Antitrust Suspicions Vindicated

The Senate judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy, and consumer rights will hold hearings inquiring as to the anti-competitive implications of the BCS. Maybe Dartmouth will finally get a rightful opportunity to win the national championship. Well, once we climb out of the FCS (Division I-AA), that is.

Is the BCS an Antitrust Violation?

I'm from north Florida, about 45 minutes from Gainesville. My brother attends the University of Florida, and the majority of my high school friends are Gator grads. I will be in Gainesville on Thursday night with friends watching the National College Football "Championship" game between the Florida Gators and the Oklahoma Sooners. I am a devoutly loyal fan of a professional football team from north Florida, but I couldn't care less whether the Gators win or lose on Thursday.

The absence of a playoff system to determine the champion of college football completely removes all legitimacy from the sport, and I cannot devote time and emotion to something I don't believe to be legitimate. I know I'm not alone in my apprehension towards college football because of the bowl system. The collusive activity keeping the bowl system intact has restrained my consumptive interest in the sport, and the endless complaints about the system suggests that it restrains the interest of others, too.

This sparks a question: Is the existence of the bowl system to the exclusion of a an alternative, more reasonable system (read: playoff system) to determine the sport's champion a violation of antitrust law? The basic standard, if I recall correctly from undergrad, for establishing illegal anti-competitive business practices is whether the practices represent an "unreasonable restraint of trade." I've never heard an argument that could lead one to conclude that the bowl system is reasonable.

Here's hoping I get that coveted unpaid internship with the FTC this summer. I'm taking down Dartmouth Dining Services first, the BCS second.