DOJ asks NCAA why playoff system doesn't exist

[Unregistered User]

Story link

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department wants to know why the NCAA doesn't have a college football playoff system and says there are "serious questions" about whether the current format to determine a national champion complies with antitrust laws.
Critics who have urged the department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series contend it unfairly gives some schools preferential access to the title championship game and top-tier end-of-the-season bowl contents.
In a letter this week, the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players.
"Your views would be relevant in helping us to determine the best course of action with regard to the BCS," she wrote.
"Serious questions continue to arise suggesting the current Bowl Championship Series system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in the federal antitrust laws," Varney said.
Varney noted that the attorney general of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, has said he plans an antitrust lawsuit against the BCS, and that 21 professors recently wrote the department requesting an investigation.
Shurtleff, who met with department officials last fall to discuss a possible federal probe, said at the time that such an investigation was critical to the effort to get a playoff system.
The NCAA said Wednesday it would respond to the government's questions when it receives the letter.
Spokesman Bob Williams said Emmert consistently has said the NCAA is willing to move to a playoff format if schools with the nation's major football programs want to go that route.
Bill Hancock, the BCS executive director, was confident the current system complies with the law.
"Goodness gracious, with all that's going on in the world right now and with national and state budgets being what they are, it seems like a waste of taxpayers' money to have the government looking into how college football games are played," he said.
Under the BCS, the champions of six conferences have automatic bids to play in top-tier bowl games; other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive more money than the other conferences.
Attorney General Eric Holder referenced Varney's letter at a Senate hearing Wednesday, in response to a statement from Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and BCS critic. Hatch called the BCS a "mess" and said that "privileged conferences" have tremendous advantages over the unprivileged.
"And I just hope that you'll continue to follow up on that particular issue," he said. "It's an important one, I think."
"I don't disagree with you," Holder responded. "You and I have talked about this issue, and I think I'm free to say that we have sent a letter to the NCAA about this issue and will be following up."
Before he was sworn in as president, Barack Obama said in 2008 that he was going to "to throw my weight around a little bit" to nudge college football toward a playoff system.

Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[highwayman]

Story link

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department wants to know why the NCAA doesn't have a college football playoff system and says there are "serious questions" about whether the current format to determine a national champion complies with antitrust laws.
Critics who have urged the department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series contend it unfairly gives some schools preferential access to the title championship game and top-tier end-of-the-season bowl contents.
In a letter this week, the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players.
"Your views would be relevant in helping us to determine the best course of action with regard to the BCS," she wrote.
"Serious questions continue to arise suggesting the current Bowl Championship Series system may not be conducted consistent with the competition principles expressed in the federal antitrust laws," Varney said.
Varney noted that the attorney general of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, has said he plans an antitrust lawsuit against the BCS, and that 21 professors recently wrote the department requesting an investigation.
Shurtleff, who met with department officials last fall to discuss a possible federal probe, said at the time that such an investigation was critical to the effort to get a playoff system.
The NCAA said Wednesday it would respond to the government's questions when it receives the letter.
Spokesman Bob Williams said Emmert consistently has said the NCAA is willing to move to a playoff format if schools with the nation's major football programs want to go that route.
Bill Hancock, the BCS executive director, was confident the current system complies with the law.
"Goodness gracious, with all that's going on in the world right now and with national and state budgets being what they are, it seems like a waste of taxpayers' money to have the government looking into how college football games are played," he said.
Under the BCS, the champions of six conferences have automatic bids to play in top-tier bowl games; other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive more money than the other conferences.
Attorney General Eric Holder referenced Varney's letter at a Senate hearing Wednesday, in response to a statement from Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and BCS critic. Hatch called the BCS a "mess" and said that "privileged conferences" have tremendous advantages over the unprivileged.
"And I just hope that you'll continue to follow up on that particular issue," he said. "It's an important one, I think."
"I don't disagree with you," Holder responded. "You and I have talked about this issue, and I think I'm free to say that we have sent a letter to the NCAA about this issue and will be following up."
Before he was sworn in as president, Barack Obama said in 2008 that he was going to "to throw my weight around a little bit" to nudge college football toward a playoff system.
Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

This is just...so...sad. It's not anti-trust if you have multiple conferences and multiple teams involved. It isn't like the NFL and MLB. It's also a HUGE waste of time. Look what "legislation" did to the MSHSL Hockey tournament and other sports. Ick.

