HelpShopTVRadioMobileSearch CBSSports.com
Blog Entry

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

Posted on: May 9, 2011 12:10 pm
  •  
 

Posted by Tom Fornelli

Last week the Department of Justice sent a letter to NCAA president Mark Emmert and BCS executive Bill Hancock asking questions about the current BCS system, and implying that simply saying that the BCS doesn't violate federal anti-trust laws isn't good enough to prove that it doesn't. Which is a good indication that the Department of Justice is getting ready to find out for itself. Well, we've yet to hear from Emmert or Hancock on the matter, but Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany had no qualms talking about it to the USA Today.

According to Delany, the BCS has nothing to worry about.

"You never should be overconfident on legal matters. Like anything else, once they're in a courtroom or in front of a jury, you can't predict outcomes," Delany told the USA Today. "Having said that, we know what (the college football postseason once) was, and we know what is. And we know there was a thorough vetting of all antitrust issues at the beginning and during (the life of the BCS) because our presidents have always wanted to know the legal basis on which we operate.

"There's no judge or jury in the world that can make you enter into an four-team, eight-team or 16-team playoff."

Delany's point being that even if the DOJ were to break the BCS, conferences would go back to the old way of securing bowl contracts and not form a playoff system. 

"I know at the end of the day that we've operated in total good faith. I know that (the postseason) is better than it was," Delany continued. "And if it can't go forward, it can't go forward. But I also know that we can't be enjoined, we can't be directed or forced into something we don't think is the right thing for us to do."

I'll agree with Delany in that the current bowl system is better than it used to be. Before we settled national championships on nothing but opinion, and at least now we get a championship game, even if many of us don't always agree with the way the opponents in that game are settled. Still, just because things get better, doesn't mean they can't be improved further.

And as we all know, the BCS could definitely use some improvement.

  •  
Category: NCAAF
Tags: BCS, Big Ten, Bill Hancock, Department of Justice, Jim Delany, Mark Emmert
 
Comments

Since: Feb 22, 2008
Posted on: May 11, 2011 4:59 pm
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

It wouldn't be in violation of antitrust to go back to the old system because each bowl would act as their own private entity not making a collective decision of inclusivity. Antitrust issues come when multiple entities come together as one body.

Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: May 11, 2011 2:08 pm
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

LSUSMC,

I didn't say Barton got anything through on BP, but he did on the college football is what I meant.  The synchronized swimming reference had to do with judging and voting determing the winner.  The only way anyone will truly ever know who the best team is is if they play eachother on the field.  The strength of schedule argument is nothing more than an excuse.  Just look at college basketball and the fact that Butler has played in the championship game the past 2 years.

One thing that really confuses me is why so many SEC fans are scared of a playoff.  Seems like that's the only conference where I hear or read people not wanting a playoff.

Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: May 11, 2011 10:49 am
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

@jvnck--Barton did not get any legislation through Congress related to BP, he was ridiculed by everyone and forced to apologize.  Barton is still an idiot, and if you are trying to defend him, then you should pay more attention before posting.  There are 120 teams in college football and only 32 in the NFL.  Plus, NFL players get paid while the kids in college would be asked to play more games and risk their futures so they could please some fans.  I would not mind at all to see a playoff in college football, but it is simply not in the cards for now.  To compare it to synchronized swimming is just silly.  There are actual results on the field that we can all see and understand.  Most years, we all know who the top two teams are.  Sometimes, a case can be made for a third or even a fourth, but cases can also be made just as easy against those other teams.  Auburn played a terrible nonconference schedule in 2004 and deserved to be left out.  TCU only played a couple of decent opponents, so it was fairly easy to leave them out.  I will be a huge fan of college football no matter how they decided to determine a champion.  I gather by the huge TV contracts that all these conferences are getting that most people are also. 

Since: Nov 3, 2007
Posted on: May 11, 2011 9:36 am
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

 
How come Auburn goes undefeated in 2010 and gets to a championship game, and goes undefeated in 2004 and doesn't?
That's easy.  Because in 2004 Miami was just beginning to tail off, USC was the power and CBS had yet to buy the SEC and through their propaganda expertise puff them into a power far better than they are.  Everyone notices that few Southern Delusional Conference members play tough non-conference opponents in the regular season and I'd bet that CBS doesn't want them to because after a few losses it could be hard to explain away and cause the facade to crumble.

As for a national championship game, even an eight team playoff would leave out team in the top five range because of the politics involved and some years teams capable of winning the title would be left out.  As championships go, the NCAA football variety is of little value.  It's like saying Miss America is the most beautiful, most wonderful young woman in the country.  Yeah, right.  

Since: Nov 19, 2007
Posted on: May 10, 2011 2:44 pm
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

The BCS may be better, but that's like saying a car that breaks down once a month is better than a car that breaks down once a week. It's still terrible because the two teams that are picked are highly subjective.  What did TCU do last year which would eliminate them from at least having a shot at a national title?  In fact TCU was ranked higher than Auburn and Oregon at the start of the year, went undefeated, and still didn't get to a championship game.  How come Auburn goes undefeated in 2010 and gets to a championship game, and goes undefeated in 2004 and doesn't? A 16 team playoff would be huge, and sure there will be some griping from teams just left out, just like March Madness, but there would be no argument after the playoff was over.

Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: May 10, 2011 11:45 am
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

LSUUMS,
so really what you're advocating is a 4 team playoff and not a plus 1 format.  Also, I think you have it backwards in regards to the continuation of the season vs 2nd season for NFL & CFB.  If anything the NFL is more of a continuation since there is much less of a layoff between the games and games are played at one team's home stadium as opposed to a neutral site after about a month layoff.  Really under the current system the bowls are nothing more than 34 meaningless exhibition games with 1 game that matters, which is why we often see teams that don't care and fail to show up for the bowl they are in.  Like we saw with Nebraska last year, and Alabama & Oklahoma claimed when they lost to Utah and Boise St in their games a few years ago.

Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: May 10, 2011 11:30 am
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

"Rep Joe Barton is the same idiot that apologized to BP for our government "shaking them down", so I really don't care what he has to say about anything.  To say this system is unfair is in part correct, but life is not fair in any way.  We learn to adapt to that unfairness, and it is the same here.  There is a reason that the Big Six get auto bids, and that is because they are college football.  They are who the casual fan wants to see.  There are a couple of teams outside the major conferences that are quality teams, but only a few, and not worth breaking up the system for.  If the voters wanted to see TCU in the CG last year, then we would have seen them.  We did not because independent voters and computers did not find them worthy of one of the top two spots.  They were extremely close, but not close enough.  

Also, a plus one format would not have the top 2 teams playing each other in their bowl game.  The teams would more likely be slotted as 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.  Anything else would not make sense.  In the NFL, the playoffs are really a second season.  In college ball, the bowl games are more of a continuation of the season. "
You may not care what he has to say, but he did get that legislation through so clearly some people do.  To say the Big 6 is who people want to see is a bit of a stretch.  I really don't think anyone really considers the Big East's UConn for example,  to be college football and who the casual fan wants to see.  Are we talking pro wrestling or football here?  Who the voters want to see?  That's more important than who deserves to be in the game for being the best team?  Voters and Computers are no way to decide a national champion, it's football not synchronized swimming or gymnastics.  

Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: May 10, 2011 10:31 am
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

Rep Joe Barton is the same idiot that apologized to BP for our government "shaking them down", so I really don't care what he has to say about anything.  To say this system is unfair is in part correct, but life is not fair in any way.  We learn to adapt to that unfairness, and it is the same here.  There is a reason that the Big Six get auto bids, and that is because they are college football.  They are who the casual fan wants to see.  There are a couple of teams outside the major conferences that are quality teams, but only a few, and not worth breaking up the system for.  If the voters wanted to see TCU in the CG last year, then we would have seen them.  We did not because independent voters and computers did not find them worthy of one of the top two spots.  They were extremely close, but not close enough. 

Also, a plus one format would not have the top 2 teams playing each other in their bowl game.  The teams would more likely be slotted as 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.  Anything else would not make sense.  In the NFL, the playoffs are really a second season.  In college ball, the bowl games are more of a continuation of the season. 

Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: May 10, 2011 12:28 am
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

This is an older story I saw and I'm not sure what happened with it but I could see it gaining some serious traction if the BCS is found to be in violation of antirust laws:
<h1 style="font-family: Arial; color: #385baf; font-size: 25px; line-height: 25px; font-weight: bold; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;">House panel passes college FB playoff bill
December 09, 2009|By ocregister

WASHINGTON — A House subcommittee has approved legislation aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion.

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.

The measure passed by a voice vote Wednesday by a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee.

The sponsor, GOP Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, said the current Bowl Championship Series is unfair and won't change unless prompted by Congress.

But some lawmakers on the subcommittee said Congress has better things to do than legislating on college football.

Under the BCS, six conference champions get automatic bids — the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC — while other conferences don't. Critics call that system unfair.

Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: May 10, 2011 12:15 am
 

Jim Delany isn't sweating the Dept. of Justice

"Anyone saying that this is not better than the old system is simply not paying attention.  Under the old system, Oregon would have been in the Rose Bowl, Auburn in the Sugar Bowl, and TCU probably in the Holiday Bowl.  How would that have made things better?  At least this way, the top two teams can play each other in the NC game.  The only time the system outright failed was in 2003, when USC should have played LSU for the NC, instead of LSU playing OU.  Other times teams could have made cases in different years, but 2003 was the only obvious miss.  It makes absolutely no sense for anyone to argue for a playoff, and then say, "well, if we cannot have a playoff, then let's go back to the old system".  At least we now have a two team playoff.  I would like to see a "plus 1" format, but too many people want to see 16 teams for the NCAA to show any interest in even the plus 1.  I do not love the BCS, but it is definitely better than what we had for determining a champion."
Yes, the BCS is better than the old system but that doesn't make it right or good.  If I had 4 flat tires but now I only have 2 I'm better off but still not in good shape.  A "Plus 1" format is not the answer either.  There would potentially be too many times when the game would make no sense or no good way to determine who gets to play in the plus 1 game.  Like in 2007, who plays LSU after they beat Ohio St?  Or lets say last season if Wisconsin beat TCU in the Rose Bowl, who would have been picked?  You'd have had Ohio St, Stanford, and Wisconsin all with legit cases.  Plus there really is no way of knowing if the we're ever seeing the real top 2 teams in the championship.  If the BCS ranking were always correct then #1 would never lose to #2 in the BCS title game, right?
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com