Ok, this makes me insane "House panel passes college football playoff bill"

Stylerod · 12-09-2009, 08:19 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine its national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress has meatier targets to tackle.

The bill, which 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 a House Energy and Commerce Committee 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."

The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said, "We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

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

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 get automatic bids, while other conferences don't. Those six conferences also receive far more money than the other conferences.

It's amazing the things that our government will try to stick their noses into.

stolz25 · 12-09-2009, 08:31 PM

Pathetic, but at least they aren't screwing up anything that really matters.

HughRuss · 12-09-2009, 08:39 PM

Who the hell introduced such a ludicrous bill?

ChadLS · 12-09-2009, 10:43 PM

Barrows is right. Congress should really have more important stuff to do than mess with College Football.

Scrum · 12-09-2009, 11:31 PM

So stupid. Just like all the steroids bullshit.

stolz25 · 12-10-2009, 12:41 AM

Just out of curiosity, has anyone made any attempt at all to show how this is constitutional or is even the pretense of caring about the constitution out the window?

Mosheh Thezion · 12-10-2009, 02:28 AM

the Constitution doesnt matter... since it was suspended in 1933.

I've tried to explain that.

This all shows, that while Congress likes to pretend its all so busy, with healthcare...

fact is... they have a very easy job.

And that is because with unconstitutional war powers since 1933.. congress has delegated its powers away to other groups...

which is why the EPA... could do what it just did...

it doesnt need congress'es permission...

why??????

because congress gave away that power... so that they dont have to deal with it.

they can just go to lunches.. and vote on vague bills, and have the lime light.

I say... they have all become scum, and must be set straight.

And while I know... most of you hate me...

If elected, I will scream my head off to make it clear.. and make it happen.

Congress should be in charge... and should not give its power to the EPA or any other group... even if its a government entity.. as such, deminishes the power... AND WORK LOAD... of congress itself.

If they are lazy.... then they should not be in office.

-Mosheh Thezion

Dispatcher · 12-10-2009, 11:27 AM

I'm so glad our elected leaders are finally tackling the truly important issues.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 12-10-2009, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Just out of curiosity, has anyone made any attempt at all to show how this is constitutional or is even the pretense of caring about the constitution out the window?

The sad part is that even the dissenting vote only dissented because they felt Congress had better things to do, and not because Congress has no power to deal with such matters.

ADDED: I am sure some constitutional expansionist will justify it through Commerce Clause powers, though, as the BCS could be considered "interstate commerce."

HughRuss · 12-10-2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

The sad part is that even the dissenting vote only dissented because they felt Congress had better things to do, and not because Congress has no power to deal with such matters.

ADDED: I am sure some constitutional expansionist will justify it through Commerce Clause powers, though, as the BCS could be considered "interstate commerce."

The BCS could also be considered a monopoly or a cabal of college sports. If they are so inclined to do business with others, and seeing as they are the only game in town, one might argue that they have intentionally cornered the market so as to make as much money as businessly possible.

JaJae · 12-10-2009, 06:33 PM

This reminded me of this thread:
John Kerry brings Patriots to larger audience

glitterhearts · 12-12-2009, 02:30 AM

I'm confused about all of this. They have been talking about this soooo much on the news here since last football season. I still don't get it.

HughRuss · 12-12-2009, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by glitterhearts

I'm confused about all of this. They have been talking about this soooo much on the news here since last football season. I still don't get it.

There were a number of undefeated teams in the BCS rankings, although based on their strength of schedule, their ranking was either higher or lower relative to other teams with similar records. TCU, BSU, and Cincinnati were all undefeated, but even after remaining so for their entire season, they were of lower rank than Florida and Alabama.

The BCS* determines to which bowls teams go, depending on rank, schedule, and numerous other factors. There is no playoff/bracket structure for the championship like there is in the NFL --or, for that matter, most other competitions. The BCS chooses the top two teams, places them together, and let's them duke it out.

For other big-name bowl games, like the Rose Bowl, for example, the two teams are chosen by arbitrary standards. The champions of the PAC-10 play the champions of the Big-10 in a game that stretches back some 80 years, I believe.

The debate is that the selection method is unfair. BSU, TCU, and Cincinnati fans are crying because they didn't have a legitimate shot at the championship, despite their perfect records --while Texas (another undefeated team) does. Frankly, BSU should never have been ranked #6, and giving them any form of BCS bowl is a charitable donation to a failing conference. They played terrible teams with terrible records. It doesn't say much that you can wipe up the mat with a school whose enrollment is 1/4 your own.

Does this make it a little clearer? I wasn't sure what you were confused about, so I took a stab in the dark.

*As well as bowl sponsors, with distance from competing schools, size of program, strength of schedule, as well as numerous other things factored into the consideration

The Esteemed Gentleman · 12-12-2009, 10:29 PM

I never figured you much of a college pigskin fan, Hugh. Just one more reason to love you.

HughRuss · 12-12-2009, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

I never figured you much of a college pigskin fan, Hugh. Just one more reason to love you.

I was an all-state linebacker...

stolz25 · 12-13-2009, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I was an all-state linebacker...

Sure it wasn't tight end?

HughRuss · 12-13-2009, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by stolz25

Sure it wasn't tight end?

Now that I think about it, no.

The Esteemed Gentleman · 12-13-2009, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Now that I think about it, no.

Maybe a wide receiver instead?

HughRuss · 12-13-2009, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Maybe a wide receiver instead?

Nose guard?
Perhaps half back?
Pulling right guard?
Strong safety?

glitterhearts · 12-14-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

There were a number of undefeated teams in the BCS rankings, although based on their strength of schedule, their ranking was either higher or lower relative to other teams with similar records. TCU, BSU, and Cincinnati were all undefeated, but even after remaining so for their entire season, they were of lower rank than Florida and Alabama.

The BCS* determines to which bowls teams go, depending on rank, schedule, and numerous other factors. There is no playoff/bracket structure for the championship like there is in the NFL --or, for that matter, most other competitions. The BCS chooses the top two teams, places them together, and let's them duke it out.

For other big-name bowl games, like the Rose Bowl, for example, the two teams are chosen by arbitrary standards. The champions of the PAC-10 play the champions of the Big-10 in a game that stretches back some 80 years, I believe.

The debate is that the selection method is unfair. BSU, TCU, and Cincinnati fans are crying because they didn't have a legitimate shot at the championship, despite their perfect records --while Texas (another undefeated team) does. Frankly, BSU should never have been ranked #6, and giving them any form of BCS bowl is a charitable donation to a failing conference. They played terrible teams with terrible records. It doesn't say much that you can wipe up the mat with a school whose enrollment is 1/4 your own.

Does this make it a little clearer? I wasn't sure what you were confused about, so I took a stab in the dark.

*As well as bowl sponsors, with distance from competing schools, size of program, strength of schedule, as well as numerous other things factored into the consideration

Ohmigosh. Thank you. It does make it a little clearer. Sometimes I just need someone to explain things to me simply. Haha.

That actually does make a lot more sense now because last season Utah went undefeated and that's when I started hearing about this kind of stuff on the news.

Interesting.