For nearly three months, it had been all quiet on the congressional front as far as the BcS is concerned, with the key word there being “had”.
Shortly after BcS executive director Bill Hancock issued a response Thursday to the letter sent by Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Max Baucus back in March — a response that told the senators they should, basically, mind their own business — Hatch let loose with his own salvo in this on-again, off-again catfight between the two parties.
And, needless to say, Hatch was not pleased with how Hancock and the BcS addressed their concerns.
“Today, the BCS simply confirmed what most fans of college football have known for some time, that the BCS system is biased, secretive and harmful to schools and competitors,” Hatch said in a statement.
That was just the beginning as the Senator threatened further Congressional action if the current system does not self-correct the inequities involved in postseason college football.
“I agree that university presidents and conference commissioners should be able to make the proper decisions regarding college football,” Hatch said. “The problem is that the small number of privileged schools that participate in the closed system have been unwilling to provide students, athletes and fans with what they deserve a fair, unbiased system like the kind they have in literally every other NCAA sport. No one wants to see Congress get involved here, including me. But if this response is any indication, there may not be any other option.”
In quotes published by the Salt Lake Tribune, Hatch referred to the BcS as “arrogant”, which was neither the first nor the last time that particular label has been slapped on the collegiate cartel.
“Our letter gave them an opportunity to reply with openness and transparency about how the BCS system actually works. In response, we got an arrogant rebuke and a series of incomplete and evasive answers to simple question.”
(Sound of me giving Sen. Hatch a standing ovation from my office. While not wearing pants.)
So, what does all of this mean? In the short-term, probably nothing much. In the long-term, however, Hancock has seemed to sufficiently piss off at least one U.S. Senator to the point where he’s just going to dig his heels in even further and go after the BcS through every available channel.
And, if he does, good for him. Somebody needs to slap the smug off the BcS’ face, once and for all.
Even if it means Tony Barnhart’s “doomsday scenario” comes to fruition.