Is This the Way to Anarchy?

Is This the Way to Anarchy?  There are two national parties in America today.  There are the Republicans, who recently gained electoral control of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Presidency.  Over the last 8 years of Obama’s presidency, the Republicans have gained about 1,000 federal and state political legislative offices.  Be it wise or unwise, the American voters have placed the Republicans in charge of this government.  They have a mandate to deliver on their campaign rhetoric. Then there are the Batshit Crazies (BCs), formerly known as the Democrats.  For clarification, please refer to: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=batshit%20crazy

Now there are many intelligent and reasonable people in the BCs.  Many of my friends are BCs.  The BCs actually hold 47 seats in the U.S. Senate and several in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The BCs represent a lot of people in this nation and their views need to be represented and heard.  It should also be noted that there many members of the Republican Party who are also Batshit Crazy, but they do not represent either the leadership of their party nor do they represent the majority of their party.  After witnessing the behavior, the rhetoric, and the public actions of Schumer and Pelosi, the recognized leaders of the BCs, over the last few days, it is pretty clear that the lunatics now control the asylum. 

Without any doubt, there is room for sincere and principled disagreement with President Trump’s executive orders on immigration.  But it is equally true that given that disagreement, the practical language and effects of the orders are both legal and temporary in nature; they do not establish any type of new precedent for actions that have not been instituted in some form previously.  To gin this story up to the manic levels we are now seeing is simply irresponsible and dangerous.   When combined with the similar BC histrionics that have occurred since the presidential election, it is pretty clear that national party opposition has been taken to a new and ominous level.

Donald Trump was a very poor choice for President.  In fact, he only won the office because the BCs put up one of the few people who could be considered a poorer choice.  That being said, Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election and is now the 45^th President.  Along with McConnell and Ryan, he represents the official Executive and Legislative leadership of this nation.  In order to be legitimate, effective, and produce reasonable governing results, this leadership must be willing and able to negotiate with the opposition party…that being the BCs.  But after witnessing the top-to-bottom behavior of denial by the BCs following the November elections, the critical question is: Exactly WHO can they negotiate with?

There is apparently no space between the bubble-headed idiots in Hollywood that eternally reside in the fantasies they are paid to create and the BC leadership in WDC.  There is apparently no space between the mindless zombies that protested in the Women’s March and the BC leadership in WDC.  There is apparently no space between many of the music industry’s leading performers, who believe themselves to be seers and prophets, and the BC leadership in WDC.  There must be many BC party members who are standing quietly on the sidelines right now wondering how their party has so quickly morphed into the BCs.   But until they stand up and speak some reason to their party’s denial and bizarre behavior, there is no space between them and the BC party leadership in WDC. 

So the question remains:  Who the hell do the Republicans negotiate with?  You cannot hold a decent conversation, much less a reasonable negotiation, with a person who is batshit crazy.  Will the BCs moan and bitch and wail and protest their way into complete and utter irrelevance?  Will the citizenry ultimately become weary of the BCs (and their media sponsors’) infantile behavior and simply tune them out?  Will we be condemned to a presidential term of one party rule with no meaningful input from their opposition?  Will the Republicans at some point simply engage the nuclear option for politics in general and begin to rule in some type of autocratic fashion?  Donald Trump, left to his own devices, will be a disaster for this country.  Republican one-party rule of the Congress will be a disaster for this country.  If the BCs are this crazy at this early stage in Trump’s presidency, what lies ahead when many, many major decisions and policies will be forthcoming (SCOTUS nominee, Immigration Reform, Tax Reform)?  Who will stand for the BCs and make an attempt at honest policy debate without total hysteria?  What will happen if a national emergency, foreign or domestic, develops and the true unity of our government is put to the test? 

It is early in the game.  There is still time for the political games to play out to some type of awkward but functional ending.  But the rapid escalation of the political tensions between the Republicans and the BCs is unsettling at best and truly frightening at worst.  This way lays anarchy.

The Implications of Macro versus Micro.

