Suing the BCS?

Most people from Utah are familiar with the BCS system (the five major college football bowls) and its bizarre and unfair selection processes, given that the University of Utah football team has 'broken in' to the BCS twice in the last four years. In both of those years the Utes didn't loose a single game the whole year, and yet they didn't even get a chance to play for the national championship, while the teams that did all had losses.

In light of the Utes' impressive win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl this year, the argument that the BCS system is flawed seems more valid than ever (although there are good arguments on the other side too: case in point -- Florida, one loss, but undoubtedly a better team than Utah). That debate will continue to rage, but there is something much more interesting, and troubling, that has surfaced regarding Utah and the BCS. Apparently Utah's Attorney General, Mark Shurtlef, is planning to sue the BCS, alleging that they have violated federal anti-trust laws. (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090107/SPORTS/701069748/1093/SPORTS06)

I hope you are as shocked as I was when I heard this. Mr. Shurtlef has finally flipped his lid. There are at least three reasons why this action is stupid: first, it will not work, second, there will be negative repercussions for Utah and all other non-BCS schools, and third, it is a complete moral outrage.

Legally our honorable AG has no standing in this case. The BCS system is equivalent to a private business. They work in conjunction with the NCAA, but really they are in it for the money (which I mean as a compliment, not a denigration as it is commonly used). The various bowls invite teams to come play for them, promising them a purse whether they win or loose. In return the bowls get to pocket the ticket receipts, and more importantly the TV rating proceeds. Naturally the bowls will want the teams that will draw the biggest audiences, so that they can make a profit. The bowls purchase the venues, pay for the promotions, and make all the arrangements -- in short the own the bowl. Given that fact, what right does anyone, be they the AG of Utah or the Queen of Sheba, have to tell the bowls who they must host in their bowl game? If they want to have the University of Ulaanbaatar in their bowl game then that is their right (they may loose money though, as there aren't many TVs in Mongolia).

Not only does the BCS have a right to choose whomever they want on whatever basis they want, there is also no way that they could be considered a Trust (monopoly). To be prosecuted as such it would have to be shown that they A) have a nearly exclusive market share, B) exercise pricing power independent of the market, and C) use coercive means to restrict competition in the market. In refutation of: condition A -- there are 29 non BCS bowl games, condition B -- there really isn't a price, other than for tickets, and the bowls certainly can't charge whatever they want for those or no one would go, and for condition C -- anyone could start a bowl game and the BCS would have no power to stop them (whether they could get anyone to care about their game is a different problem). So if the BCS in no way resembles a Trust then pray tell how does Mr. Shurtlef plan to prosecute them under anti-trust laws?

Not only is the plan to sue the BSC misguided, it is not practical. I assume that the AG's objective is to get more fair treatment of non-BCS teams in the BCS system. The only consequence of his actions, however will be more disdain from the BCS toward non-BCS teams. His suit is the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants. And although the child's tantrum may blow off some emotional steam, it usually lands him in time-out. In this case the time-out will be greater difficulty for any non-BCS team trying to 'bust in'.

Lastly, and most importantly, the suit is morally offensive. First because of the means employed. The anti-trust laws of the United States are unconstitutional, non-objective, and designed to punish the good for being good. It is a tragedy that they were passed, and is a crime that they haven't been repealed. The ends do not justify the means, even when the ends are good (which they are not), and in this case the means make the end even worse. Second the suit is immoral because of its main premises: egalitarianism. Mark clearly believes the egalitarian mantra that everyone needs to be equal in all things. His entire argument rests on the premise that if one school has an unequal advantage over another school in getting to a bowl game, this is somehow wrong, and must be remedied, not by persuasion but by governmental force. The fact that in order to do this justice is denied and rights are violated doesn't bother him, but it does me.

The best argument against the current BCS system is the one that the Ute's gave in New Orleans. The system may be flawed, and we can work to change it, but lets not be petty little children about it. And lets certainly not sell our souls to the devil (no that isn't hyperbole, I really do feel that way about anti-trust) in an ill-fated attempt to get what we want.