASKETBALL has a playoff! And..... Division 1AA (FCS) and Division 2 and Division 3 have playoffs, so why doesn't Divison 1A (FBS) have a playoff?!!!


The same stupid arguements keep being touted around like it's all about money and this and that....that is only a part of the issue. A huge part but not the entire picture. Sort of like the arguement that we can build rockets to send probes to Mars so why don't we send a man? Of course we can send a man to Mars. But how exactly are they suppose to survive the trip there and back? Like, it will take over a year or possibly 2 years to get there and back? So maybe, surviving is more important that just geting there?

Yeah, you can get a Divsion 1A (FBS) "Playoff Championship Tournement" in FBS Division, but will College Football survive? First off, the division names will have to be changed(again). since it will no longer be just, Football Bowl Subdivision. The FCS, Football Championship Subdivision monnaker is already taken. How about, The Great Socialist Engineered Gladiator Contest with pads, protective gear, referees and other assorted parphenelia and rules and regulations, subject to local ordinaces and zoning in your area.....


I'm no basketball man by any estimation but to escape the insanity and drama of Washington this year I started following the basketball thing for the first time. I'll admit, I'm a numbers guy and damn good at it. (PS: I had a CPA and tax attorney do my taxes in my first year in business, after that, the only reason I hired anyone to do my taxes or legal work was to push the paper and pen. Don't tell me the tax code is too complicated! The damn lying cheats in Washington just don't want to pay the taxes they created for all the rest of us to pay!!) Anyway...back to reality.....

Creating a comparitive charting to ALL the basketball teams and conferences and just relying on win/lose and a few other criteria I picked up what the mob considers to be important in the game of basketball, I observed some interesting facts. None of which are lost on most of the savy basketball fans but may escape football fans. The fact is that the "Big 6" in football are the same "big 6" in basketball as well!! SURPRISE!! dahhhhh

Every school gets to have a chance to compete for the tournament crown yet few stand much of a chance against bigger and well funded college programs. The fan bases are much larger for these schools that do establish winning reputations thus they get TV exposure and $$. There are some that do swing as hard as the big boys but still it's the big boys who rule the day. But basketball requires just a small fraction of the expense that football requires. Even an indoor basketball areana can be a huge money-maker for a school instead of a liability. Like when Penn State finally built the Bryce Jordan Center and upon it's opening became the #1 venue in the country, being booked continuously for years to come. Who cares if they only have a decent team once every 10 years?! They make money off of the areana. It just isn't so in a football stadium. And they cost a whole lot more than a small basketball areana. Having a good football team costs money and few programs actually even break even from it. If it wasn't for the revenue sharing in-conference it would be hard for even some of the "Big 6" teams to remain in the "Big 6" conferences themselves. (ala Temple in the Big East? If it weren't for Penn State helping them out, they'd be booted from FBS to FCS by now). Even Villanova does better with their basketball program than football but that is a typical fluke. A product of the differences between the two sports that proves the erroneous comaprison that a "Big 6" football championship game should be played because they do it in basketball.

The best solution I see happening is that the "major" conferences go to their own championship game and the champions play in some sort of final post season matchups. Even that I think is frought with all sorts of bogus comparisons. It seems there will always be some controversy and seldom an undisputed champion.

What will happen if (or should that be, WHEN?) Utah and/or BYU and/or Boise and/or Some Other-Western team joins the PAC-8 to make it The PAC-12 and they have a championship game? Will the Utah Apparatchiks demand a Congressional legistlation to include Southern Utah Valley State and/or Weber State in the NCG??

Or perhaps the MWC will beat the PAC-8 to the punch and go to 12 first and sponsor a CCG? Of course C-USA already has done that and still didn't get an auto-bid to the NCG. Or how about eliminate the conferences all together and have a lottery? Like maybe North Texas will play Washington State for The National Championship? That would be fair....wouldn't it?

Since: Dec 29, 2008
Posted on: April 1, 2009 8:18 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back


I’m against a play-off, unless its conference CHAMPS only, no fen’ wild cards, his isn’t basketball.


However, what we have now is not fair. If the major conferences want a BCS then they should be in a different division.  ANYONE who is in Div.1A, should have a shot at the championship, simple as that.


Since: May 14, 2008
Posted on: April 1, 2009 7:51 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

The Socialist Dictators need to go back to their cave and read their Marx to each other and let the maute adults run the world.

When has the "government" ever done anything right?!

They are popularity celebrities that mostly graduated from law school after completing some liberal arts party degree. No real education and certainly no real brains to speak of!

College football was NEVER created to have a championship game. Nor even a postseason "bowl" game. Bowl games were created for the purpose of marketing hotels and winter vacations in the south.

Ok, so the game has evovled. So let it evolve the way the participants want it to. NOT the way the Natioanlist Socialists Dictators demand.

The reality and logisitcs of a "playoff" in Division 1, now FBS Division, just doesn't avail itself to having more than 1 maybe 2 other post-season-post-bowl games. If it were to happen this year, then there would STILL BE CONTROVERCY over who gets in. So, voting and selection would remain and those left out of contention would remain. Yes, Florida would probably be the favorite but who else? Utah, USC, TX? Not so easy is it? If the Government Apparatchiks from Utah have a problem with this years results, simply do what Pennsylvanians have learned to do since the 60's. You go undefeated and win your bowl game, you pronounce yourself National Champions. Simple and easy. WE ARE...... PENN STATE!!! And we don't give a damn that your jealous you aren't. We don't care! If you refuse to grow up and not deal with that, that is your problem so go join the pinko brigade in Oakland or some other wacko society.

The most probable and realistic approach to have any sort of finality to the CFB season would be institute a +1 game after the bowls. Anything else and the attendence and TV viewership will drop dramatically, thus COSTING (oh wait, the governemnet will bail them out!?!) a lot more money to sponsor CFB.

Since: Jan 27, 2009
Posted on: April 1, 2009 3:44 am

The Legislative Empire Strikes Back

So Ozark, what you're saying is that Utah and the Mountain West Conference should set more realistic goals? You don't think they deserve a BCS automatic bid? That is so typical of an East Coast college football fan. The fact of the matter is that you, along with most of the voters who admitted never seeing Utah play football this year, never watched the Utes at all until the Sugar Bowl. Don't sit there and tell me that they got lucky, they beat Alabama soundly. They proved that they are for one good enough to have earned a shot at the title, and two the conference was good enough to be competitive with other BCS conferences, like the MWC going 7-1 against the PAC-10 this season. You just think that all the big conferences, no matter how horrible their football programs are (Big East, ACC) deserve the lion's share of the money for these lucrative bowl games to share with the rest of the schools, while the other teams from non-BCS conferences don't get the opportunity to play in these games to upgrade their facilities, recruit better athletes, strengthen their conferences, that's a real edjucated and objective point of view. By the way, I'm sure you think it's okay that teams like Florida State use academically ineligible players to win games to get in these big bowl games to get more money for their school, don't you? I'll bet you don't think they should, or the conference should have to give the money back, do you?

It's not even about having a shot at the title as far as I'm concerned, it's about what's fair. I don't believe a team that's not even ranked in the Top 20 should be allowed to play in a BCS game, regardless of what conference they're in. I firmly believe that the other conferences like the Big 12 and the SEC deserved to have 2 teams in the BCS bowls, those teams were good enough to definitely be there. It's a certainty that the open spots for BCS games weren't meant for teams like Boise State and Utah to get a shot at big money, they were meant for teams like Notre Dame to be included in the BCS. Thank God Charlie Weis is a horrible coach and recruiter, or the non-BCS schools wouldn't stand a chance.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or