Congress advances bill to regulate College Football

Rug Burn Junky on 12/12/2009 at 19:53

Quote Posted by ercles

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.

That's why I said "were it..."

I don't actually think it's "dishonest," per se. I was using that as shorthand for the more nuanced argument that the designation of champion is disingenuous when even those declaring it don't concern themselves with its true validity. Something that obviously a fair segment of our society believes. I don't happen to be one of those people, but that's irrelevant. The question is not "is it dishonest?" but rather "If we grant for a moment that it is dishonest, does Congress have the power to change that?" The simple answer is yes.

I'm really simplifying here, but what generally trips up amateurs with commerce clause analysis is that they get hung up on "Hey! That's not commerce!" when that misses the point. The more important consideration is if the activity were left to the states, would they be able to regulate it in such a way that there would not be detrimental balkanization in that area. It's pretty clear that that's not the case here.

Otherwise, to try and limit the commerce clause disregards 200 years of the development of our country. What constitutes commerce in this day and age is vastly different from the 18th century, but the underlying principles are the same, and you simply can't ignore the fact that we are no longer 13 loosely confederated states with independent local economies. This isn't about plain language and strict dictionary definitions - that is a losing argument on every level because there are so many more considerations going into the analysis. Considerations that have long since been properly decided for the effective governing of our country.

There are good arguments against congress intervening - practical, legal and political. The commerce clause just isn't one of them.

--------------------------------------

Back to the BCS and the question of "dishonesty."

The fact is, there are tons of competing interests that go into the NCAA championship, and a simple playoff won't necessarily determine the "best" team. That is actually true in all sports, where luck and variance play a role in the outcome of so many games that winning any one game doesn't truly mean that you're "better" - were that game to be played 10 times, maybe the other team wins 9 of them.

We have accepted this in most sports, and deemed it less of an issue. But that rests on the notion that all of the teams making the playoffs in the first place face a similar level of competition.

But is an issue in NCAA football, where there is such a wild disparity in the talent levels in different conferences that one undefeated team is not exactly the same as another. The polls are an attempt to account for this. They do weight things in favor of the BCS teams - why? because they really are the better conferences. They have the big name schools, they get the most exposure, and attract the best recruiting classes. There really is a major and minor league in college football, and anyone who tells you otherwise is deluding themselves. In professional baseball, the Toledo Mudhens could go undefeated, but that doesn't mean that they're playing in the World Series. It's a similar concept.

They are also the teams that bankroll the whole enterprise - they bring in the money and exposure in the first place that enable the system to work at all. So given all of that, there is a a rightful sense of entitlement that sorta justifies stacking the deck in favor of the BCS teams.

Men's college basketball suffers from the same problem, but in that instance the playoff is both possible and more effective, because you can play so many games in such a short amount of time. That way every team has a shot, but you are truly tested because you have to run the gauntlet of 6 teams in order to win. Cinderella teams that don't deserve it just don't make it all the way through.

But you can't do this in college football. An extra month of games just isn't feasible. So you're left with the idea of a shortened "playoff." BEcause it would be at MOST 3 games, you still have a strong possibility of a lucky team bouncing through. You still have bubble teams complaining that they were left out. And to top it off, you have an extra two weeks of games to fit into the academic schedules of 100's of kids who are ostensibly college students. I can't really blame the BCS for saying "Fuck it. Since everyone's going to bitch anyway, we'll just do our best to determine the top two teams and let them play for it." It IS actually a playoff, it's just that it's only a 2 team playoff. Adding more games isn't going to fix the problems at the edges, it's just going to give more teams a chance to bitch about being excluded.

That said, one of the great things about sports are opinionated bar arguments. In every sport you have champions where people say "sure, team X won, but everyone knows that team Y was better." The college football polls actually counteract that a little bit, while also feeding it. It's fairly elegant for stoking interest in the game and making it interesting. And, given what I said before about luck and variance, you could easily argue that it's just another way of determining the "best" team. It's just that there's this obsessive compulsive need in our culture to have definitive answers, and because this differs from the norm people are naturally distrustful. Just because the standard playoff system used in most sports is accepted, doesn't really make it any more definitive in many instances.

Rug Burn Junky on 12/12/2009 at 20:20

Quote Posted by CCCToad

He said it was insane, you say Judicial precedent agrees with it.

That doesn't really disprove his point,

If you want to be a desmond about the whole thing, then no, it doesn't disprove his point in and of itself, but it's a statement that in the venues that matter, the point has already been long since disproven. .

I know, I know, I know: "Wah! That's the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" yada yada yada, barf barf."

But that's what stare decisis is: People who matter have already said that's the way it is. There is a whole host of good reasoning behind it. The fact that you, or heywood, or whoever, are not fully aware of nor educated in that matter does not change the fact that it's out there, and it's already been settled. It's not my job to do the heavy lifting for all of this. I really don't feel like re-inventing the wheel every time someone comes along and claims "common sense says _____" when actual common sense says exactly the opposite once you assimilate all of the relevant competing legal issues.

