Very rarely do politics and sports intercede (the last time was the Mitchel report about steroid use in baseball), but when they do, I sometimes feel the need to jump ship from politics and take my soap box in the sports arena.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently asked President Obama to investigate the Bowl Championship Series under the Sherman Anti-Trust law. This may be one of the first truly bi-partisan efforts that I can fully stand behind. Quite frankly, Senator Hatch might be a genius if he pull this off.
We all heard President Obama say that if he was elected President he would "throw [his] weight around a little bit" to influence a college football playoff system. Well, Mr. President, this is one campaign promise I do not want you to break.
Senator Hatch represents Utah, where his home school (the University of Utah) went undefeated last year, yet was passed over by the BCS system to play in the national championship. Instead, Florida and Oklahoma were invited to play in the national championship game.
There has always been a cloud of controversy surrounding how the BCS championship game is selected. There are "BCS conferences", conferences whose teams get automatic bids to participate in top-tier bowl games where non-BCS conference teams do not. Teams that play in the top-tier bowl games receive more exposure, revenue from ticket sales, and have a better advantage when it comes to recruiting and transferring ticket revenue to less popular sports.
Senator Hatch argues the BCS violates anti-trust law because the system "has been designed to limit the number of teams from non-privileged conferences that will play in BCS games". He adds the BCS system "artificially limits the number of nationally-relevant bowl games to five. The result is reduced access to revenues and visibility which creates disadvantages to schools in the non-privileged conferences."I completely agree with Senator Hatch's claims. The BCS system is inequitable by discriminating against schools from weaker conferences.
The call for change is nothing new. Some say the regular season acts as the playoff system in that every game is equally important to your post-season success, but in my opinion a playoff would show which teams can play better against better teams. Pretty much every major conference team schedules teams from weaker conferences, like the Sun Belt (a garbage conference) or even Division I-AA teams (like EKU and Morehead) to get more wins and become bowl-eligible. That's like Middlesboro and Bell County playing West Jessamine Middle School to get more wins and pad statistics. But because it's the norm and the culture of college football programs today, no one really questions it. [On a side note, as much as I dislike them, a big kudos to USC for playing both Notre Dame and Ohio State on the road and coming away with wins; watch them in the BCS bowl picture this year.]
In the BCS system, strength of a team's schedule determines better teams. This may be the case, but what about teams that get hot late in the season that could really do some damage in the playoffs? Sometimes it just takes a few games for a team to hit their stride. Does this mean that the teams that play the best football late in the season are less deserving to play in the title game if they have a loss or two? What about a good team that has a late season loss (which hurts the team more than an early season loss under the BCS computer system's analysis). A playoff allows any doubt as to the supremacy of a team to be removed.
If you make a playoff system for college football, that is a significant increase in funding for school athletics programs. Most people suggest a 16 or 8 team national championship playoff, which I support. Other teams that qualify for bowl games would still receive a bowl but, just not a bid to the national championship playoff. More games equal more money for schools and an uncontested national champion. None of this "split national champions" shenanigans that we've seen recently (LSU and USC in 2003-2004, for instance).
In America, sporting events and sporting merchanide is a major component of our economy. President Obama would be wise to start throwing his weight around now and call this his second "stimulus package". Instead of creating jobs by spending money, he would create jobs and stimulate some spending just by asking the BCS to abolish their current system and just add a few extra games to the post-season. I know I wouldn't mind a few more weeks of football season. In fact it might be one of the things I might praise President Obama for.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
This Nobel is "Prized" No Longer
On Friday, October 9th, 2009, it was announced by the Nobel Committee that President Obama was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. This is quite an accomplishment for anyone to achieve, especially our President.
But something is amiss here. How could a President who has been in office for less than a year receive an award that is based on the actual work of an individual to bring peace to the world? Did I miss something? Did President Obama help diffuse racial problems in East Chicago? Did he solve the conflict-diamond problem in Africa? Did he personally propose and champion legislation as a Senator that removed the United States from all foreign wars? Is he the reincarnation of Mother Theresa?
There's a lot that we don't know about President Obama, but I seriously doubt that we missed his appearance in the movie, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Quite frankly, I think Superman or even Christopher Reeve deserves the Nobel Peace Prize before President Obama does.
