Rep. Joe Barton: BCS Is College Football's Biggest Problem

Playoff system would level the field for all NCAA football teams

December 31, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Joe Barton is a Republican c ongressman from Texas's Sixth District and ranking member of House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

College football is as much a part of the holiday season as leftover turkey and the ball drop in Times Square.

In a three-week span, there are 34 games, from the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl in Boise, Idaho, to the FedEx Orange Bowl in Miami, the Allstate Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Ariz., and the Konica Minolta Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Fla. Each football game offers players a chance to cap off their season with a win and gives fans an opportunity to visit a new location.

It's one of the many reasons that college football is my favorite sport, but it also displays­—in grand style—the game's biggest problem: the Bowl Championship Series.

The deception starts in the name. The principal goal of the BCS is not and never was to fairly determine a national champion. It was designed to maximize revenue for its members while limiting true competition. That makes it a cartel. If you ask me, they can still call it the BCS—just change the words to Bowl Cartel Series.

Let's look at the numbers. Of the 89 sports sanctioned by the NCAA, big-time college football is the only one whose champion is not determined on the field of competition through a playoff, meet, or tournament. Instead, the BCS determines the participants in its "national championship game" using opinion polls and complicated computer algorithms. Can it be right and every other sport be wrong?

The BCS has created a class system—the haves ("automatic qualifying conferences") and the have-nots ("nonautomatic qualifying conferences"). This means that more than half of the 120 teams are out of the running for the national championship before they ever strap on their helmets in August.

Need proof? Just check out this telling statistic: Since the BCS began in 1998, only 11 teams have played in its mythical national championship game. Every year, it seems a deserving team is excluded.

While Alabama and Texas battle it out at the Citigroup-sponsored Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., on January 7, Texas Christian University, Cincinnati, and Boise State­—also undefeated—will be home watching on television.

Who knows who would win if they were all involved in a playoff? But you can bet millions of college football fans, including me, would be watching.

Instead, the BCS shirks the true spirit of competition and focuses on what matters most to it­: money. The current system rewards teams in BCS conferences even if they hardly ever play in bowl games, while smaller schools that win constantly on the field lose financially.

To illustrate my point, let's match up Texas Christian (Mountain West, non-BCS conference) versus Baylor University (Big 12, BCS conference). Here is the tale of the tape from 2005 to 2008:

TCU Horned Frogs: 37-10 regular season record; 4-0 bowl record.

Baylor Bears: 16-31 regular season record; zero bowl games (the university's last bowl win was in 1992).

During that time, the two teams have squared off twice, with TCU winning both games. But thanks to the BCS, Baylor has been paid millions more than TCU by bowl games it never appeared in—simply because it is in a BCS conference.

To be clear, I am not bashing Baylor. I grew up not too far from campus, and my mother and brother went to school there. But it is the perfect example of the inequities in the BCS system.

If Exxon Mobil and Chevron-Texaco did in the oil business what the BCS does in college football, they would be prosecuted for violating antitrust laws.

In January 2009, I introduced the College Football Playoff Act of 2009. This isn't a government gridiron takeover. It simply says that the BCS can't call a game the "national championship" unless the participants are determined by a playoff. It doesn't dictate what kind of playoff or how many teams have to be involved—those decisions would rest with the BCS or NCAA.

The biggest complaint about my bill is that Congress shouldn't get involved. While this doesn't rise to the level of healthcare reform or climate change legislation, it is more important than honoring the 2,560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius—one of dozens of resolutions passed by the House in the past few months (I voted against it).

The one thing that can never be forgotten in this debate is that college football is more than a game; it's a multibillion-dollar industry. That makes it interstate commerce and a legitimate candidate for congressional oversight. And let's not forget that many of the schools getting shut out of the bowl cash bonanza are taxpayer-funded institutions.

The odd thing is that most of those who criticize my bill still bash the BCS, agreeing that it's a flawed system.

In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find more than a half-dozen people who support the BCS who aren't getting paid by the BCS. When you do talk to one, they will make the same tired argument that a playoff would ruin the current bowl system or cheapen the regular season. Nonsense.

The Little Caesar's Pizza Bowl doesn't have any bearing on the national championship, but it still draws fans from the two schools playing, and those of us who are college football fans still watch on television. This won't change because there is a playoff.

And no matter what playoff format you have, the regular season will still determine the participants. Lose too many games and you're out; win and you're in. The key difference is more teams have a chance at the championship.

The players and the millions of fans who cheer for them each week deserve a fair playoff system. It's time for the backroom wheelers and dealers of the BCS to set up a playoff that is fair and open to all teams. Let's determine the college football champion on the field of play, four downs at a time.

Read why the BCS is a proven winner, by its executive director, Bill Hancock.

Tags:
college athletics,
NCAA

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Joe wrote: "When Boise plays a schedule like either one of those i will be more inclined to consider an automatic bid."

The "strength of schedule" arguement is old, trite, and pointless. So I say, to all those, prove that your argument is sound. Schedule TCU, BSU, U of U, BYU to play the blue-blood schools from these "vaunted" conferences.

Here's the problem. They won't. Not because they can't, but because they are scared to get beat like Alabama was by U of U in 2009 or Oklahoma by BSU in 2007. Like Alabama/Texas were this year by leaning on the protectors of the status quo to force the little guys to play themselves in a different sandbox.