 

[4four4]

Personally, I would like to see the top 16 teams playing for a playoff and the rest of the teams playing in a bowl game. IMO, it would be a huge money maker and tv sets would on.

 

[Killjoy]

MV's Case for DOJ Involvement

Click on the following link to read MV's case for investigation and ESPN article. MV does a good job of pointing out the problems with the present non-football players and their relationships. As usual, it's about following the money.

http://fringebowlteamblog.com/?p=3634#more-3634


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6479279

 

[BisonGopher]

There two overarching, main themes in this mess:

1) the NCAA doesn't need money from big time college football so long as they get to be the boss of the NCAA MBB tournament and rake in dough from that.

Hence, why the NCAA allows the bowls to make all the money on college football (with schools and conferences getting a nice chunk from BCS and other bigger money bowls). The NCAA fills its coffers with the men's bball tournament revenue.


2) at the end of the day, the BCS football teams hold the cards. They can walk away from the NCAA.

The only thing that stops them right now is the tax status of the NCAA and the bowls.

But every Big Ten president knows that if things start getting too out of control, they can always get together with the bowls and Pac-12 and say "to hell with it - we're done sharing with the small schools, tax-exempt or not."

At that point the Rose bowl will fall over itself to sign up the Big 10 and Pac 12 conference champions to a Jan game every year and smaller bowls would quickly fall in line to sign up the 2nd place, 3rd place, etc teams. In other words, going back to the way it was before the bowl coalition and BCS was formed.

The only questions then would be: 1) would the Big 10 and Pac 10 be completely independent in football from the NCAA and not play other teams? and 2) would the Big 10 and Pac 10 keep their other sports in the NCAA?

 

[RodentRampage]

The top teams are never going to walk away from the NCAA.

 

[Rosemountian]

There are already is a (2-team) playoff.

 

[re3886]

if you ignore the fact...

There are already is a (2-team) playoff.

that those two teams have to be from different conferences and a member of the BCS schools.
Otherwise put, nope, not in the slightest.

 

[GoAUpher]

This is just...so...sad. It's not anti-trust if you have multiple conferences and multiple teams involved. It isn't like the NFL and MLB. It's also a HUGE waste of time. Look what "legislation" did to the MSHSL Hockey tournament and other sports. Ick.

It can still be anti-trust. Having multiple conferences has no bearing on it. You've got a system that applies to all of D-1 football. However, it is designed in a way that enriches a select number of the schools/conferences in D-1 football at the expense of the rest of the schools/conferences. Try this fact on for size:

The 65 teams that comprise the six BCS conferences account for 54.6 percent of the 119 teams in football's top division, yet receive 87 percent of the funds. Thus, the remaining 13 percent of funds is shared by 45.4 percent of major college football teams. In 11 years, just four teams from outside the BCS conferences have received bids to the big bowls while 87 big six conference representatives have gone. (Notre Dame's three appearances comprise the remainder of the 94 total slots.)

The purpose of the BCS is to make sure BCS conferences and schools get the bulk of the money. Yet the MNC handed out to the BCS winner is the MNC for all of D-1 football. Hmmm......

Your "there are multiple teams and conferences means it can't violate anti-trust laws" point is just silly. That POV doesn't really result in the BCS being much different than the NFL or MLB. You're getting hung up on the concept of monopoly while missing the fact that the BCS isn't a monopoly...it's a cartel. And a cartel can also violate US anti-trust laws.

Personally I don't really care. I wish there was a plus one model for determinining a champion but whatever. But there is no point in ignoring the reality that the BCS can easily be argued to be an anti-trust cartel.

 

[Rosemountian]

that those two teams have to be from different conferences and a member of the BCS schools.
Otherwise put, nope, not in the slightest.

They don't have to be from BCS conferences by rule.
I am not sure if there is an actual rule saying the two teams can't come from the same conference. If there is, it is new since 2007 (when the Michigan vs Florida debate was happening to decide who would play Ohio State).


