When there's millions of dollars involved in amateur sports, on top of the corruption everyone hears about, the government is going to feel obligated to put their two cents in.
The premise behind the FedGov’s argument has to be one of fairness or they have no reason to be involved. They have to make the case that the big boys are rigging the game to keep the little boys down. The biggest flaw in that theory is that the BCS system is not what makes the big boys big. The top teams in college football are at the top because their fan base pays and donates lots of money and supports the teams in many other ways. I fear there are a 'BCS Czar' and a new tax in our future. :dis:
I mentioned it before, but the government is fine investigating the BCS. Contracts for the conferences are now in the billions of dollars. Bowl games take in hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a lot of money at stake in college football. It isn't just a game. The competition does matter. Being a top team and being on TV a lot does matter. And when you have teams being left out of the BCS championship, their fans are going to complain to their congressmen. That's why their congressmen are going to ask these questions. I think it's fair to ask, "Why is it that BCS sites never change? Every other sport holds championships in different cities?" Why is it important? There's many schools in the north that compete. We saw the effects it can have on a school when the fans don't make a trip, UConn being the example. They lost millions of dollars because they didn't sell tickets. Had a game been played in NYC, Foxborough, etc, anywhere close, it would have had a much different and lesser impact on their money. That's taxpayer money that pays for the un-used tickets. I also think it's fair for the government to dig into their finances the same they would anywhere else that's going to make the claim it's non-profit, but generates so much revenue. It's not just the Boise States of the world that have lost out on the BCS, Auburn did also. Any time there's 3 undefeateds, someone is losing out on a lot of money. If the system isn't fair, people should ask questions and should push for change. Especially since this system relies heavily on the input of people. People that might not care about what is fair or right, but that will care about what will generate more revenue(and probably put more money in their own pocket).
i am drunk as hell so this might not be the most rational post. you are as wrong as a human could possibly be. the money involved is not relevant. if a school wants out of the bcs they are welcome to play their own playoffs. they are in the bcs system because they agreed to be in. it has nothing to do with the government. if you think the government should be involved you are a terrible person and all your opinions should be mocked, and you should be hated by your peer group, because youa re a bad person intent on telling other folks how to manage their lives.
yes and no. while i do not agree with the govt getting involved, i do think the bcs does cause some inequity. not ALL of it, but it contributes. the payouts involved are cash cows for schools that get them and help build new facilities that attract better players, building better teams, which in turn helps increase donations to the schools. winning=donations. losing=apathy. and remember, i said a factor in the difference between the haves and have nots. not the whole reason. but govt needs to butt out. college athletics should be under the jurisdiction of the ncaa, flawed as it is. if there is a problem, let them fix it. i was listening to rivals radio on our way to br yesterday, so i had a lot of time to listen. (some of it made me want to shoot the host, but that is a different thread.) i cant remember the show and they were talking about a connection between someone high up in the justice dept, and orrin hatch. utah has been one of the ones squawking about this issue for a while. they were saying that the person at justice (i cant remember the name) was also from utah. who knows, they may have just been talking out their ass. i just thought it was an interesting take on it because if true, that would in a sense be bi-partison panty bunching.
what you're looking at here is a criminal suit against those people/entities that are violating the anti-trust laws. only the government can bring criminal suits against someone (be it the local prosecutors/District Attorney, the state prosecutors/State Attorney General, or the federal prosecutors/US Attorney General) just like with many criminal suits, private parties can bring a separate civil suit against those person/entities breaking the anti-trust laws, like how there was both a criminal and a civil suit brought against OJ Simpson. however, like a civil suit against OJ Simpson could only get a money judgment against him, and not put him in jail (which only a criminal suit could do), likewise, a civil suit against an entity violating the anti-trust laws can only get a money judgment against them, not break up the monopoly like they did with Standard Oil in the early 1900s and AT&T in the 1980s (only a criminal suit can do that) so if the government doesn't get involved, then no criminal suit can be brought. i think most Americans would get upset if they found out their local/state/federal prosecutors weren't doing their job of bring criminal suits against those people breaking the law now as for the actual anti-trust laws themselves, i'm not familiar with them so i don't know if i am in favor of them or not. if you're not in favor of them, then you write your state legislators and US congressmen asking them to change the law but the basic concept is that is that we want to encourage a free-market economy, a capitalistic economy, we want to encourage free trade and competition between business. to that end, we made it criminal for a person or entity to restrict free trade by engaging in anti-competitive practices such as creating cartels or monopolies there is definitely some "unfair" business practices going on in college football, certain conferences are favored over others, certain bowls are favored over others, etc... but i don't know if it is "unfair" enough to actually be illegal under the anti-trust laws (but again, I'm not familiar with them). however, like that article said, the Attorney General of Utah thinks the anti-trust laws are being broken, and that is why is bringing a criminal action against the BCS (both the state and federal prosecutors can enforce the anti-trust laws) All the US Attorney's office is doing here is seeing if they want to side with the Attorney General of Utah or not (and they even wrote Emmert for his opinion in the matter, and like with every big lawsuit, they will be hearing the opinions of every major interest affected here) The Attorney Generals of the other states will have to decide what side they want to take as well
who cares if it in unfair? casinos are unfair, they make money for the casino and not for the player. some games in particular have really bad odds. should the government shut them down? the teams themselves are the ones that made the rules! who is the government protecting? me and you because we want a playoff? i dont want a playoff! and if i want to watch football with playoffs i will watch the NFL. ant-trust laws? who has a monopoly? college football? what did they do, buy up all the footballs so you i and cant play?
also, with respect to anti-trust laws, if people want a football league with a playoff, they have division 2! where is the monopoly?
the Hawaii State Attorney General looks to be joining sides with the Utah State Attorney General. Hawaii attorney general may join BCS lawsuit - Campus Rivalry: College Football & Basketball News, Recruiting, Game Picks, and More - USATODAY.com