The Implications of Macro versus Micro.  I take comfort in the fact that, at least in my own mind, I am everyman.  While it is true that my personal philosophy tends to old-school and conservative beliefs; there are many, many times when I cross over the political line and take a stance on an issue that can be considered  moderate and on rare occasions, somewhat liberal.  I think that my unremarkable life is a good example of what many Americans experience in their own spheres of existence.  This particular blog reflects that assumption.

At some point in the last few years, our society has changed its attitude towards current events, the media, and most things political.   Meanwhile, the mainstream media has taken on an attitude of micro coverage when a President’s policies do not align with their own liberal philosophies.  More specifically, they parse every action or phrase and every policy or initiative in an effort to find any possible error in fact or theory.  Oftentimes, in lieu of factual errors, they cast a shadow upon their subject by simply presenting a side of the story that suits their agenda.  As Orwell famously said: Propaganda is as much a matter of what is left out, as of what is actually said.  They might report a true story; it just isn’t the entire story.  This micro coverage has been most apparent when we have as subjects Republican Presidents or conservative representatives.  In other words, the media representations of “the news” are colored by their personal beliefs.  However, when we have a President that apparently holds the same political philosophy as the mainstream media (i.e. Democrat; more specifically Obama), we see that the media coverage takes a macro approach.  They focus on the bigger, broader, longer range perspective of the action or phrase and, in turn, forgive the occasional misrepresentation or outright distortion of the facts.  They are much more forgiving.  The obvious problem with this media approach is not in the selection of style they choose to employ, micro versus macro; both are legitimate approaches to news coverage.  The problem is in their selectivity of application and the arbitrary nature of how they decide when and where to apply a certain style.  Through this selectivity process, they have exposed their bias and compromised their journalistic integrity.  They have forfeited much, if not most, of the respect that most citizens once held for the media community.  While the public still holds a high regard and loyalty to the necessity of a free press in our society; they have pretty much lost all respect and confidence in the free press we currently have.  

This loss of trust in the media has led the public to adopt a macro approach to the world.  Rather than being manipulated and controlled by the daily headline or the 24-hour news cycle, the American voter now considers a broader and longer picture of events.  Aided by the internet and cable/satellite television, most informed citizens now consider multiple sources and tend to form their judgments over a period of days or weeks, as opposed to minutes or hours.  They have become more sophisticated in their ability to detect bullshit and they are no longer simply pliable victims of a biased mainstream media.

The Trump Administration seems to understand this; but I cannot imagine a more difficult job than that held by Sean Spicer.  President Trump goes around throwing rhetorical bombs and Spicer is left with the chore of coming in to clean up the damage; but here is what I find most amusing.  A pattern seems to be developing where Trump will toss out a particular bomb that will have a flaw or two in a micro sense.  Parts of his statements or tweets are simply wrong.  The media leap upon those flaws with glee and unbound enthusiasm.  As they are wont to do, they overreach and happily go over the top when they find a narrative in which they perceive an opening.  They cannot see the forest (macro) for the trees (micro).  But as we are beginning to realize, many of Trump’s bombs that have micro flaws are quite correct and spot on when we consider them in a macro sense.  At some point, either the press will learn to restrain themselves when micro errors are exposed and wait for the macro picture to accurately unfold or they will continue to be the infantile puppets that are continually having their strings pulled by an amused Trump Administration.  As the old saying goes…If you can’t identify the mark at the poker table, the mark is you.  The mainstream media apparently does not realize it yet as they flounder about to ensnare the Trump Presidency in micro errors, but right now…the mark is them.  What we might be seeing is President Trump’s willingness to lose a micro battle in order win a macro war.  That is pretty shrewd strategy and it will be quite interesting to see how it develops.  Some examples of micro versus micro follow.

Conway and Spicer have been roundly ridiculed in media circles for their phrase alternative facts.  In a micro sense, there is no such thing as alternative facts.  A fact, by its definition, is a single version of a truth.  However, the facts you choose to employ in your argument or presentation makes all the difference in the world.  It is natural that we each choose the selected facts that support our personal beliefs.  Therefore, in the macro sense, there are certainly alternative facts; a different set of facts that another person might choose to present a different version of an event or a position.  The public gets this.  But the press still believes they are the masters of information and can manipulate public sentiment by juxtapositioning their use of micro and macro news coverage. 

