the tindog coffeehouse

Did Karl Marx, the Father of Socialism, invent college football’s Bowl Championship Series (aka the BCS)?  Or would he have approved of a “communistic” playoff system?

That appears to be the big question in college football (and even on Capitol Hill) these days.

First, during a hearing in May by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (because apparently they have nothing better to do), Congressman Joe Barton compared the BCS, which decides bowl placement based on several computer algorithms and human polls, to communism:

“It is interesting that people of good will — I think everybody on whatever side of the issue is a person of good will — keeps trying to tinker with the current system.”

“It’s like communism, you can’t fix it.”

But Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe disagrees, arguing that allowing lesser conferences to face off against “more productive” ones (i.e. the Big 12) in a playoff system is really the Soviet-approved option:

“My memory of when I studied history and Karl Marx was that a major tenet of communism involved taking from each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need,” Beebe said.

“It’s ironic we’re being labeled as communists when what was actually being asked of us was to be more communistic, taking from those of us who produce more in the marketplace and giving to those who don’t produce in the marketplace.”

Beebe may not have all his terms right, but his argument reveals exactly why he’s so adamantly opposed to playoffs.

Far from being the model of Marxism, the BCS really more closely resembles an oligopoly, an economic condition in which a small number of sellers control the market and consequently have the power to artificially manipulate supply.  In this case those small number of sellers include the six conferences with an automatic bowl bid: the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC.  Teams from other conferences can and do make it to BCS bowls, but the spots are limited and there’s no guarantee.  Instead, the BCS is designed to reward teams from the six participating conferences, even if teams from other conferences are ranked higher.

Is that fair?  No.  Is it meant to be?  No.

Just like OPEC and other oligopolies, the BCS is designed to protect the interests of its members at the expense of other potential sellers (or conferences).  One of the reasons why conferences like the Mountain West are “less productive” is because they don’t get the same kind of national exposure that BCS conferences get.  They don’t get the same television contracts, they don’t get the same licensing deals, and they don’t get the same bowl invitations, even when the BCS’s own ranking system says they should.

So does that mean we should force the BCS into total equality or replace it altogether with a playoff system?  That would be ideal, but it’s clearly not going to happen.  At least not without a revolution.

Previously:
Yes, the BCS is flawed. What’s your point?
Longhorns Inc.