So you do not have a problem with the playoff system. You simply think that it should be expanded from 2 teams to I am assuming at least 4, 8, or 16.
You do have a problem with how they pick who the top 2 teams in the country are for the playoff. Perhaps that should be adjusted, though I don't know how it would be adjusted into a way where non-BCS schools would get into the top 2. You'd have to lower the effect of Strength of schedule in the formula and make the formula worth more than the human polls to have a chance.

 

[Rosemountian]

I have already posted my playoff model.
12 team playoff. Round of 12 and round of 8 played at home teams stadium (so no team can get more than 1 home playoff game). Round of 4 and 2 played on neutral sites.
First round bye for top 4 hopefully preserves some of the value of the regular season.

12 teams selected by an NCAA selection committee.
11 conference champions reserve automatic bids provided the NCAA selection committee has the team in their top 25 teams.
All remaining bids (1+any bids not achieved by conferences) are picked by the selection committee with no limit to the number of teams who get in from each conference.
Teams are seeded by order of rank. It would be possible for an at large bid to be seeded #1 if they did not win the conference and the selection committee rated them number 1. This probably would have more application if an at large was seeded somewhere 2-4...point being..an at large could receive a bye.


This will never happen though. The NCAA is more likely to go back to the old system than a 12 team playoff.....and the BCS conferences would make more money (percentage of revenues compared to non-BCS schools) in the old bowl system than they do in the BCS.

 

[BisonGopher]

I have already posted my playoff model.
12 team playoff. Round of 12 and round of 8 played at home teams stadium (so no team can get more than 1 home playoff game). Round of 4 and 2 played on neutral sites.
First round bye for top 4 hopefully preserves some of the value of the regular season.

12 teams selected by an NCAA selection committee.
11 conference champions reserve automatic bids provided the NCAA selection committee has the team in their top 25 teams.
All remaining bids (1+any bids not achieved by conferences) are picked by the selection committee with no limit to the number of teams who get in from each conference.
Teams are seeded by order of rank. It would be possible for an at large bid to be seeded #1 if they did not win the conference and the selection committee rated them number 1. This probably would have more application if an at large was seeded somewhere 2-4...point being..an at large could receive a bye.


This will never happen though. The NCAA is more likely to go back to the old system than a 12 team playoff.....and the BCS conferences would make more money (percentage of revenues compared to non-BCS schools) in the old bowl system than they do in the BCS.

It wouldn't be the NCAA going back to the old system, it would be the schools and the bowls making deals to host post season games.

The bowl coalition was just formed to make the #1 and #2 ranked team play each other in a bowl game instead of bowls being 100% determined by conference standings. It never had anything to do with trying to get a 4, 8 or 16 team playoff.

As I already said, if enough prying is done to the BCS system to get more of the money to small schools, the biggest and richest conferences can just decide to leave the BCS and sign independent deals with individual bowls. The most the government could do about it would be to end tax-exempt status for colleges and bowls.

They'd lose some money, sure, but maybe less than they'd lose by sharing with the small schools.

 

[Rosemountian]

As long as the profits of the revenue sports is going to subsidies for non-revenue sports there would be absolutely no reason to end tax exempt status for the universities football programs.

 

[BisonGopher]

As long as the profits of the revenue sports is going to subsidies for non-revenue sports there would be absolutely no reason to end tax exempt status for the universities football programs.

I would prefer nothing is done to the schools themselves.

I'm all for ending tax-exempt status of bowls and the NCAA. Neither deserve it, IMO.

 

[Rosemountian]

Isn't the NCAA a non-profit?
I don't understand why it would lose its status. I could see taxing the bowls though.

 

[GoAUpher]

Isn't the NCAA a non-profit?
I don't understand why it would lose its status. I could see taxing the bowls though.

The bowls are non-profits too.

 

[Rosemountian]

Didn't realize. They shouldnt be taxed at all then.

 

[WhatAMaroon]

I think this genie's already out of the bottle. We're heading to superconferences because of TV. Way too much money to be made. I see an eventual 96 teams playing down in some fashion. I like the suggestion of 12 teams playing down over 4 weeks.

