COMMENTARY
Allen Wilson: BCS about controlling purse strings
Congress has already gotten involved in the steroids issue, so it should come as no surprise that it has taken an interest in college football’s Bowl Championship Series.
Last Friday, our nation’s lawmakers gathered on Capitol Hill to discuss whether the BCS should be eliminated to make room for a playoff system to determine a national champion.
Congress has more important issues than trying to pressure the gatekeepers of the BCS into reconsidering their system, but it did provide a service by casting a harsher light on the issue.
Unfortunately, Congressional hearings won’t stop the major bowls and the big conferences from fighting to keep their precious BCS system intact.
John Swofford, commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference and head of the BCS, told Congress last Friday that doing away with the BCS would hurt most of the current bowls, as if having more than 30 bowl games hasn’t already diluted the market.
Swofford said that a playoff would mean “it will be difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are among the oldest and most established in the game’s history, to survive.”
Hogwash.
There is only one reason why people like Swofford and the bowl committees don’t want a playoff: greed.
The real purpose of the BCS has nothing to do with determining a national champion. It’s about keeping the millions of dollars that come from the bowls under the control of major schools and conferences rather than the NCAA.
Forget the fact that several prominent coaches like Joe Paterno, Pete Carroll and Urban Meyer—not to mention President Obama—are in favor of a playoff. As long as college presidents and athletic directors favor the BCS, nothing is going to change.
One argument against a playoff is the season would be too long. I guess it’s OK for Divisions I-AA, II and III to play 14 or 15 games, including the postseason, but not for Division I-A. Ridiculous.
There are concerns about missed classes, but most postseason games are played during holiday break.
BCS boosters also claim television contracts are another hurdle to changing the format. Yeah, like the networks wouldn’t want to be part of a system potentially more lucrative than bowls.
It should be noted that some members of Congress have a personal agenda in trying to do away with the BCS.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, wrote a letter to Obama concerning the possibility of the BCS violating antitrust laws. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is conducting his own investigation on the legality of the BCS. This came on the heels of the undefeated Utes being left out of the national title game for the second time in five years.
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, threatened to introduce a bill to abolish the BCS after Texas was passed over for the Big 12 Championship Game in favor of Oklahoma, which had lost to the Longhorns.
Political grandstanding aside, the elected officials have legitimate gripes.
There are limited provisions for non- BCS conference schools to slip into a major bowl game, but it’s virtually impossible for a Utah to play for a national championship because it won’t get the necessary votes in the human and computerized polls.
In college basketball, there is room for the little guy. We may never see a Davidson or George Mason win a national title, but at least they have a chance.
That won’t happen in major college football. The rich like being rich, and they are not about to share their wealth with schools with shallower pockets.
Log into MyBuffalo to post a comment
MyBuffalo is the new social network from Buffalo.com. Your MyBuffalo account lets you comment on and rate stories at buffalonews.com. You can also head over to mybuffalo.com to share your blog posts, stories, photos, and videos with the community. Join now or learn more.
Reader comments
Learn more about our moderation system.