[Husker] The fed bringing the hear on the BCS

[Steve Reichenbach]

> If it isn't a violation of antitrust laws, then fine.

It is interesting to have some folks seeking to have the BCS overturned
on antitrust issues.  One wonders where the antitrust issues would
leave off.  Do the recruiting and compensation limits constitute
collusion that prevents athletes from receiving fair compensation?  I'm
not a lawyer, but those who are pressing these legal issues wrt to the
BCS could end up with larger problems they don't want.

As to whether a playoff would mean the end of most bowl games, I
believe the answer is yes based on the following reasoning.  In order
to sell tickets and make use of existing facilities, early rounds
(perhaps all but the final round) would be played at the home stadium
of the higher seeded team.  (It is one thing to ask sell 20K basketball
tickets to a games at a neutral sites on consecutive weekends and
another to sell 80K-100K football tickets to games at neutral sites on
consecutive weekends.  And, the travel logistics of so many fans
traveling to a neutral site on short notice is a problem for selling so
many tickets.) So, if only a few games are played at neutral sites,
most bowl games won't survive.  In fact, many of the bowl games now
exist mostly for TV and don't generate much revenue for the competing
teams.  With concurrent playoffs contending for viewers and fans, any
other bowl games would be of even less interest.

In a sense, the BCS is a two team playoff and the bowls seem pretty
healthy in that many teams get to play in mostly nice venues and the
big bowls help support athletic departments at many universities.  I
heard an interesting interview with, I believe Tulsa's coach, who said
that as a non-BCS team they still had a better shot at a BCS bowl than
many teams in BCS conferences.  What is the likelihood of Baylor or CU
or ISU or KU or KSU playing in a BCS bowl next year?  Look how long
it's been for Nebraska.