Accountability is dead, the NCAA killed it – and blamed The BCS

Accountability is dead. No, I’m not the first person to say that – and I won’t be the last.

Confusion, though, is alive and well. Thriving almost.

Earlier this week, the NCAA responded to the a May 3 letter from the Justice Department – one that indicated that the college bowls may not be in accordance with antitrust laws – by basically saying, “not our problem” and pointed at the Bowl Championship Series.

Wrong.

When Bill Hancock, the executive director of the BCS, was asked by The Associated Press if he heard about the NCAA’s response, the AP reported that he: “hadn’t seen it but he was confident that it was responsive to the Justice Department’s questions.”

Perhaps Hancock ad NCAA President Mark Emmert should have a sit down discussion. They should invite every mid-major school. All of the athletes. And the fans.

For years the BCS has been the bane of every college football fans existence. Teams from smaller conferences are often overlooked when voting for the Top 25 – based on their conference, not their team. At the same time, larger schools are overrated for wins – based on the number of wins, not their schedule. Then, late in the season, the BCS computer system overlooks those the smaller schools again – based on algorithms and equations, not play on the field.

So a few weeks ago, the government intervened. The Justice Department said the BCS might not be complying with anti-trust regulations and that the NCAA should investigate a playoff system.

“We’re confident the BCS complies with the law,” Hancock told the AP. “We know it has been very good for college football.”

Complies with the law and is good for college football. When someone is defending themselves from two sides, one side is about to fall.

Just ask Germany.

That’s not to say this whole conundrum falls squarely on the shoulders of the BCS and Hancock. The NCAA and Emmert are responsible.

Emmert, though, is still adamant that the NCAA has no part in the problem. He wrote the Justice Department: “The NCAA has no role to play in the BCS or the BCS system,” adding that short of every member college and university dropping the BCS for a playoff system, “there is no directive for the [NCAA] to establish a playoff.”

The NCAA represents athletes. Watching the NCAA is shrug off responsibility onto the BCS feels like watching a politician work – not an athlete play.

It seems confusion has struck again. Does it not say, Mr. Emmert, on ncaa.org under the “Who We Are” tab:

“The NCAA oversees 88 championships in 23 sports. There are more than 400,000 student-athletes competing in three divisions at over 1,000 colleges and universities within the NCAA.”

The dictionary definition of oversee: to direct; supervise; manage.

The dictionary definition of directive: serving to direct; directing.

Those are quite similar.

It is understandable that the NCAA shy away from reform. It isn’t simple. It costs money. It’s imperfect.

Then again, so is the current system.

Remember, it is the responsibility of the NCAA to oversee and direct how each championship is conducted. Certainly the NCAA can license as many bowls as it pleases but in the end it is responsible for crowning a champion – justly.

With the BCS in place, that is not happening. The NCAA has sub-contracted the BCS to crown a champion in college football and the process lacks fairness to schools outside the six major conferences and is in violation of what the NCAA claims as it’s responsibility.

The NCAA prides itself on hold teams and players accountable for their actions. But, perhaps the NCAA could look in the mirror and take a lesson from the students and use the lessons from on the field, and apply them to life, off of it.