"The current system of determining who's No. 1 appears deeply flawed," Texas Congressman Joe Barton believes. He's speaking of that huge state interest(!) the federal government has in college football, something that escaped the notice of the Founding Fathers. It hasn't escaped the notice of Barton's constituents--Longhorn fans no doubt--so he will hold hearings next week. That this occurs when interest in potential Bowl matchups is at its height, and not, say, next April, is also no coincidence. What a joke.

I perfer the old system, which was perhaps more "deeply flawed" at determining a number one team. Bowl games, at least in my lifetime, pitted regional conference champions against regional conference champions. Doesn't it strike you as a sacrilidge for the Big 10 and Pac 10 champs not to meet in the Rose Bowl? It's too bad the NCAA scrapped tradition, but the advent of the designated hitter, NFL instant replay, the three-point shot, hockey two-line passes, and the BCS are no cause for a congressional investigation.

I agree. Bowls used to be significant games between championship caliber teams. Now there are so many that UVA is being considered for a bowl bid. The NCAA and the schools have sold excellence for the dollars from TV revenue and ticket sales. UVA and Cal do not deserve the recognition of a bowl bid, and I have attended both schools.

Killing tradition, like the Rose Bowl match-ups, is equally appalling. And this was done to create the fatally flawed BCS system. Unbelievable.

Yeah, Cranky O.M., 6-5 teams playing in bowl games is something that I didn't touch on in the post but that is pretty bad too. The idea that a team can end the year at .500 after having played in a bowl game really minimizes bowl games.

Nowadays, if a corporation named Toilet Inc. were to sponsor it, you can bet the NCAA would create a Toilet Bowl. Or is that the new name of the Superdome...?

Like Cranky O.M., Jeremiah makes an excellent point. Not only is the assault on tradition and inclusion of .500 teams offensive, but the names of bowls these days are really, really ridiculous. Here are the names of the almost 30 college bowl games that will occur over the next month:

ROSE BOWL
FEDEX ORANGE BOWL
NOKIA SUGAR BOWL
TOSTITOS FIESTA BOWL
WYNDHAM NEW ORLEANS BOWL
POINSETTIA BOWL
GMAC BOWL
PIONEER PURE VISION LAS VEGAS BOWL
FORT WORTH BOWL
SHERATON HAWAII BOWL
MOTOR CITY BOWL
CHAMPS SPORTS BOWL
INSIGHT BOWL
MPC COMPUTERS BOWL
MASTERCARD ALAMO BOWL
EMERALD BOWL
PACIFIC LIFE HOLIDAY BOWL
GAYLORD HOTELS MUSIC CITY BOWL
VITALIS SUN BOWL
INDEPENDENCE BOWL
CHICK-FIL-A PEACH BOWL
MEINEKE CAR CARE BOWL
AUTOZONE LIBERTY BOWL
EV1. NET HOUSTON BOWL
OUTBACK BOWL
SBC COTTON BOWL CLASSIC
TOYOTA GATOR BOWL
CAPITAL ONE BOWL

Congress????? Are these people doing such a bang-up job of writing laws that for their next trick they are going to improve on college football? If they are truly in need of work why don't we have congress work 1/4 of the year, paid accordingly, and let them work second jobs?

Football was fine before colleges et al decided to see just how much dough they could squeeze out of it. It used to be a friendly competition between students of rival schools and now it is about revenue generation. Competition I like. Screwing competition for money, no.

Is this really what we pay these weasels for? Should they really be getting involved in sports entertainment at any level or at any capacity unless something about it is threatening the people they serve?

I think not!

Ever intrusive government.

Longhorn fans? Get a clue Dan. In case you didn't notice, there is no controversy this season because Texas and USC were the only teams to go undefeated.

Texas leads the country in ppg, and is the only team with a top 10 offense AND defense. In addition, the Horns have a Heismann candidate (Young), a Thorpe Award finalist (Huff) and a Lombardi Award finalist (Wright). They are the best team in the nation and will demonstrate their superiority on January 4th.

Ralph: USC is #1 and Texas is #2. They are both undefeated. You say Texas is the best team in the nation but the rankings say otherwise. Even though the BCS will likely settle this in January, you undermine your own point in your rant. Clearly, Texas fans do not agree with the BCS rankings. You think Texas is best. The BCS doesn't.

Right back at you on "get a clue." Do you really think I am unaware of the records of USC and Texas? Even when there are just two undefeated teams, they are the only teams concerned with the BCS rankings. No one cares so much if they are 9-2 and slighted with a ranking of 11 instead of 8. The fans that care passionately about the BCS rankings are the fans of the teams in the hunt for the number one ranking, and only those fans. Texas and USC fans, and just Texas and USC fans, sweat nervously about some BCS computer quirk. I find it altogether curious that the congressman launching this ridiculous investigation hails from the football-obsessed state where one of the two teams vying for the BCS title hail from.

