I was understanding that only MLB is explicitly given anti-trust protection… But I could be wrong.

But still, I’d state that the traditional commerce clause interpretation prevents individual states from erecting barriers to commerce between each other… There is no explicit state action here regulating commerce between states, which is why I’d say that the commerce clause shouldn’t apply.

Of course, the commerce clause isn’t what it used to be. It’s grown to say “any activity (whether commerce or not) that might could someday sniff a gnat who could reasonably be expected to get on a truck that may potentially come within 150 miles of a state border”… Which means they’ll regulate whatever the heck they want.

Lately however, it seems that congress is absolutely disregarding all rules or restrictions on their whims, and that was what I was saying was good. Hatch was deciding to play by the rules.

That IS an interesting take; but I thought the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, and NCAA were actually given specific protection under law from anti-trust action?

Hatch isn’t the only Republican hoping to intervene in a situation. As I wrote in December, “That Texas Republicans Joe Barton and Michael McCaul are pushing this bill is probably causing both Ronald Reagan and Bear Bryant to roll over in their graves.”

With the traditional commerce clause interpretations as well as the traditional “necessary and proper” interpretation, I don’t agree. With modern interpretations, this is par for the course — but I find that interpretation sorely lacking and allowing of over-expansive government powers. The traditional commerce clause interpretation is that it is improper for states to arbitrarily restrict commerce between that produced within their borders and that produced without — not really at issue here.

Their more direct route is through anti-trust rules, where this does appear to be a monopoly — and in typical fashion, monopolies can only truly exist with state support, which is the case here since [as you point out] mainstream college football is driven primarily by state-supported universities.

If he’s going to attack the problem, doing so through FTC anti-trust actions is the most legitimate way to do so. Given that these are government-enforced monopolies, I can even grant that if there is a legitimate place for anti-trust action (full disclosure, I didn’t think it was warranted in the Microsoft case), this might be it. But I see no reason that any actions they take will really make college football better. There are problems with all systems (due to trying to declare a champion among 117(?) teams in such a physically-demanding sport), and I think having Congress select the method for selecting a champion is as arbitrary and fraught with problems as letting the NCAA/BCS system do so.

There is clearly interstate commerce going on with respect to college football… on the scale of a couple billion dollars when taken as a whole.

Clearly the states cannot adequately act as a neutral arbiter in such disputes. This is one of the relatively few cases when, if we are going to address this either legislatively or through the courts, federal is the way to go.

Additionally, most of the colleges and universities participating in the NCAA receive significant state and federal monies; further inviting congressional regulatory purview.

Still a massive overreach into areas that should be left well enough alone; but at least he’s doing it by the rules.