Congress 1 Step Closer to Forcing College Playoff System

[Overtime]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12638507/house-panel-passes-college-football-playoff-bill




WASHINGTON -- Dismissing complaints from some members that Congress had more pressing matters, a House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine its national champion.

"We can walk across the street and chew gum at the same time," said the subcommittee chairman, Illinois Democrat Bobby Rush, one of the bill's co-sponsors. "We can do a number of things at the same time."

The legislation, which still faces steep odds, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff. The measure passed by voice vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's commerce, trade and consumer protection subcommittee, with one audible "no," from Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga.

"With all due respect, I really think we have more important things to spend our time on," Barrow said before the vote, although he stressed he didn't like the current Bowl Championship Series, either.

The BCS selections announced last weekend pit two unbeaten teams, No. 1 Alabama and No. 2 Texas, in the Jan. 7 national title game. Three other undefeated teams - TCU, Cincinnati and Boise State -- will play in a BCS bowl game, but not for the championship.

"What can we say - it's December and the BCS is in chaos again," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He said the BCS system is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.

The legislation, which goes to the full committee, would make it illegal to promote a national championship game "or make a similar representation," unless it results from a playoff.

There is no Senate version, although Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has pressed for a Justice Department antitrust investigation into the BCS.

Shortly after his election last year, Barack Obama said there should be a playoff system.

In a statement before the vote, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "With all the serious matters facing our country, surely Congress has more important issues than spending taxpayer money to dictate how college football is played."

Yet Barrow wasn't alone in criticizing his colleagues' priorities; Reps. Zach Space, D-Ohio, and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., made similar arguments. Space said that with people facing tough times, the decision to focus on college football sends the "wrong message."

The legislation has a tough road ahead, given the wide geographic representation and political clout of schools in the six conferences that have automatic BCS bowl bids - the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC.

The current college bowl system features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer rankings. Eight other schools play in the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose bowls.

Under the BCS, the champions of those six big conference have automatic bids, while other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive far more money than the other conferences.

[Northman]

Good. Its very sad that the goverment even has to step into this matter but it does have to change. Its long overdue.

[BroncoHusker]

Whatever it takes to get a playoff; it's long overdue. Jmo.

[OrangeHoof]

2009 would have been an excellent year to implement my system of an eight-team playoff using *only* conference champions as ranked by the final BCS standings.

First round (held at the home field of the higher seed) played two weeks after the conference title games.

9) Georgia Tech at 1) Alabama
8) Ohio State at 2) Texas
7) Oregon at 3) Cincinnati
6) Boise St. at 4) TCU

Second round - weekend of New Year's bowls:
Orange Bowl - 1-9 winner vs 4-6 winner
Sugar Bowl - 2-8 winner vs 3-7 winner

Championship game - Saturday of NFL Championship games weekend
Rose Bowl - Orange Bowl winner vs Sugar Bowl winner.

With this, no "wild cards" are allowed (sorry, Gators), the lesser conferences are guaranteed at least one spot every year (two if Notre Dame doesn't qualify) and all the other bowls can fill the remaining conference non-champs just like today. Three major bowls will rotate to host the semi-finals and championship game. This way, instead of one relevant post-season game, there will be seven - spaced with two weeks in between each round to allow for injuries to heal, holidays to be observed and finals to be taken.

IMO, it's a completely fair system that will be absent of 90% the politics we see in the bowls today.

[Northman]

2009 would have been an excellent year to implement my system of an eight-team playoff using *only* conference champions as ranked by the final BCS standings.

First round (held at the home field of the higher seed) played two weeks after the conference title games.

9) Georgia Tech at 1) Alabama
8) Ohio State at 2) Texas
7) Oregon at 3) Cincinnati
6) Boise St. at 4) TCU

Second round - weekend of New Year's bowls:
Orange Bowl - 1-9 winner vs 4-6 winner
Sugar Bowl - 2-8 winner vs 3-7 winner

Championship game - Saturday of NFL Championship games weekend
Rose Bowl - Orange Bowl winner vs Sugar Bowl winner.