Trump pops off about his inaugural crowd size.  His ego pushes him to state that his WDC crowd was as big as or bigger than Obama’s (size does matter…at least to Trump).  The reality is that WDC and the surrounding multi-state region is overwhelmingly Democratic and common sense tells you that it is far easier to gather a crowd from a short distance than from a long distance.  When we couple that with the fact that Obama was the first black President and it was an historical marker that we all celebrated as a nation, it should not be surprising that Obama’s crowd was larger…on the ground…in a micro sense.  However, the overall attendance of Trump’s inauguration, including television/radio/internet, was undoubtedly larger than Obama’s.  Many Americans, like my wife and me, eschewed an expensive trip to WDC by plane or train or car; bypassed the aggravation of dealing with troublesome and perhaps threatening protesters; and saved ourselves the unreasonable expense of accommodations in the WDC area.  We simply watched the inauguration in our sunroom with a cup of coffee.  Point being: in a macro sense, Trump’s crowd was larger.

There will be a Supreme Court nomination next week.  In a micro sense, it will be highly contentious and controversial.  Some are predicting nothing short of world war between conservatives and liberals in Congress when the confirmation process begins in earnest.  However, if we look at this particular nomination in a macro sense, it is entirely likely that the sound and fury will not match the actual conflict on the Senate floor.  This nominee will replace Scalia; one of the most conservative members of the Court.  With Scalia, the Court tended towards a 5-4 conservative tilt; Kennedy and Roberts pleasantly surprising liberals on occasion with their opinions and votes.  This current Trump nominee will simply restore the balance to what it was before Scalia’s death.  I imagine the Democrats will rail and whine, scream and shout, and oppose Trump’s nominee with the requisite liberal blood in their eyes; but they will keep their powder dry and reserve their main artillery for the next nominee that Trump will likely make.  That will be to replace a clearly liberal member with a clearly conservative member and could actually tilt the balance of the court to the right.  That is the macro sense.

Immigration policy is a literal onion of complication and layers and will no doubt expose raw emotion and conflict not only between Democrats and Republicans, but within the Parties themselves.  This is the macro discussion that will require some type of practical disposition about how to deal with the millions of non-criminal illegal aliens currently residing in this country.  But in the micro sense, it is a fact that until we secure our borders and assess the status of immigration laws and policies that currently exist, no meaningful progress can be made on the broad subject of immigration reform.  Trump’s focus on “the wall” and “criminal illegal aliens” addresses this macro problem with a micro approach and the public understands that. 

You waste your time, and sometimes risk your personal safety, preaching to an unemployed man or woman about climate change or white privilege when their main focus is paying for food and utilities, providing shelter for their families, and trying to get their kids raised in a proper fashion.  Trump gets this.  His business-centric background puts a premium on efficiency, effectiveness, and profit.  How this translates to the art of government is yet to be determined; but in the public’s mind, it is clear that the time has come to try out this new approach.  Obama took a macro approach to the world that sought to re-frame our planet and nation in his vision; he was an ideologue.  In his mind, the end justified the means.  Trump takes a micro, pragmatic approach to the Presidency that focuses on jobs, security and the daily concerns of citizen survival.  While preservation of natural resources is important, we must first address providing a decent quality of life for our people.  It is a matter of priorities and the public gets this.

President Trump has been roundly ballyhooed for claiming up to 3 million fraudulent votes kept him from winning the popular vote in the election.  There seems to be little, if any, hard evidence to support a number this large.  However, it is also undeniable that when considering America among the world’s democracies, we have some of the most lax voter identification policies on the planet.  There can be little, if any, doubt that voter fraud does exist and that on certain occasions (I’m looking at you, Senator Franken), it might very well have decided contests that were razor-thin in their margins.  In a micro sense, Trump’s 3 million claim sounds ludicrous and the media is doing their happy dance of ridicule all around it.  In a macro sense, this might be the opening to finally take a serious look at the true extent of voter fraud in this country and the results of that examination might not be what the Democrats would like to expose. 

NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN….no one holds an exclusive franchise on reporting the facts in today’s world.  They are all having an extremely difficult time adjusting to this new reality.  President Trump and the Republicans hold a hard and fast grasp on the raw power numbers that translate into leverage in WDC.  If they have the discipline and backbone to embrace that power and use it effectively, the mainstream media is going to have to grow up and come to grips with their new place in the pecking order.  They are going to have to return to the traditional roles and principles of journalism and compete on the basis of who best reports the factual story in a timely and concise fashion.  They are going to have to understand that the public wants to think for themselves and not be told how they should behave.  The mainstream media is going to have to understand that cannot play their micro versus macro games any longer and try to use them to manipulate the news in a fashion that suits their personal beliefs.  A message to the mainstream media: Let the checkout-lane tabloids and TMZ cover the chickenshit stories that you are so obsessed with these days.  Use your experience, your intelligence, and your resources to cover the important news in today’s world in an honest, balanced, and concise fashion.

It's Not the Man; It's the Message.

It’s Not the Man; It’s the Message.  The arrogance and bluster of President Trump will not serve him well over the balance of his term.  Even though he rhetorically avoided the narcissistic over-usage of self-pronouns ala Obama during his inaugural speech, he nonetheless comes across as eerily similar to Obama in his certitude and air of self importance.  It is unlikely that this is going to change.  Trump has exhibited the same personal style from the day he announced for the Republican nomination to the day he addressed the nation on January 20.  The commendations he will get for consistency and messaging will be severely discounted by his presentation.  The impact of these discounts will be realized in three main areas.

In today’s polarized society, anyone (and I do mean anyone…Attila the Hun, Saul Alinsky, Triple H, Jimmy Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal…) could garner 30-35 percent support if they were perceived as the sole representative of the radical-left or the radical-right in some type of political contest.  The fact is that 35-45 percent of the American public will be opposed to President Trump because he is a Republican; because he defeated Hillary Clinton; because he succeeded Obama; and because his policies will tend to be moderate to conservative.  His critics do not need any rational or pragmatic reason to oppose this man; these reasons in and of themselves prove to be quite sufficient.  So when President Trump begins to infuse his messaging with hubris, overt sarcasm, over-the-top tweets, and a huge ego; it only serves to give those who oppose him on irrational grounds excuses to continue their excitable criticisms.  Rather than pushing them to compete with his policies on a practical and rational basis, it allows them to continue their sophomoric behavior in direct response to his sophomoric behavior.  This, in turn, will give the liberal media all the license it needs to cover his dissenters as though they were Solomonic in their wisdom and demeanor.  Put simply: It gives people that don’t like him and don’t want him to be successful an opening to work against him in ways they wish too.  This they will do with enthusiasm and unless we see the unlikely event of a presidential change in presentation, it will make for an extremely contentious Trump administration.

For those who think Trump is the answer to their long-whispered prayers for a conservative political savior, Trump’s bloviations will only be a distraction from what they consider to be the announcement of a long-awaited and critically-necessary conservative agenda.  His arbitrary and impromptu announcements of broad policy initiatives will open the door for specific policy disagreements within the Republican Party itself.  His tendency to latch onto the phrase that is best turned in a political sense will, at times, be at odds with the phrase that best describes, in a practical sense, what exactly is being proposed.  I could not help noting that from the moment Donald Trump became our next President, all the way back to election day and night, Paul Ryan has been wearing a grin that two gallons of Goop and a case of Brillo pads could not remove.  It is easy to understand why he is happy.  A House majority leader must live for the moment when his or her party controls both Congress and the White House, and they can also 0look forward to a moderate-to-conservative tilt at the Supreme Court.  For quite possibly the first time in his political career, he can sense the prospect of actually generating legislation that will become law.  Once he begins dealing with President Trump’s extemporaneous utterances and tweets on a daily basis, it will be interesting to see how long that grin will last. 