BSU would love to play the blue-bloods of college football, except they don't want to play BSU. If you have any sway with those from the supposed "elite" you might tell them to man-up and pull the tail out from between their legs. Actions speak louder than words.

Texas limped into the BCS championship on a one second wing and a prayer over a weak Nebraska team and you're going to tell America that they "deserve" a chance at the national championship because of strength of schedule?

Texas played two teams this year that are now in the top 25. Nebraska ranked 20 and Oklahoma State ranked 21.

BSU played two teams this year that are now in the top 25. TCU ranked 4th and Oregon ranked 7th.

All the rest should be considered beatable by both teams.

Of the two, Texas and BSU, who had the strength and more grueling schedule?

The answer BSU and not Texas. To boot (no pun intended) BSU played more games than Texas.

But another, more important issue is the money. Being in a AQ conference means, win or lose, big money for the every team in AQ conferences and only because of the association. College football is as much about money as prestige. Why is it that the Texas, Alabamas in the AQ conferences got so good and so big? Could it be from all the seed money generated by their association in AQ conferences? Do you suppose?

Lack luster, bottem feeder teams in AQ conferences automatically cash in on huge money despite a string of 2 or fewer win seasons. Yet non AQ schools get the shaft even though they perform exceptionally better. You BCS promonents are going to tell me that is justified?

David of ID 6:54PM January 07, 2010

Well i guess some assumptions were made since both Tcu andBoise couldnt make it to 14-0. Sorry yall, the Wacky WAC and Mount West are not playing the caliber of teams the major conferances are playing. When you play Oklahoma and Nebraska and Oklahoma State and Tech every year come back and talk to me. That says nothing of Bama, Georgia, Ole Miss. Tennessee or Florida. Florida plays FSU every year, i think. When Boise plays a schedule like either one of those i will be more inclined to consider an automatic bid.

joe crawford of TX 5:08PM January 07, 2010

Roll Tide wrote: "Sorry Boise St, but the other 4 teams played tougher schedules." I am a BSU fan and I like the underdog.

Here's two reason why you're high on helium:

Alabama versus Utah Sugar Bowl 2009, final score Utah 31 Alabama 17. Alabama had a "stronger" schedule yet got it's a-- beat by a non conference, "weaker" conference team.

Who exactly did Texas play this year of any noteriety. Here are the teams Texas played:

Lousiana-Monroe, Wyoming, Texas Tech, UTEP, Colorado, Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, UCF, Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M, Nebraska.

Guess what, BSU could have played any of those teams and beat them by the same, if not, better margin than Texas did. In fact, going into the BCS and bowl season. Of the current top 25 teams, Texas beat Nebraska which is ranked 20 and Oklahoma State which is ranked 21.

BSU, on the other hand, beat Oregon which was ranked 7th.

Also, it's important to note that BSU beat every team on it's schedule what more can it do then that. Also, the blue bloods of college football are scared to death to play BSU, especially Alabama since it's loss to Utah. The blue bloods of college football today are a shell of the powerhouses they once were. Oklahoma, USC, Ohio, LSU are shells of their former selves. Why? Because, the BSU's, U of U's, TCU's of college football are recruiting talent that would otherwise have ended up on Florida, Oklahoma, USC campuses. But, it's also more than that, The BSU's, U of U's, and TCU's, have better coaches who take good player and make them better and are adept at creating team cohesion. Additionally, the little guys are playing with chips on their shoulder. It's a source of pride to slay the Goliaths of football. Note that more and more Goliaths have fallen and will continue to fall in the future.

So know your facts, Roll Tide, the "Good Ole Boy" network has protected colliagiate football bluebloods for far to long. It's getting to the point that the only thing you guys can try and hang a hat on is "strength of schedule". But even that's a slippery slope when BSU beat Oklahoma in 07 and Utah beat Alabama in 09.

I think both BSU and TCU got the shaft by the last bastion of corruption called BCS. The two of them should never have played each other. Either of them should have played Alabama and Texas.

At least then we'd know where the BSU's of college football rank. I suspect that blue blood teams would have been exposed as the frauds they are like Alabama was in 2007 by Utah.

David of ID 1:41PM January 06, 2010

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

May Unemployment Rate Dooms Barack Obama

With unemployment now at 8.2 percent, Mitt Romney is poised to gain ground with voters.

Planned Parenthood Pulls a Komen on Mitt Romney

Planned Parenthood successfully targeted the Susan G. Komen Foundation and is now getting political by campaigning against Mitt Romney.

Bill Clinton Undercuts Barack Obama in Wisconsin

Former President Bill Clinton is campaigning for Democrats across the country, disregarding Obama's campaign strategies.

Barack Obama Doesn’t Get a Pass on Poland Gaffe

The president's error and half-hearted apology is a serious diplomatic mistake.

Mitt Romney's Ridiculous Unemployment Reaction

Romney's dramatic reaction to the May jobs report makes him look false and calculating.

What John Edwards Tells Us About the Legal Profession

The legal profession is experiencing a very serious breakdown of ethics.

What the GOP Should Do if Obamacare Falls

If Obamacare is struck down by the Supreme Court, the Democrats are responsible for proposing another plan.

Barack Obama and George Bush Show Congress How to Act Like Adults

Obama and Bush are capable of acting like adults. Why isn't Congress?

advertisement