With this, no "wild cards" are allowed (sorry, Gators), the lesser conferences are guaranteed at least one spot every year (two if Notre Dame doesn't qualify) and all the other bowls can fill the remaining conference non-champs just like today. Three major bowls will rotate to host the semi-finals and championship game. This way, instead of one relevant post-season game, there will be seven - spaced with two weeks in between each round to allow for injuries to heal, holidays to be observed and finals to be taken.

IMO, it's a completely fair system that will be absent of 90% the politics we see in the bowls today.


I like most of what you have drawn up here but i would only add that the rankings shouldnt start until midway through the season. I just dont like the fact that a school can start at the top of the rankings while the lesser schools have to work harder to break into the top 25. This way, when the Appalachian States go out and beat the Michigans and the Michigans look like ass halfway through the season they can be ranked according to how they are playing midway through the season where everybody has a shot at making the list. Obviously, strength of schedule and quality wins still weigh in at that point.

[Nomad]

I agree with all the above! College football is controlled by a minority when the majority wants change and all fans and spectators want is quality, competative play! And I'm all for Orrin Hatch investigating the BCS because their little money soaking gig will be gone and I'll be happy!!

BTW, Notre Dame needs to earn their way from now on, no more automatic bids for them. They need to join a conference like the rest of them!!

[BroncoHusker]

2009 would have been an excellent year to implement my system of an eight-team playoff using *only* conference champions as ranked by the final BCS standings.

First round (held at the home field of the higher seed) played two weeks after the conference title games.

9) Georgia Tech at 1) Alabama
8) Ohio State at 2) Texas
7) Oregon at 3) Cincinnati
6) Boise St. at 4) TCU

Second round - weekend of New Year's bowls:
Orange Bowl - 1-9 winner vs 4-6 winner
Sugar Bowl - 2-8 winner vs 3-7 winner

Championship game - Saturday of NFL Championship games weekend
Rose Bowl - Orange Bowl winner vs Sugar Bowl winner.

With this, no "wild cards" are allowed (sorry, Gators), the lesser conferences are guaranteed at least one spot every year (two if Notre Dame doesn't qualify) and all the other bowls can fill the remaining conference non-champs just like today. Three major bowls will rotate to host the semi-finals and championship game. This way, instead of one relevant post-season game, there will be seven - spaced with two weeks in between each round to allow for injuries to heal, holidays to be observed and finals to be taken.

IMO, it's a completely fair system that will be absent of 90% the politics we see in the bowls today.

I could live with that. But, would Nebraska really have deserved to be a tournament over Texas? Only :01 away from that possibility.

I'd go 16 teams, all 11 D1A conference winners (but they must have won at least 8 games) and 5 at-large bids. The at-large bids are based on the the BCS rankings, and the BCS is also used to seed the 16 teams.

So this years bracket would look like:

1. Alabama
16. Troy

8. Ohio State
9. Georgia Tech

5. Florida
12. LSU

4. TCU
13. Penn State

6. Boise State
11. Virginia Tech

3. Cincinnati
14. East Carolina

7. Oregon
10. Iowa

2. Texas
15. Central Michigan



Just one scenario...

[Northman]

I could live with that. But, would Nebraska really have deserved to be a tournament over Texas? Only :01 away from that possibility.



My only answer to this is yes. It doesnt matter in both the NCAA and NFL who wins the championship. The answer will always be who it was that played the best on that given day. I say it you go out and beat the best team in the nation for a possibility at a title shot you deserve it. The other side is, if your the best team in the nation and you cant be pumped up to take out the #22 seed you deserve to lose. Its football and one of the big reasons fans like it is because on any given day the underdog can win. As for whether or not Nebraska would even get that shot i dont see how it would of been possible. I think the top 8 ranked teams after the conference championships deserve the nod for the playoffs regardless of who they are.

