DoJ: "So tell us, NCAA ... why no playoff in football? It's everywhere else."

I know they will give some PC answer, but I wish they would just come out and tell the truth: "Because WE, the powers that be, are running the show and see no good reason why smucks like Boise State, TCU or Central Podunk U. should be allowed at our party. The television networks see value in our name brands. We, and we alone, will determine who plays when and where. Now, go F yourselves and do something about the price of gas."

 

I'm split, I fully agree that our DOJ has better things to do and shouldn't be concerned with college football playoffs.

But, then, I do love the idea of them being forced to answer the question. Can't just ignore a DOJ letter. An they'll need a better response than the vague bullshit they feed us.

I doubt this ever gets past the scary letter stage but, hey, anything that makes those smug bastards squirm a bit is fine by me.

 

Lotta GOP & Dem donors are also big boosters at places like Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio State. This will go nowhere.

 

Bill Hancock works for the BCS, not the NCAA. Still, any time the NCAA has to squirm, fine by me.

But the DoJ should really ask why players aren't paid at least minimum wage.

 

Because the school presidents that make up the NCAA aren't in favor of a playoff. That'll be the answer, doncha think?
(And yes, I'd rather the DOJ investigate why I'll be paying $5 a gallon for gas to drive to college football games in September.)

 

I would like to see Congress' questions around one main issue, which I think is the best part of "Death to the BCS" and the continuing efforts by Yahoo: At a time when colleges across the country face severe funding crises and academic and athletic programs are being cut, why does the NCAA allow private interests to make most of the money off its showcase event? The NCAA tournament pays so much of the bill for the organization and its members, yet only the bowl committees get rich off the "playoff" games of the BCS.

 

I'm with him.

 

I fully agree with you when it comes to the Federal probe. But I was a bit intrigued by the reference to the Utah Attorney General planning an antitrust suit on behalf of the state of Utah.

I don't know about the legal viability of that suit, for all I know it might get tossed by a judge on legal grounds, but I don't believe there will be any Utah politicians trying to block it from at least going forward. I think pretty much the entire state of Utah rides the "fuck the BCS" train (although I suppose the Utes joining a BCS conference might soon change that). I'm curious to see where that goes.

 

Again, market value of a full, annual athletic scholarship to Stanford: Approximatly $50 K. You'd have to make $70 K or $75 K a year in California to realize $50 K after taxes. If you're earning $75 K a year, your weekly paycheck is $1,442 a week. That's above minimum wage, by a longshot.

 

Can't understand why a multi-billion dollar operation, made up of a high percentage of public, state-funded universities, relying on the sweat of (sort of) unpaid labor, making millions for bowl cronies, while being tax-exempt, and exempt from anti-trust legislation, is unworthy of a look-see.

 

You won't. There's no way it's going to get that high.

 

I'm sure the Pac-12 will at the very least try to twist his arm into dropping the suit.