What has President Obama done to promote peace in his relatively short time as our Nation's leader? He may have traveled across seas to talk to some heads of state and walked out of a United Nation's address by President Ahmadinejad (so did a lot of other world leaders), but that's normal business for the President (even Bush). So surely these cannot be the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize!
President Obama is currently in two wars. Doesn't this seem to be a disqualifying characteristic for the Nobel Peace Prize. Granted they are inherited, but nonetheless, should you win a peace award when you are Commander in Chief of a nation at war?
When you look at Nobel Peace Prize Laurettes, one name that is missing and should be included is Mahatma Gandhi. He never won a Nobel Peace Prize and he starved himself for India's independence from Britain. That's a lot more work towards peace than just succeeding President Bush (which I assume is the reason Obama is receiving this award).
It has been publicized that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama based on the "potential" he demonstrates to bring peace. I'm sorry, I didn't know that awards were made based on how good you "might" be. I guess that means competitive sports are finished. We can just award a trophy/championship to the team that starts their respective season ranked above all other teams.
And what's more damning is that the Nobel Committee's deadline for Peace Prize candidates is February 1st. President Obama would have been in office for less than two weeks. That's hardly enough time for Obama to clean the Oval Office and settle in. This further justifies my believe he received the award simply because he succeeded Bush.
The point is, currently we don't know what type of legacy President Obama will leave behind, but I do know that there hasn't been enough done to justify him receiving this award. I don't care if he began making friendly with Muslims; he has just started his work and nothing has come of it. In my opinion, this is just proof that the Nobel Committee either has a severe Liberal bias or a severe Obama bias. Quite frankly it tarnishes the Nobel Peace Prize to award it based on the "potential" someone has to do good rather than the actual good he or she has performed.
I'm not saying that President Obama doesn't have the potential to win the award, I sincerely hope he is capable of establishing peace in the Middle-East. But until that work is done, awarding this prize to President Obama is disrespectful to the work of the men and women who received the award in years past.
But something is amiss here. How could a President who has been in office for less than a year receive an award that is based on the actual work of an individual to bring peace to the world? Did I miss something? Did President Obama help diffuse racial problems in East Chicago? Did he solve the conflict-diamond problem in Africa? Did he personally propose and champion legislation as a Senator that removed the United States from all foreign wars? Is he the reincarnation of Mother Theresa?
There's a lot that we don't know about President Obama, but I seriously doubt that we missed his appearance in the movie, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Quite frankly, I think Superman or even Christopher Reeve deserves the Nobel Peace Prize before President Obama does.
What has President Obama done to promote peace in his relatively short time as our Nation's leader? He may have traveled across seas to talk to some heads of state and walked out of a United Nation's address by President Ahmadinejad (so did a lot of other world leaders), but that's normal business for the President (even Bush). So surely these cannot be the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize!
President Obama is currently in two wars. Doesn't this seem to be a disqualifying characteristic for the Nobel Peace Prize. Granted they are inherited, but nonetheless, should you win a peace award when you are Commander in Chief of a nation at war?
When you look at Nobel Peace Prize Laurettes, one name that is missing and should be included is Mahatma Gandhi. He never won a Nobel Peace Prize and he starved himself for India's independence from Britain. That's a lot more work towards peace than just succeeding President Bush (which I assume is the reason Obama is receiving this award).
It has been publicized that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama based on the "potential" he demonstrates to bring peace. I'm sorry, I didn't know that awards were made based on how good you "might" be. I guess that means competitive sports are finished. We can just award a trophy/championship to the team that starts their respective season ranked above all other teams.
And what's more damning is that the Nobel Committee's deadline for Peace Prize candidates is February 1st. President Obama would have been in office for less than two weeks. That's hardly enough time for Obama to clean the Oval Office and settle in. This further justifies my believe he received the award simply because he succeeded Bush.
The point is, currently we don't know what type of legacy President Obama will leave behind, but I do know that there hasn't been enough done to justify him receiving this award. I don't care if he began making friendly with Muslims; he has just started his work and nothing has come of it. In my opinion, this is just proof that the Nobel Committee either has a severe Liberal bias or a severe Obama bias. Quite frankly it tarnishes the Nobel Peace Prize to award it based on the "potential" someone has to do good rather than the actual good he or she has performed.
I'm not saying that President Obama doesn't have the potential to win the award, I sincerely hope he is capable of establishing peace in the Middle-East. But until that work is done, awarding this prize to President Obama is disrespectful to the work of the men and women who received the award in years past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
