 |
Playoff PAC Response to USA Today Columnist
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
|
Drew Sharp of the Detroit Free Press has published a column in today’s edition of USA Today entitled “Capitol Idea: Keep BCS Politics Away from Congress.” The column is a reaction to Playoff PAC’s formation. Mr. Sharp’s criticisms are not novel, but they are worth rebutting.
Mr. Sharp’s disapproval is largely due to the fact that “[t]here are far more important legislative priorities” than college football reform. But this is not a point of contention. Only a truly delusional college football fan would say that fixing a sport’s post-season is more important than fighting our nation’s wars and rebooting America’s economy.
Playoff PAC agrees with Mr. Sharp. We’ve stated from the outset that college football reform is not the weightiest issue on Congress’ plate. But we also agree with President Obama, who pointed out during last year’s election that public officials “have to deal with more than one thing at a time.” We should expect our representatives to simultaneously walk and chew gum. Just because Congressman Abercrombie and Senator Hatch spend an hour on college football reform every now and then doesn’t mean they’ve disengaged from the health care debate.
Mr. Sharp’s main criticism is beside the point. He told us only why college football reform should consume less of our elected officials’ time than the economy and national security. Issues don’t need to have global implications to merit attention from our elected representatives. And Mr. Sharp never explained why college football reform is wholly unworthy of modest legislative attention.
Mr. Sharp didn’t attempt to make that case because he would have a hard time doing so. It is undeniable that college football’s reach extends past the playing field in at least three ways:
· College football is a billion-dollar enterprise. Its revenues can fund schools’ athletic departments, academic programs, and capital projects. There are off-the-field consequences when the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) distributes bowl proceeds in an anti-competitive manner.
· Football success may help schools earn national publicity, strengthen alumni networks, and boost admissions applications. There are off-the-field consequences when the BCS hands out championship and bowl invitations in a way that’s often divorced from merit.
· College football is culturally important. References to the game are ubiquitous, and Americans spend resources to study, discuss, and watch football players, coaches, and teams. There are off-the-field consequences when a cultural icon is cheapened by backroom deals and legacy entitlements.
To be clear, Playoff PAC is not advocating that government meddle in the inner workings of a private game. Nobody is asking Congress to legislate narrower uprights or mandate a fifth down. But there are real-world problems that result from the arbitrary and anti-competitive status quo. They need fixing. In an ideal world, the BCS would reform itself. BCS officials have unfortunately demonstrated their unwillingness to respond to overwhelming public sentiment. Regrettably, the BCS will listen only when addressed by a powerful voice: the people speaking through their elected representatives.
|
|
|
 |