I could sit here and go through it all, logically step by step, and explain every single reason why it's wrong. But there's a point where that's wasted effort. This is not something that's in question anymore by anyone other than the loony bin fringe of strict constructionists. That's because it hasn't been "stretched" - it's a logical consequence necessary for the system to work.

Quote:

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.

You can "extrapolate a justification" because it's actually justified. There's no disingenuous usurping of power here, at least not with respect to the commerce clause. This is simple shit.

"Common sense" is used in this scenario often as shorthand for people who are uneducated in the details, but want to say that their confusion over the result has merit. It is a championing of ignorance. I have no sympathy for this argument.

True common sense means that one would learn all of the different competing interests that go into a doctrine before criticizing it. To do otherwise invalidates the wisdom of quote unquote, common sense.

Quote:

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.

I don't think we NEED congress to do so in this instance either. But that doesn't give any more validity to an argument that says they can't because of the commerce clause. I could even be sympathetic to other arguments against congress inserting itself here (free speech? maybe.). I just loathe unwarranted, faulty, amateur analysis.

fett on 12/12/2009 at 20:21

For further reference on this topic, see the latest Discworld book "Unseen Academicals" in which Lord Vetinari creatively sticks his nose into the sport of football for his own clandestine purposes.

CCCToad on 12/12/2009 at 21:40

Quote:

But that's what stare decisis is: People who matter have already said that's the way it is. There is a whole host of good reasoning behind it. The fact that you, or heywood, or whoever, are not fully aware of nor educated in that matter does not change the fact that it's out there, and it's already been settled

Thanks for setting up a straw dog, I never argued that it isn't the way it is.

Quote:

I don't think we NEED congress to do so in this instance either. But that doesn't give any more validity to an argument that says they can't because of the commerce clause.

Again, show me where I said they can't. It can be, has been, and continues to be interpreted to justify just about anything, I don't dispute that.

I'm simply arguing against the notion that because things are a certain way means that is the way it should be. Even though the Wickard v. Filburn ruling stands, the decision was pretty controversial even at the time it was made. That also doesn't mean decisions are always made purely on a legal motivation, such as the politically motivated "switch in time" that decided West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.

What I'm doubting is that its a good thing for the Government to have the power to interfere in how a football league conducts its business. Its easy to not give a damn until some Congressman decides he needs to regulate some other activity that you're interested in.

Hell, It seems to me that the commerce clause as it stands would allow the government to mandate that all features advertised for a video game during initial development must be implemented before the game can be released, or to mandate that all internet forums must track and verify the personal data of its users to allow the government to investigate spam botters. That would be legally justified, but also a pretty big invasion of privacy.

On a tangent, it seems to me that the primary argument for use of the Commerce Clause in general is judicial precedent, and not a strict-scrutiny test of what actually constitutes interstate commerce. I think it would be better (from a utilitarian standpoint) to simply amend the constitution to allow for Uniform regulation of interstate businesses than to decide on an elastic interpretation of the Commerce clause. I doubt that would ever happen for political reasons, though.

Again, before anyone attacks the Straw Dog and says "BUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES DO ALL THAT!! UR IGNORANT!!". Let me summarize: It does do all that. I'm just not comfortable with the implications. Besides, there's a pretty big difference between legally justified and actually justified. In my state, I'd be considered legally justified for shooting someone breaking into my house. I wouldn't be actually justified unless they had a weapon or attacked me.

To repeat one final time, because it seems necessary, I'm not arguing that the government has the authority to interfere in football. I just don't think that they should have the authority to do so.

Rug Burn Junky on 12/12/2009 at 22:44

Quote Posted by CCCToad

Thanks for setting up a straw dog, I never argued that it isn't the way it is.

That's not a straw man at all. You are trying to reargue a settled matter by "arguing against the notion that because things are a certain way means that is the way it should be."

That's a severe overestimation of your knowledge, abilities and importance.

It's nice that you don't think that they should have the authority, but you haven't fully thought through the implications of them not having the authority. People who do know better have.

Argue against it all you want, but that's the way it is because that's the way it needs to be, and you're not going to change it.

Starrfall on 12/12/2009 at 23:07

Except for Raich, that one was bs :mad:

Rug Burn Junky on 12/12/2009 at 23:21

Well, yeah, but let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be for the plebes.

Starrfall on 12/12/2009 at 23:48

Good point

rachel on 12/12/2009 at 23:52

Now I feel left out :(

AR Master on 13/12/2009 at 01:22

heh, plebes

good thing rbj is here and happens to be an expert in this very subject!!!! to show these rubes, these proles, these... sub humans his east coast leftist, manhattanite screed so these simpletons know who matters! (hint it is not them)

Inline Image:

http://i45.tinypic.com/2pzwnqs.jpg