PonyFans.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2245440 Discuss...

It seems so simple to me to have 1 more bowl. #1 seed plays #4 and #2 plays #3, then have the championship bowl. There is no need for a 16 team playoff system, that is ridiculous (which some have proposed). Get rid of the Conference champ games, who cares.

If it was that simple then why have 64 teams in the NCAA basketball tourney? Just pick 8.

Why, because you do not know the outcome until the game is played.

Let Div. 1A teams play for and earn the title.

A 16 team playoff with more even distribution of the proceeds works for me.

My fear is that as bad as the current BCS structure is, a playoff system will further screw the small schools and conferences. No big schools are going to let go of any money they are getting from this warped system. Small schools will never get a fair shake.

Maybe we need to start lobbying Barton.

you better have an a$$load of money if you expect to be able to lobby a congressman, ANY congressman

This is ridiculous. Congress has no business getting into this. It's one thing (although equally inappropriate) for Congress to get involved with the steroid thing in baseball, because of the anti-trust status Congress has granted to MLB. But if college football wants to operate what most consider a completely moronic system, that's the fault and responsibility of the universities that conjured up this absurd system. Any Congressional representative who can't think of enough other issues that need addressing loooong before the BCS should lose his or her seat in Congress.

Sure they have a right to get into a multi-billion dollar industry. It is a blatent, naked restraint of trade and a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust laws. The entire Bowl system really has become a classic monopolitic tieing case which is so obviously uncompetitive that even the bowls don't want to stick to their own bowl contracts. But first you have to have some one with the balls to sue the bastards. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the TV and broadcasting rights belong to each individual university not a association of universities. The same argument can and should be made that the right to make bowl selections belongs to each individual university or bowl committee and not an association of universities like the BCS, the Big 12, the SEC etc.

Amen, brother.

Break the chains of tyranny!

Stallion wrote:But first you have to have some one with the balls to sue the bastards.

I ask this question with complete seriousness: Why not you? You're an attorney.

Note to CurrentSTUDent: isn't the word 'rhetoric'?

Stallion wrote:Sure they have a right to get into a multi-billion dollar industry. It is a blatent, naked restraint of trade and a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust laws. The entire Bowl system really has become a classic monopolitic tieing case which is so obviously uncompetitive that even the bowls don't want to stick to their own bowl contracts. But first you have to have some one with the balls to sue the bastards. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the TV and broadcasting rights belong to each individual university not a association of universities. The same argument can and should be made that the right to make bowl selections belongs to each individual university or bowl committee and not an association of universities like the BCS, the Big 12, the SEC etc.

I don't mean to challenge their right to get involved. I'm suggesting that there are countless other issues of much greater importance upon which Congress should be focusing its attention.

You are correct, 1965. I'm usually better than that, check the time of the post and you might understand my state of mind, I'll fix it right now

while their might be other issues they should tackle first, when was the last time you heard of congress doing something purely becaues they should and not because it will get them attention? It's a media ploy so they can look like they are doing the work of the people when really they (demos and repubs) are just working for their corporate sponsers.

I as a fan or alumnus don't have "standing" to assert a cause of action on behalf of SMU just like the SMU alumnus did not have "standing" to sue the NCAA after the DP.

Stallion wrote:I as a fan or alumnus don't have "standing" to assert a cause of action on behalf of SMU just like the SMU alumnus did not have "standing" to sue the NCAA after the DP.

Thanks for the reply.

What would qualify someone to have 'standing'?

I suspect you would have to be the University itself or an officer with the authority to represent the university, i.e., the President or the Board of Trustees.