BCS, Y'all Just Got Served.

I won't go into the details of my own objections to the "Broken Championship System", or my suggestions for righting the misguided ship of FBS football; I have previous articles addressing those topics, and I don't believe in duplication.

However, there was some additional news this week that (in my opinion) signifies the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg' for the captains cowardly of the BCS. vessel:

• Oregon president David Frohnmayer (current chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee... let's call him "Admiral")
• Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins
• Ole Miss president Robert Khayat
• Pitt president Mark Nordenberg
• Northern Illinois president John Peters
• Nebraska president Harvey Perlman
• Penn State president Graham Spanier
• Virginia Tech president Charles Steger

A quote from the esteemed admiral of this sporting armada:

"We deeply respect the president-elect and we are glad that he is a fan of college football," Frohnmayer said in an e-mail response to ESPN Tuesday. "We have the most compelling regular season in all of sports, and I'm sure that contributes to Senator Obama's enjoyment of our great game."

"My colleagues and I on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee have discussed the future of postseason football on many occasions and we do not believe a playoff would be in the best interest of the sport, the student-athletes or our many other constituencies," Frohnmayer said.

(from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3704864)

While this committee is presumably speaking on behalf of football fans everywhere (unless fans don't count as one of those "other constituencies"), there is clear public will for reform of this broken system, which represents a purgatory between a "purist", non-playoff system which doesn't even pretend to decide the top two teams (the system as it existed pre-BCS), and a "reformist", playoff-centered system which does away with the biases and anti-competitive foundation (yes, the BCS was created to KEEP THE SMALL FRY OUT) of this sporting version of oligarchical collectivism (see Orwell, George: Nineteen Eighty-Four).

Three U.S. representatives have co-sponsored a bill with the aim of "breaking" the BCS cartel:

• Joe Barton, R-Texas (6th district): ranking Republican on House Energy and Commerce Committee
• Bobby Rush, D-Illinois (1st district): member of House Energy and Commerce Committee; chair of Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection; erstwhile opponent of Barack Obama (for the 1st district congressional seat) in 2000
• Michael McCaul, R-Texas (10th district): member of House Ethics Committee; former Deputy Attorney General, State of Texas

In terms of actual subpoenas being served, it may take quite a while for the bureaucratic machinery to clunk and plod through the process of dismantling the BCS. But given the apparent views of major players in both parties--let's include the President-Elect--I wouldn't rule out some congressional testimony for various BCS bigwigs (such as those mentioned above) in the near future (i.e., 2009-2012).

To quote Congressman Barton (pictured at top of article):

"In some years the sport's national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title," Barton said in a statement released ahead of the bill's introduction. "Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on."

He said the bill "will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice."

(from http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3760232)

This would mean NO advertisements, whether "stand-alone" or "in-show" (such as on SportsCenter), for a "BCS Championship"; NO BCS Championship logo; NO sponsors--televised or otherwise--for such a game (good luck with that, Fox and ESPN); and here's the kicker:

NO trophy (sponsor!) and NO official merchandise proclaiming a "National Champion".

Someone tell me: what's the stated purpose of the BCS again? The thing they repeat over and over, ad nauseam, whenever there is disquiet among the "unwashed" masses (meaning you and me... the fans)?

This is not the first time the BCS has attracted unfavorable attention from Congress. The last time was in 2005, in lieu of the informal exclusion of "mid-major" teams from participation in BCS bowls. The BCS essentially settled "out of court" by adding a fifth bowl game, and adding official stipulations for participation of ONE "mid-major" program if certain conditions were met.

That is just one of many tweaks the BCS administrators have made to their "compelling" system (note that Admiral Frohnmayer uses that word to describe the REGULAR season, not the postseason, which is the responsibility of him and his "crew").

Now, there are those who will argue that Congress has no business meddling in college football. These would be the same people that Congress has no business (a) impeaching presidents, (b) raising an army through military conscription (that's called a 'draft'), or (c) regulating interstate commerce. College football as we know it today falls under (c), dear readers.

Specifically, the case can (and likely will) be made that the BCS is by its nature a form of interstate commerce. See that little bit above about "violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act" (I put it in bold, just for you)?

Yeah, that.

For the more judicial-minded among you, it should also be heartening to know that the Supreme Court, should the BCS appeal a congressional law as unconstitutional, will likely defer to Congress on the matter:

Rational Basis Review

The evolving level of scrutiny applied by Federal courts to Commerce Clause cases should be considered in the context of rational basis review. The idea behind rational basis review is that the judiciary must show deference to the elected representatives of the people. A respect for the democratic process requires that the Courts uphold legislation if there are rational facts and reasons that could support Congressional judgment, even if the Justices would come to different conclusions. Throughout the 20th century, in a variety of contexts, courts sought to avoid second guessing the legislative branch, and Commerce Clause jurisprudence can be seen as a part of this trend. Lawrence Tribe states:

"

Since 1937, in applying the factual test Jones & Laughlin to hold a broad range of activities sufficiently related to interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has exercised little independent judgment, choosing instead to defer to the expressed or implied findings of Congress to the effect that regulated activities have the requisite "economic effect." Such findings have been upheld whenever they could be said to rest upon some rational basis.^[6] (Citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States, 1964)

"

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)

For those of you who would discredit this based on the fact it exists on Wikipedia, note that there are no disputes regarding neutrality or factual claims in this article. Feel free to challenge it, but just as would happen with a BCS challenge to Congressional law, you... WILL... fail.

You see, there's this silly little thing called "precedent", natch.

BCS: Y'all just got served.