PonyFans.com

FTA: WASHINGTON (AP) - A House subcommittee has approved legislation aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... 1&catnum=0

Not sure if this idea is legal (1st amendment). However, regardless of how screwed up the current and previous systems are and have been, I still hate the idea of Congress deciding how to fix it.

Actually all it does is:

The bill would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.

This is good news.
If it becomes law, it will indeed bring us one step closer to a playoff.

I don't know about the legalities of it, however the Fed.s do dump tons of $ to most schools. I do think, since they (we) spend so much $ on higher education, we should have an interest on how these schools operate.

Appears to me, this is more like a shot across the bow. Like, change or we may change it.

Stallion wrote:Actually all it does is:

The bill would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.

Thus my question about legality. The 1st amendment protects advertizing. That is why cigarette and liquor commercial can air and not be band. The SCOTUS ruled on that back in the 60s I believe. I am sure you can cite case and decision better than I.

If the selling of cigarettes and liquor are considered speech and thus protected by the 1st amendment, would not the selling of a BSC national championship also be protected?

Not a lawyer but wondering.

All you have to do is propose a large tax on playoff games and it will be passed before Christmas. Of course included in the taxation would be anyone that watches, listens to, reads about, or hears about any playoff game in any manner.

yes we can.

a legislature clearly has the power to legislate against deceptive advertising. Free Speech is trumped in almost every state by deceptive trade practices-consumer protection laws. But again, the counter argument would be that the non-BCS schools have authorized their conferences to sign a contract to create and perpetuate the BCS Championship so who is being deceived?

ponyte wrote:

Stallion wrote:Actually all it does is:

The bill would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.

Thus my question about legality. The 1st amendment protects advertizing. That is why cigarette and liquor commercial can air and not be band. The SCOTUS ruled on that back in the 60s I believe. I am sure you can cite case and decision better than I.

If the selling of cigarettes and liquor are considered speech and thus protected by the 1st amendment, would not the selling of a BSC national championship also be protected?

Not a lawyer but wondering.

This is not about advertising, it is about monopolistic and unfair business practices. I read the morning news article today. Did you know Baylor has had a bigger much share of post-season money over the last 10 years than has TCU? There is something wrong with that, the playing field is not level.

Not defending the BSC. I just wonder if the 'solution' by Congress as presented in this proposed bill is legal.

By the time this bill runs through congress we know that the bill will expand to include other needed changes. Mascots will be regulated (sorry, we will not argue over geldings or miniature horses as the use of a horse will be band), rules that eliminate losers(think fair not competition), environmental regulations about the field, new taxes to support the administrative burdens of administering the new law, uniform dress codes, new safety mandates to eliminate the possibility of any injury, salary regulation by a salary czar for coaches, equal opportunity for players and the game adjusted to meet ADA requirements and a host of other changes will be included in the bill to mandate a playoff.

Basically, we will not have football because it will be regulated out of existence at the college level.

I think it is a borderline call on the first amendment. They already call it "the BCS Championship Game". I think the better course would be to threaten to make college football revenues - unrelated business income for the universities unless they instituted a playoff. The BCS would buckle like trashy women at Tiger Woods feet.

Who gets to be the College Football Czar???

Do we get to send lobbyists to capitol hill to get smu into these playoffs??

what a government!!!

USA USA USA!!!

peruna11 wrote:Who gets to be the College Football Czar???

I nominate J. C. Watts.

If that doesn't work, Phil Fulmer. Ever notice the resemblance between him and Fred Thompson?

peruna11 wrote:Who gets to be the College Football Czar???

Do we get to send lobbyists to capitol hill to get smu into these playoffs??

what a government!!!

USA USA USA!!!

Bill Clements?

And government interference in football is as old as football itself - helmets were introduced when President (someone help me out here) demanded that the death rate in college football be reduced or he would ban football.

I think the we'll eventually have football regulated out of existence into 7 on 7 flag football eventually anyway, might as well get a playoff with it.

It's just more Hoax and Change.

Bring on Ultimate Frisbee.