[OrangeHoof]

To answer some questions:

1) The only part of the BCS formula that is relevant is the final standings. And that's only for seeding. The teams qualify by winning their conference championship - no ifs and or buts. Sucks for Florida this year. Sucked for Texas last year, but forcing a team to win their conference in order to qualify means every conference game is relevant - like a pre-playoff game when you get to November.

2) If Nebraska had beaten Texas, Nebraska moves into the playoff (likely as an 8 seed). Texas goes to the Cotton Bowl. That's exactly the way the NCAA tournament is - no second chances.

3) Independents like Notre Dame and Navy are treated like a conference unto themselves. The trick for them is that they have to have a better BCS ranking than the 8th highest conference champ so the only "break" they get is that they don't have to win a conference championship but otherwise they're treated like everyone else.

4) A 16-team playoff is going to face more resistance because a four-game road to the championship is like a mini-season with little time to take finals, celebrate Christmas with family or rest up in between rounds. And once you include "wild card" teams, you start getting into politics if who gets included and who doesn't. Would Florida-Alabama game be as scintillating if we knew both were going to make the playoffs anyway? That's my biggest gripe with March Madness is that half the teams of the bigger conferences get into the dance anyway so there's actually an advantage to not winning the conference tournament if you know you'll make the field of 65 anyway. Takes all the excitement out of the conference tournaments other than for the cinderellas.

I hate that Congress is getting involved and they'll probably just wind up making things worse but a playoff is beyond overdue.

[Dortoh]

I hate the BCS system and think they should go with a playoff system. That said lets just be happy Congress has nothing better to do these days......FML

[slim]

Well, I guess they must have the economy fixed already.

Good work, congress

[Nomad]

I think the top 8 ranked teams after the conference championships deserve the nod for the playoffs regardless of who they are.

I agree! 16 teams would drag it out too long besides if a team want a chance/spot in the playoffs then they have 12 games to get there!!

It's almost like the 'big' conferences are in a league of their own so I'd be for them playing each other and get rid of the cupcakes on the schedules!! And if teams like Boise and TCU want/earn a chance then they should be able to join a better conference!! There is no easy solution to make everyone happy but if ideas can be thrown in and come up with something mutual.

[Overtime]

i think the damn rankings system needs to go all together. do it just like the NFL. Top 32 teams with the best record get to go bowling. to hell with rankings. tie breakers will be conference wins-losses, road wins-losses etc.

the rankings system is as much of a farce as the damn BCS is.

[BroncoHusker]

The FCS runs a 16 team playoff, and as someone who goes to an FCS school (albeit a mediocre one), none of our regular season games lose importance. Ive seen teams who have already clinched a spot in the playoffs play real hard because of seeding and home field advantage. A similar format for FBS would be exciting, and imo, they could work around finals and holidays.

[elsid13]

I agree! 16 teams would drag it out too long besides if a team want a chance/spot in the playoffs then they have 12 games to get there!!

It's almost like the 'big' conferences are in a league of their own so I'd be for them playing each other and get rid of the cupcakes on the schedules!! And if teams like Boise and TCU want/earn a chance then they should be able to join a better conference!! There is no easy solution to make everyone happy but if ideas can be thrown in and come up with something mutual.

DIV-IAA and all other division do a 16 team playoff and it's done in 4 weeks. It not that long. Title game is next weekend before Christmas.

[CoachChaz]

Why would teams like Alabama, Texas, USC, Florida, Ohio State, etc. EVER back a system that could potentially keep them from collecting on a big payday? They wouldnt. So government intervention will be necessary if this is ever going to be fair.

[elsid13]

Why would teams like Alabama, Texas, USC, Florida, Ohio State, etc. EVER back a system that could potentially keep them from collecting on a big payday? They wouldnt. So government intervention will be necessary if this is ever going to be fair.

Potentially the teams get 4 more home games. That were the money made, even they split the gate with visiting team.

[CoachChaz]

Potentially the teams get 4 more home games. That were the money made, even they split the gate with visiting team.