Donald Trump was elected President for many reasons; Russian hacking not being one of them.  In my opinion, foremost among these reasons is the fact that Americans are sick and tired of politics as usual and want to see a change in the way our government conducts its business.  There was a critical moment in the Presidential Race that enabled Trump to win.  That moment was when a sufficient number of people in essential states were convinced not that Trump was the most qualified candidate to be President; not that Trump was the most knowledgeable candidate to be President; not that Trump could be that rare and inspirational leader that would bring our divided nation together…No.  That moment was when these voters were convinced that Trump was not a loose cannon that would incite war, destroy our economy, and allow the train of government to run completely off the rails.  They reached the conclusion that for all of his faults, he was a preferable choice to the corrupt candidacy of Hillary Clinton and was worth a risk.  That risk involves the mandate to employ a new, business-oriented approach to government; an approach that will be devoid-as-possible of politics and will be guided by practical and pragmatic principles; an approach that eschews posturing for performance; an approach that should exhibit results and not rhetoric.  People were, and are, ready for an outsider approach to government administration; Donald Trump was in the right place at the right time to be that outsider.   If he allows himself to confuse his election as a choice of the man instead of a choice of the mission, then he will be doomed to failure.  And that failure, if it occurs, will be monumental in its impact.  Donald Trump represents the first President in my lifetime of 64 years that can truly be characterized as an outsider.  I have witnessed, from inside and outside, the burgeoning and bureaucratic explosion of our government under both Democratic and Republican rule.  Nether national party has demonstrated either the will or the desire to reign in the ever-expanding monstrosity that is the U.S. government.  If Trump fails, the nation’s voters will inevitably turn back to a Democrat or a Republican that will be guided by and possess allegiance to the same old establishment-first, government knows best, all things are good in the name of government philosophy that both national political parties have used to gain and retain political control of this nation for past generations.  Not only will these political vampires regain their foothold on this nation, the electorate that took a chance on Trump will be so disillusioned and dismayed that they will likely give up on seeking an efficient, effective, honest, transparent, and accountable government and simply turn this nation over to the designated politicians from each party and return to leading their lives in a zombie-like fashion.  The chance to recapture the long-lost American dream may be lost for generations and the opportunity to truly make…America Great Again...will disappear down the rabbit hole with Donald Trump.

I hope Democrats can rise above the obstructionist tendencies that they are exhibiting at the present and become true partners in legislation.  I hope that Republicans can resist the temptations that will come with full control of Congress and the White House and understand that they only represent, at best, perhaps two-thirds of this nation.  And I hope that our new President Trump can learn to tone down his over-charged rhetoric and understand the fact that he was not elected because he is The Donald.  He was elected because he represents a new approach to government; a hope for returning government to the service of the people; and a hope for replacing liberal with liberty and conservative with compromise.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  Middle of the road, baby…ain’t nobody perfect.

The Irresponsible Straw Man and the Insurmountable Compromise.

The Irresponsible Straw Man and the Insurmountable Compromise.  One of the things I have learned from my 30-plus years as a federal employee is that in government, nothing ever really goes away.  As Congress turns over, as Committee leadership and membership rotates from member to member and party to party, old ideas are resurrected.  Programs that once existed are once again introduced; new acronyms and terms dress them up like a premier gown, but the basic principles remain intact.  Every single Senator or Representative that travels to WDC from the great American landscape comes with the notion that they, and they alone, have the solution to all of the current ills in our nation and no one that came before them accomplished anything of substance.  Because of this flaw in our form of government (yes…our government is not perfect!), we are oftentimes condemned to repeat the same legislative and policy mistakes over and over, never learning from our past misadventures.  And unfortunately, in spite of far-too-long tenures of many career politicians, by the time our Congressional Members realize their errors in judgment, their terms expire and the new cast of saviors rolls in, ready to reinvent the wheel and save us from ourselves…once again.

The only solution to this problem that I can imagine is the implementation of term limits; not likely, but more possible perhaps than ever before.  In lieu of term limits, we must rely on the good old process of debate and compromise by the national parties. 

…I pause here for a moment to allow you to roll on the floor in uncontrollable laughter…

Acknowledging that our nation is divided down the middle; knowing that the liberals detest the conservatives just as much as the conservatives detest the liberals; why has our Government persisted in and exacerbated the current dysfunction?  There are many, many reasons for this condition and if there were a simple and central cause, it would be far easier to identify and remedy.  However, due to the complex and arbitrary nature of American politics, the enigma of our Congress persists.  Two of the drivers for this calamity are the failure to negotiate in good faith and the erosion of civility in the debate process.  These are the two items I want to highlight in this blog. 