 

[mplsbadger]

It is entirely appropriate for the DOJ to examine whether the BCS is a restrain of trade. It is entirely inappropriate for the DOJ to ask why there is not a playoff. I have a big problem with that.

 

[re3886]

I have no problem at all with a playoff system.

They don't have to be from BCS conferences by rule.
I am not sure if there is an actual rule saying the two teams can't come from the same conference. If there is, it is new since 2007 (when the Michigan vs Florida debate was happening to decide who would play Ohio State).


So you do not have a problem with the playoff system. You simply think that it should be expanded from 2 teams to I am assuming at least 4, 8, or 16.
You do have a problem with how they pick who the top 2 teams in the country are for the playoff. Perhaps that should be adjusted, though I don't know how it would be adjusted into a way where non-BCS schools would get into the top 2. You'd have to lower the effect of Strength of schedule in the formula and make the formula worth more than the human polls to have a chance.

No system is going to please everybody. Right now, the system seems to be what SEC team ESPN is trumpeting as the greatest ever (the human polls skew to that team) and the next best "big" conference team. With eight or sixteen teams in a playoff, the chances of somebody other than the usual suspects increases.

Just for fun, let's take the top 8 and 16 from the last pre-bowl BCS rankings.
1. Auburn-SEC
2. Oregon-PAC10
3. TCU-Mountain West
4. Stanford-PAC10
5. Fadgers-Big 10
6. Ohio State-Big 10
7. Oklahoma-Big 12
8. Arkansas-SEC
and the next 8:
9. Michigan State-Big 10
10. Boise State-WAC
11. LSU-SEC
12. Missouri-Big 12
13. Virginia Tech-ACC
14. Oklahoma State-Big 12
15. Nevada-WAC
16. Alabama-SEC

In the top 8 we have 7 BCS schools and one interloper from the Mountain West. In the next 8, we have 6 teams from the BCS and 2 from the WAC.
I know that one year does not prove the point totally, but 16 teams would have included the schools that most people felt got screwed.
I also think that a playoff would help the BCS schools that lose in the Conference championship, and also help with the totally unfair reality that a loss in August/September is better than a loss in November/December.

 

[GopherinFlorida]

It is entirely appropriate for the DOJ to examine whether the BCS is a restrain of trade. It is entirely inappropriate for the DOJ to ask why there is not a playoff. I have a big problem with that.

Not inappropriate...the DOJ has to propose a solution to any infraction as part of any action...it is how trade law works...see Microsoft, MaBell, etc.

The NCAA and Bowls can be found to collude as an unfair trade practice and states like Idaho that have D-1a or BCS teams but no chance of playing for the national championship can sue the NCAA and BCS bowls for thier collusion to keep thier school from participating in the revenue which ultimately hurts the state budget. Think tobacco lawsuit by states...money spent treating smokers was the claim once it was proved smoking causes disease. Its not much of a stretch at all to see this happening.

The solution is a similar playoff system that the NCAA uses for D1aa fcs, d2, d3 etc and basketball and baseball...not hard to see something fishy about football when you look at how the other sports are handled.

 

[mplsbadger]

Not inappropriate...the DOJ has to propose a solution to any infraction as part of any action...it is how trade law works...see Microsoft, MaBell, etc.

The NCAA and Bowls can be found to collude as an unfair trade practice and states like Idaho that have D-1a or BCS teams but no chance of playing for the national championship can sue the NCAA and BCS bowls for thier collusion to keep thier school from participating in the revenue which ultimately hurts the state budget. Think tobacco lawsuit by states...money spent treating smokers was the claim once it was proved smoking causes disease. Its not much of a stretch at all to see this happening.

The solution is a similar playoff system that the NCAA uses for D1aa fcs, d2, d3 etc and basketball and baseball...not hard to see something fishy about football when you look at how the other sports are handled.

The NCAA can go back to the old bowl system or can cancel the postseason if they want. Just because the BCS is ruled illegal it doesn't follow that the schools or NCAA should be forced to create a playoff.

 

[re3886]

No, but..

The NCAA can go back to the old bowl system or can cancel the postseason if they want. Just because the BCS is ruled illegal it doesn't follow that the schools or NCAA should be forced to create a playoff.