But they'd still be taking a risk. Instead of getting the immediate million dollar payout for playing one game, they'd be taking a chance on having just one home game and perhaps getting upset by a lesser ranked team. Why take that gamble?

[Nomad]

DIV-IAA and all other division do a 16 team playoff and it's done in 4 weeks. It not that long. Title game is next weekend before Christmas.

True!!

[Nomad]

Go Obama...only time I'll ever say this!!

__________________________________________

BCS idea of 'consensus': make everyone mad
Monday, December 07, 2009
By JIM LITKE, AP Sports Columnist

Print ShareThisThe Bowl Championship Series matchups are set and no matter how they play out, a postseason that begins with five unbeaten teams is guaranteed to end with more than one having a legitimate claim to the increasingly mythical national championship.

So here's a suggestion for those without a dog in any of those fights: Root for Texas congressman Joe Barton instead.

As rule, fans should oppose making a federal case out of any matter that can be decided on a playing field. But because the BCS effectively controls college football's postseason through its TV contracts, that won't happen until 2014. Unless, that is, Barton's version of an end-around _ a bill called the College Football Playoff Act of 2009 currently winding its way through a House subcommittee _ makes it onto President Barack Obama's desk

"The president has told me directly that he'll sign the bill," Barton, a Republican, said in a recent interview.

The measure would require the BCS to conduct a playoff, or else drop the word "championship" from its title to avoid violating truth-in-advertising statutes governing interstate commerce.

It's a longshot, to be sure. But Barton is convinced he'll gave enough the votes to get the bill out of committee and the full House, and into the Senate where Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, one of several senators sympathetic to the idea of a playoff, will pick up the ball.

"It will happen," Barton predicted one more time, "the pressure is building."

But he wasn't above offering the BCS a face-saving compromise first.

"Just drop the word `championship' and call it the "Big-Time College Football Series,' or the `Dollar Maximization Series.' Because the way it is now," Barton added, "you're not telling the truth about what you are."

The BCS has had a problem with credibility since its inception as the Bowl Coalition nearly two decades ago. Its latest campaign to convince a skeptical public was a charm offensive built around a Facebook page and Twitter account. Fans bombarded both with scorn, but that hasn't stopped the BCS from trotting out the same talking points provided by a high-priced public-relations firm barely a month ago.

"We do feel like it's working and college football is thriving," new BCS executive director Bill Hancock said during a conference call with reporters Sunday night to discuss the bowl matchups. "We recognize there are elements in each constituency that don't like it, but the fact is, it has a consensus. The critics, the playoff proponents, do not have a consensus."

The fact is the BCS doesn't have a "consensus," unless what Hancock meant is that nine out of 10 fans and an overwhelming majority of coaches and players oppose the way the organization goes about crowning a national champion. Playoff proponents, on the other hand, would coalesce around a scheme that involves as few as two teams or as many as 16 and incorporates the current bowl system.

"Start with 16 teams and eight bowls and do it that way, or go whole hog and include every bowl, or at least the 32 bowls that are out there," Barton said. "I don't care. ...

"They claim they're about picking a national champion legitimately on the football field, and that's flat disingenuous," he added. "They're about maximizing revenue."

Not exactly, since a playoff, by some estimates, would make more money. What the BCS is really about is controlling how the money is divvied up. When a team from one of the six major conferences whose commissioners rule the BCS appear in one of the big bowls, they split the purse with the teams in their league. When one of the teams from the five smaller conferences makes into a big bowl, the purse is split with members of all five leagues.

"This should not be a political issue. and yet, the only time that we've seen change is because there's been threat of political intervention," said Western Athletic Conference commissioner Karl Benson. "It's not that the underrepresented conferences ... haven't suggested change in the past. there just hasn't been any leverage or any power within the system for us to mandate change."

But the threat of lawsuits forced the BCS to open the system up to those smaller conferences, which made it possible for TCU and Boise State to face each other in the Fiesta Bowl. Unfortunately, no matter which of the two undefeated teams wins, their claim to the championship will be no more than a faint echo in the clamor surrounding the Texas-Alabama winner.

___