"Do you really think I am unaware of the records of USC and Texas?"

It's a reasonable conclusion to draw from your suggestion that Texas fans are the impetus behind Barton's hearings. The Longhorns have controlled their own destiny for over a month (since VT lost to Miami). As a result, a playoff system has been low on UT fans' list of priorities.

"Even when there are just two undefeated teams, they are the only teams concerned with the BCS rankings."

No they're not. First off, the only two teams not concerned with BCS rankings are the two undefeated teams. If there were no undefeated teams or a single undefeated team, then the top five or six would be concerned about the first and second rankings. Second, there was a good deal of concern among one and two loss teams that were not conference champions: Ohio State, Notre Dame, Oregon. Case in point, because Ohio State finished in the top four and Notre Dame the top six, both were invited to the Fiesta Bowl, and Oregon (a very good 9-1 team whose only loss came to USC) ends up playing Oklahoma in a third tier bowl.

By the way, the difference between BCS first and second rankings is irrelevant because the two teams get to decide the matter on the field. That makes the current system superior to the old system (though both are infereior to a playoff). In the old system, the two best teams rarely ever played each other to decide who's the best. So you'd end up with co-champions (Nebraska and Penn State in 1995, Nebraska and Michigan in 1997). That is, the championship was left completely in the hands of voters. At least with the BCS, something is decided on the football field.

I tend to agree, I prefer the older system of conference champs going against eachother. I don't see why its so important that there's an official "national champion"

Worth noting that this is not the first time the government has intervened in college football. In fact modern football rules originated by Teddy Roosevelt's intervention http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/kidscorner/football.htm

Ralph: Fans of undefeated teams, save for the end of the regular season, are generally the most concerned about BCS quirks--even when there are just two undefeated teams. Listening to sports radio, and the calls of UT fans, would have cured your ignorance on this matter (or maybe not given your notorious obstinacy). Had, say, USC and Texas both lost late in the season, it might have been a USC-Penn State national championship game. Texas would have been excluded from the championship game, despite having the same record as Penn State and USC. This is the type of BCS computer quirk that I'm referring to that makes fans of the elite top-25 teams nervous. Obviously, there's nothing, save the opposing squad, for USC or Texas to be worried about now. But during the season, fans often worry more about the BCS formula than opposing teams.

The only concern that UT fans had about the BCS rankings were from around week 8 (when there were 7 unbeaten teams) to week 12 (when the last remaining unbeaten threat to Texas lost). There was talk that, should USC, Texas and Virginia Tech win out, Texas would be left out. Then the same was repeated about USC, Texas and Alabama.

The suggestion that I need to consume more sports media misses the mark (just ask my wife). I listen to and read the local sports media in Texas, I am a Longhorns fan, and so I know what the concerns are (or were).

The fact is this. Whatever the concerns were by Longhorns fans, they ended two weaks ago when Bama lost. That's well in advance of Barton's announcement, and so any suggested connection between the two is incorrect.

As for my "notorious obstinacy," it fits in well with that of many particpants on this board.

Ralph: We agree that UT and USC fans have no BCS BCS worries now. You seem to have come around to the idea that UT fans may have had some BCS "concerns" earlier in the season. My point is that the immediate "concerns" of Texas fans disappeared because of UT's play, not because they now view the BCS as a good system. In other words, no harm no foul doesn't work here. Fans of top teams still resent the BCS because the threat it poses to defeat teams that can't be defeated on the field. This position resonates most with the fans of the top teams (Texas, USC). Period. End of story.

I'm a BC fan and I never had a single concern about the BCS screwing my team this year. I'm sure if you ask a Wisconsin or Iowa fan, they'll tell you the same thing. The only people who had immediate concerns about the BCS screwing over their team are the top teams (this includes Texas). There will always be general concerns about the BCS. But its most heated critics will always be the fans of teams, who at that moment, stand to lose the most by the BCS. This year, those people were UT fans. That the BCS did not, ultimately, screw them over does not suddenly make the UT fans, who once carped about the BCS system, converts to it.

I couldn't agree more. All my life, my only interest in sports has been in those that have some kind of one-on-one competition: tennis (and all other racquet sports), motor sports, golf, etc. I have always been bored to death by team sports, their plodding pace and plethora of rules.

I have also been incensed, for many years, that the majority of time allotted to local TV newscasts has increasingly been dominated by the sports report, as if the ephemeral and incessant tallying of wins and defeats in various games that I haven't played since I was a child are more important than critical world events.

In a world in which the sports report is as much about some basketball star's cocaine addiction or some baseball star's use of steroids or some boxer's rape trial as it is about the outcomes and macinations of the various games covered, it is no wonder ticket sales for some sports are down, while those in which stories of drug abuse, infidelity, criminal activity and so on don't seem to exist (NASCAR) are drawing the largest crowds. No surprise, really, as NASCAR isn't dominated by people who would otherwise be serving time in prison if they had no talent for sports.