heywood on 12/12/2009 at 02:31
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
It's a multi-billion dollar industry run concurrently in every state in the nation. Hard to get much more "interstate commerce" than that.
This isn't about regulating the terms of TV contracts between athletic conferences and networks, or regulating ticket sales, or taxing athletic scholarships. This is about dictating how a sports league decides its champion. It's a sporting rules issue, not a commerce issue. There's a difference.
Pyrian on 12/12/2009 at 02:50
Quote Posted by heywood
It's a sporting rules issue, not a commerce issue. There's a difference.
Not a difference per se, but rather a subset. You don't seriously think that such things have zero financial consequences, do you? I've heard the commerce clause gets stretched pretty thin at times, but
this isn't much of one.
Starrfall on 12/12/2009 at 02:57
We're WAY far beyond a limited reading of the commerce clause at this point anyways, and Pyrian is right in suggesting that this doesn't even really come close to the outer limits.
Anyways the voting system is pants.
Kolya on 12/12/2009 at 03:42
.
CCCToad on 12/12/2009 at 04:20
True, the original intent of the commerce clause has pretty much been thrown out the window for as long as any of us can remember.
Still, I'd be amused to see a suit filed on this one. NCAA v. US anyone?
heywood on 12/12/2009 at 14:49
(
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce) Commerce: an interchange of goods or commodities, esp. on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.
Yes, for argument's sake you can play the six degrees of Kevin Bacon game and relate anything to interstate commerce, thus justifying federal regulation of absolutely anything. And yes, people have been arguing about how liberally to interpret the commerce clause ever since the Constitution was drafted.
My point is, the purpose of the legislation isn't to regulate the interstate commerce aspects of collegiate football. It's simply says that you can't call it a national championship game unless it results from a playoff. Any sane interpretation of the commerce clause shouldn't give the federal government the power to regulate how a sports league declares its champion.
While we're at it, let's legislate that ice hockey season shouldn't extend into June, NASCAR has to get rid of the "chase", and video games shouldn't end in boss battles.
Starrfall on 12/12/2009 at 15:55
Quote Posted by heywood
Any sane interpretation of the commerce clause shouldn't give the federal government the power to regulate how a sports league declares its champion.
I, for one, am not saying it should or shouldn't, just that any argument that it
can't was lost a long time ago.
Rug Burn Junky on 12/12/2009 at 18:20
Quote Posted by heywood
This is about dictating how a sports league decides its champion. It's a sporting rules issue, not a commerce issue. There's a difference.
Bullshit. The determination of a "champion" is fundamental to how a sports league is marketing itself. Marketing of a champion is part and parcel of inducing customers to fork over money for tickets, network TV contracts, etc. Were it to do so "dishonestly" that would be false marketing. Is Congress unable to regulate advertising? Do you really want to try to make this argument? Because you're going to fail spectacularly.
This is simple shit. Rethink this. It
is as simple as you think, only just in the opposite direction.
Quote Posted by heywood
Any sane interpretation of the commerce clause shouldn't give the federal government the power to regulate how a sports league declares its champion.
200 years of judicial precedent says you're wrong.
ercles on 12/12/2009 at 18:50
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Bullshit. The determination of a "champion" is fundamental to how a sports league is marketing itself. Marketing of a champion is part and parcel of inducing customers to fork over money for tickets, network TV contracts, etc. Were it to do so "dishonestly" that would be false marketing.
I'm not sure if the BCS system is dishonest so much as inefficient. If you were arguing about fairness, surely they should be more concerned with stricter regulations on how the game should be officiated, shouldn't they? Lots of people cried foul regarding the clock resetting at the end of the Big 12 championship game, saying that the referees did so to ensure the more marketable team (the longhorns) won.
CCCToad on 12/12/2009 at 19:36
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
200 years of judicial precedent says you're wrong.
He said it was insane, you say Judicial precedent agrees with it.
That doesn't really disprove his point, we also had "hundreds of years of precedent" to justify hanging people as witches on slim evidence, but that didn't make it right or sane.
And, yes, I certainly agree that you can extrapolate a justification for Congress to have power over this. That doesn't mean the justfication won't provoke a "wtf?" reaction in anyone with common sense.
It also doesn't mean its a good thing for congress to be involved in regulating privately run sports leagues. There isn't any equivalency between the NCAA)which provides only recreational services and products) and organizations like the Railroads, oil companies, and banks which directly affect consumer's quality of life.
Besides, RBJ, nobody has a strong argument against Congress being able to find a legal justification for regulating football. However, I'd love to see a good argument as to why we NEED congress to step in and regulate football. I understand that this is technically an advertising rule, but its a case of suspect intent.
