The Feds enter the BCS picture.

Wikipedia.com

Nobody likes a bad neighbor. Nobody likes living beside the guy who never cuts his grass, blasts Journey at all hours of the day, and doesn't comprehend the necessity of wearing pants during his daily trip to the mailbox.

But do you call the cops on him? Do you really want your city or town's resources going towards corralling open-bathrobe Jimmy and getting his shack cleaned up?

A similar question is currently being asked in the world of college football. Should government resources be used to investigate and/or eliminate the Bowl Championship Series?

Wednesday the federal government seemed to indicate they believe the answer is yes, as the Justice Department sent a letter to NCAA president Mark Emmert questioning college football's lack of a playoff system, as well as whether or not it is benefiting the schools, players, and fans.

The act was something groups such as Playoff PAC have long hoped for, siting a lack rewarding fair competition, the devaluing of the regular season, and the disapproval of fans as reasons the government should become involved.

http://www.playoffpac.com/blog/read.aspx?id=33

Oh, and of course the money.

Despite the profit of the bowl system as a whole growing, groups such as Playoff PAC argue the disbursement of funds unfairly benefits schools from the six BCS or automatic qualifying conferences - the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12, and Big East - while offering little to no improvements to the pockets of the non-automatic qualifiers.




Playoff PAC's video breakdown of their complaints about the BCS system.

So what if we believe it's not fair. What if we completely buy into the idea of needing change. Does that justify the federal government going elementary school teacher on the situation and stepping in to ensure everyone gets equal time with the good Legos?

ESPN's college football blogger Andrea Adelson doesn't think so.

In her recent blog she argues that while the system needs to be fixed, the federal government should not be playing the role of handy man. Instead she points to the university presidents as the parties who need to get to work on the issue. 

Michael Fielder, head writer of the popular college football blog In the Bleachers,  is hesitant to trust many politicians' motivation for involvement and when asked if he saw this as a "PR move" responded with:

Fielder went on to explain that while he can see the legal right for the government to become involved, that doesn't mean it the appropriate measure to take.

In a sense, just because it would be popular, wouldn't automatically make it right. Something President Barack Obama might should have considered before making this promise in 2008.

The Los Angeles Times' Chris Dufresne takes a different approach in his opposition to government involvement.

Dufresne believes the government is merely wasting time and resources asking questions it already has or could easily "google" the answers to. He shines the light on the history of college football for the answers as to how we ended up here, while also detailing how the NCAA basically gave up its right to produce a playoff system when the BCS was created.

Clearly there is a large number of people upset about the current state of the college football postseason.

Clearly, for multiple reasons, some school benefit in various ways more than others.

What is unclear is if this truly constitutes breaking the law and if it truly is a worthwhile cause for government to undertake.

Much like with your sketchy neighbor, just because it's annoying to see an old toilet bowl and various Halloween decor littering his yard in March, always mean it a just cause swat team-esque intervention. Sometimes it does, but not always.

So what's your take? Do you want to see your government involved with college football's postseason?