(CNN) — President-elect Barack Obama left no doubt where he stands on the hottest topic in college football.
Florida won against Oklahoma in Thursday night’s BCS championship game.
“We need a playoff,” Obama told reporters after being asked about Florida’s 24-14 victory over Oklahoma in the BCS championship game Thursday night. “If I’m in Utah, or if I’m USC, or if I’m in Texas, I might still have some quibbles.”
Since its inception in 1998, the NCAA bowling championship series has withstood criticism from almost every direction.
The BCS is the system that chooses the contenders for college football’s most important playoff games: the Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar bowls, as well as the national championship game, which this year pits Oklahoma against Florida.
The BCS relies on a compilation of polls and rankings rather than, to the dismay of many, real competition.
Florida, Oklahoma and Texas all finished the season with a loss. Texas actually handed Oklahoma its only loss in October on neutral ground.
When the BCS computer system placed Florida and Oklahoma in this year’s national championship game, the annual debate over whether to have a College Football Playoff system was reignited.
Utah was the only college football team to finish the season undefeated, but its conference is considered less competitive and has therefore been at a statistical disadvantage in the BCS.
Friday wasn’t the first time Obama expressed his preference for a playoff system.
“It would add three extra weeks to the season,” Obama said in an interview with “60 Minutes” just after his election. “You could cut the regular season short. I don’t know any serious college football fan who disagrees with me on that. So, I’m going to lose my weight a little bit. I think it’s the right thing to do .”
Every year, Republicans and Democrats alike are angered by what they see as an inherent injustice in the BCS deal. In 2008, lawmakers – for one reason or another – wrote a law to invalidate the BCS on the grounds that it diverted trade. 
Watch how a playoff system could change college football »
In an April resolution, the House of Representatives formally, if not forcibly, condemned the BCS as “an unlawful restraint of trade that violates the Sherman Antitrust Act” and also urged the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division to investigate. However, since this resolution, no serious action has been taken.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, reintroduced the 2008 College Football Playoff Act on Thursday.
The bill, originally introduced on Dec. 10, would “prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, the promotion, marketing and advertising of any NCAA Division I postseason football game as a national championship game, unless that game is the culmination of an NCAA Division I football game. a fair and equitable playoff system.
If passed, this bill would apply to any gaming occurring after January 31, 2011. It would be enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission.
Barton said Thursday that those watching the championship game were “fooled.”
“The failure of this year’s BCS proves once again that it is time for college football to find a fair way to determine its champion,” he said in a statement. “It does pit two very deserving teams against each other, but can we say unequivocally that the winner will be the best team in the country?”
The BCS Governing Body – comprised of the commissioners from all NCAA Division I-A conferences; Notre Dame’s athletic director, who is not affiliated with any conference; and representatives from each bowling organization – announced in the spring of 2008 that the system would be used through at least the 2014 season.
Later, ESPN outbid Fox for a four-year television rights deal with BCS. This contract, which will begin in 2011, is based on the condition that the current system will remain in place.
Barton, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, represents Texas’ 6th District. Two of its co-sponsors, Republican Reps. Michael McCaul and Lamar Smith, represent Districts 10 and 21, respectively — two of the four districts that collectively represent Austin, home of the University of Texas.
Regardless of lawmakers’ personal affiliation with local teams, the official motivation for college football reform is the same as any similar economic reform: helping small guys compete.
The BCS is made up of eleven conferences. The six traditionally dominant conferences – Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pacific 10 and Southeastern – are guaranteed at least a spot in one of the BCS bowls. Each year they receive $18 million, plus $4.5 million for each additional team participating in a bowl game. Meanwhile, only one team from the smaller conferences – Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and Western Athletic – has this opportunity.
For the 2006-07 playoffs, an average of $25.5 million in revenue was awarded per large conference, while smaller conferences averaged $5 million each.
As the argument goes, higher playoff winnings provide an advantage — in athletic recruiting, as well as for each university as a whole — to the “powerhouse” conferences.
This is not the first time that lawmakers have expressed their discontent.
In 2005, Barton called a BCS official before an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, but no legislation resulted.
And in 2003, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees held oversight hearings to examine the BCS system, even though the combined results yielded only a soundbite from now-Vice President-elect Joe Biden:
“It doesn’t look American. (…) It looks like a rigged deal.”
Everything on College football • US Congress