Although the straw man argument is ageless, no politician in memory has exercised it quite like our current president.  When framing the subject of a debate or negotiation, there are always at least two different perspectives; which is the proper position to assume is entirely a matter of perspective and personal inclination.   But in order to have a meaningful and honest debate, each side must be given the opportunity to espouse its position in its own terms.  Whether or not you agree with a position, the person or entity proposing that position must be granted the chance to persuade you that they are right.  WDC political discourse has thrown this principle overboard in the last decade or two and we now have the age of the straw man (No…this is not the most recent Marvel superhero).  Using this technique, one side will depict their opponent’s position in the most extreme terms, oftentimes beyond any reasonable stretch of reason and resulting in a caricature of the stand they argue against.  They unethically distort the position of those they debate and on occasion, actually use the straw man technique to silence those who do not accept their philosophy hook, line, and sinker.  This is basically a “my way or the highway” philosophy.  Given the divided and partisan nature of our electorate, this strategy finds a friendly and accepting audience on either side of the aisle and has grown both in application and effectiveness.  It is a dishonest and irresponsible way to debate public policy and flies in the face of every democratic (small d) tenet.   If we are going to get back to any semblance of a functioning Legislative and Executive Branch in our government, we must get back to a point where each party has ample opportunity to set forth their positions and those statements are accurately recorded, respected, and repeated.  Each side must stop trying to define their opponent’s position for them in an attempt to distort the discussion and silence those who do not agree with their arguments.  Speak your piece; then shut up and allow the other side to speak.  Do not presume to tell people what to think; tell them what to think about.  It is rare indeed that we do not find merit in both sides of an argument; a fair and honest recognition of that merit, regardless of its quantity, is the key to civility.

And now, let us talk about compromise.  Merriam-Webster defines compromise thusly: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.  Compromise is one of those terms that each of us has to live with on a daily base; life is full of compromise.  Each of us might define compromise in a somewhat different fashion; but we all know what it is in reality and we recognize it when confronted by it.  In WDC, much like the straw man phenomenon, the art of compromise has been distorted beyond practical application.  What we now see as compromise goes pretty much along these lines:  if you want to sit down and discuss with me how we can apply my ideas, then that would be a good compromise. It is no longer a compromise to start from two different points on the continuum and settle on a point somewhere in between.  Now, if either side refuses to throw its own principles aside and simply discuss how the principles of its opponent might be implemented, they are framed as being uncompromising and obstinate.  This is madness.  Compromise is defined by the term “mutual concessions” and that term requires that each opposing side give a little bit towards the other’s position.  Yes, there will be rare occasions when the subject of the debate is sufficiently well-defined and pronounced that an immoveable stand on principle is necessary; but the reality is that those times should be few and far between.  The overwhelming needs for compromise on Capitol Hill fall in the arena of practice, not principle.   Given the partisan nature of our people and the oftentimes unbridgeable gulf that lies between them; it is more imperative than ever that a piece of legislation contain some input from both political parties.   Now I will readily acknowledge that old adage about leading the horse to water remains true.  If your debate opponent simply refuses to participate in good faith and remains inexcusably obstinate; at some point, the process must be concluded and it is accepted that the obstructionist party has foregone their opportunity for meaningful participation.  However, every…single…effort…possible should be expended in a quest to gain some semblance of bipartisan support for legislative initiatives.  It is essential for laws and programs to have credibility if they are going to be accepted and supported by the American people.  It all comes back to each political party accepting the fact that they are not infallible; their judgment is not bullet-proof; they have not cornered the market on wisdom and knowledge; and most important of all…they do represent the views and opinions of every single American citizen.  Compromise is not abject surrender; compromise is “meetin’ in the middle”.  Case in point: Obamacare (ACA) was doomed to failure because of its illegitimate and extraordinary legislative creation.  If, as expected, the current Republican Congress and incoming Republican President repeal Obamacare, then its successor must be a product, at some meaningful level, of bipartisan debate and compromise.  If not, it will likely experience the same fate as Obamacare.