There is no way they (the NCAA) or somebody else, say a NIT type of deal, would walk away from the loads of cash available. One thing that can be counted on is Greed.

 

[mplsbadger]

There is no way they (the NCAA) or somebody else, say a NIT type of deal, would walk away from the loads of cash available. One thing that can be counted on is Greed.

I agree. My point was that how they respond to a ruling that the BCS is illegal is up to them. The govt can't force them to create a playoff.

 

[GopherRock]

I agree. My point was that how they respond to a ruling that the BCS is illegal is up to them. The govt can't force them to create a playoff.

And the member institutions can't be forced by the NCAA into any playoff situation that they don't want to be a part of. NCAA vs. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma took care of that.

 

[BisonGopher]

And the member institutions can't be forced by the NCAA into any playoff situation that they don't want to be a part of. NCAA vs. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma took care of that.

The NCAA has never had and never will have a seat at the table as far as big time college football is concerned.

They keep a record book - that's about it.


Conferences and bowls control big time college football. Even if the BCS were somehow not allowed to continue, then it would just go right back to conferences and certain bowls having exclusive contracts. They can always and will always do that as the fail safe.


There will never be such a scenario where the NCAA administers of a national football tournament and negotiates the TV rights to such a tournament, as is the case with men's basketball, etc.

At most, the bowls would have to agree to host a tournament out of the bowl games themselves - which will be very difficult for all sides to agree on. But they probably said the same thing when the bowl coalition was first being formed. So it is possible I guess.

 

[dpodoll68]

There will never be such a scenario where the NCAA administers of a national football tournament and negotiates the TV rights to such a tournament, as is the case with men's basketball, etc.

They do, and have been for quite some time. The NDAC Fighting Sue played in one very recently. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.

 

[BisonGopher]

They do, and have been for quite some time. The NDAC Fighting Sue played in one very recently. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.

FCS is about as big time as DII and DIII. NCAA markets them the same and puts in the same amount of effort on each of those tournaments. Same TV exposure.

NDSU may never get so much as a whiff at big time college exposure (except when beating the U of Minn ) - but I can guarantee you they will remain buried in obscurity in FCS just as much as they were in DII.

I think you knew that I was talking about the conferences that have always participated in bowls and will continue to do so until some group with very deep pockets offers them more money to do something else (Mark Cuban's concept?).

 

[BeLikeWisconsin]

I also think that a playoff would help the BCS schools that lose in the Conference championship, and also help with the totally unfair reality that a loss in August/September is better than a loss in November/December.

Now why in the world would anyone want to allow the loser of the conference championship game into the playoffs???? They couldn't win their own conference but they should be given the chance to win the National Championship? Makes no sense to me. I mean, couldn't the conference championship be considered the "first round"?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like the people who favor a playoff system are simply trying to extend the season like the NFL, NHL, NBA, etc.

Your other point is a great one though, about the early loss versus late loss. That needs to be addressed, just not via playoffs.

 

[re3886]

losing in the Conference title..

Now why in the world would anyone want to allow the loser of the conference championship game into the playoffs???? They couldn't win their own conference but they should be given the chance to win the National Championship? Makes no sense to me. I mean, couldn't the conference championship be considered the "first round"?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like the people who favor a playoff system are simply trying to extend the season like the NFL, NHL, NBA, etc.

Your other point is a great one though, about the early loss versus late loss. That needs to be addressed, just not via playoffs.

Doesn't equal automatic bid. This would most likely rule out most of the losers with only the previously undefeated even getting a shot at it. As for "simply trying to extend the season", the bowl system doesn't already do this? I mean, we hear about 40 day layoffs already! Do they lay around eating bonbons and studying? Not even close, they practice, film study, and in-season workout the whole time. A playoff would reduce the number of teams that keep going every weekend, meaning more players would be done sooner, then with the current bowl schedule.
I also find it amusing that this is a worry, when every other sport in the NCAA, and the lower levels of football itself manage to pull this off without "simply trying to extend the season".
Sorry, but the Bowls exist for no other purpose but to help rich people get even more rich. They have to spend most of all profits on their board's salaries, to remain "Not for Profits".