The very essence of our American government is liberty for its citizens and honest representation of those citizens by their elected officials.  This nation is currently built on two-party rule and both those parties must be heard.  If you expect to be heard, you must be civil.  If you expect to remain the party in power, you must allow your opponent to be heard.  The straw men must be burned and the insurmountable compromises must be overcome.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  Middle of the road, baby…ain’t nobody perfect.

College Football Foolishness.

College Football Foolishness.  Any NASCAR fan has noticed a significant happening over the last few years…the crowds are shrinking.  All professional sports are contending with the newfound competition of affordable home viewing of sporting events.  High def televisions are easily affordable and when paired up with cable or satellite packages, watching the big game from home has become (for many) preferable to the stadium experience.  Even though the game-day experience is a unique and exciting process, the fact is that it has become very expensive and logistically more challenging.  There is a reason that new stadium and arena projects are focusing more on the individual fan experience rather than the number of fans the structure can accommodate.  Consistently selling out seating capacity is far preferable to impressive, but less than capacity, crowds. 

Enter the college football post-season carnival.  What is the NCAA’s response to this new viewer challenge from the world of high tech?  In all of their wisdom, how have they decided to expand and improve their area of college athletics?  Why, of course…we will expand the college bowl landscape!  And because there will not be enough teams with winning records (such a pathetically low bar to clear) to populate the ever-increasing number of bowls, we will annually allow select teams with .500 winning percentages to complete in bowl games.  Pure genius!  And now, having created this master stroke of marketing, NCAA football is right there with NASCAR; the television cameras never show the stands because they are most times sparsely occupied.  I love college football, but post-season play should return to the traditional value of representing an award for outstanding season play; not an excuse for X number of additional practices and corporate sponsor wallowing in salary and expense excesses. 

This brings us inevitably to the NCAA college football playoff.  Perhaps I see things far too simply in black and white shades, but I continue to be astounded at the NCAA’s refusal to conduct an expanded college football playoff that will crown an annual champion, that is determined by actual plays made on the field, will return the true excitement of the college football games to the campus where it best exists, and will once again make a conference championship something worth obtaining.  As long as a committee, or a computer program, or a combination thereof selects who is and who is not qualified to complete for the annual college football championship, there will be injustice in the process.  We need only look at the NCAA basketball tournaments for guidance.  Undeniably one of the most exciting events in sports, the NCAA basketball tournaments showcase the best of college basketball and effectively integrate the players, the students, the fans, and the media in an effective and mesmerizing blend of broadcast coverage.  Do the big name schools from the Power Five conferences usually win the tournament?  Yes, they do; but that is no reason to discount the occasional Cinderella that goes deep into the tournament with upsets and, on that rare and truly special occasion, wins the tournament outright. 

There are many who say that NCAA college football cannot logistically accomplish a tournament similar to the basketball model.  That is bull.  Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports long ago put forth the best blueprint I have seen for NCAA football championship playoff; here is your link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/college-football-playoff-plan-132100316--ncaaf.html .  In his proposal, Wetzel shatters all of the shallow and self-serving arguments put up by the vested interests (including the NCAA) that control college athletics.  THIS is how a college football champion should be decided and crowned.  With this system in place, every single regular season game will be meaningful because it will lead to the conference championship.  With this system in place, the treasure trove of dollars that postseason college football generates will go largely back to the universities that create the game; not the corporate carpetbaggers who profit from it.  With this system in place, every NCAA school that competes in football will have a real opportunity to compete for a championship on the field of play (not be arbitrarily eliminated by a committee of “chosen” men/women).  And with this system, the excitement and participation in the NCAA college football playoff will reach levels never before dreamed of and will be well-positioned to address the evolving landscape of college athletics going into the future.

Let’s put the fans back in the stands.  Let’s put the dollars back in the university budgets.  Let’s give every team a fair chance to compete for the top prize in their sport.  And most important of all, let’s get a true champion that is determined on the field of play and not as the result of NCAA Committee wrangling, dealing, and compromise.