BCS

Since Obama considers it important enough to discuss, I am taking the liberty of raging against the BCS in this blog.

I have yet to hear a legitimate argument for why the BCS is a better system than a playoff for determining a national champion in college football. Can someone please explain this to me?

The argument I've heard most often for keeping the BCS is that financially it is most beneficial to the big conferences from a financial perspective. Here's my argument against this:

This year, I watched two out of the five BCS games. And even those two, I only watched portions of the games. Most years, the National Championship game is the only game I care to watch. The rest of the BCS games are pretty meaningless to me, as they really prove nothing. The exception this year is the Sugar Bowl, where I wanted to see my pick for this year's National Champion, Utah, thrash an overrated Alabama team and show just how bogus it is that the BCS does not allow a team like Utah to have an equal opportunity to be the National Champion.

Compare that to the NFL playoffs. I will generally watch about 8 out of 11 of the NFL playoff games each year. I would watch all 11 each year if I had the time and I wasn't busy with other commitments. The reason for my interest in the playoffs is that every win leads each team closer to the Super Bowl. Every team in the playoffs has a shot at winning. That's what makes it fun.

If the BCS moves to playoff system of some sort, it will certainly expand the number of games I, as an average football fan, would be interested in watching. More viewers for more games would certainly boost the television revenues the NCAA would generate over what they currently rake in. This would be good for the big conferences and would be huge for the small conferences.

I challenge anyone to come up with a good reason for not implementing a playoff system in college football.

New Money

Some of you may be worried about the budget deficit that seems to grow larger and larger by the day. Every time I read an new article, the deficit has expanded again. Now it sits at $1.2 Trillion. That's before Obama's new stimulus package, which could double the deficit.

Where will the money come from?

Taxes will likely increase, regardless of what Obama is telling the people, but tax increases certainly won't make any kind of dent in a deficit like this.

The government will borrow a great deal of money to cover the deficit. Like anyone who possesses a credit card, the US government has a credit limit. It's not an explicitly stated limit, but the credit markets provide that there is an implicit credit limit, where at some point there will be no more investors willing to lend to a government that is so far in debt. While I don't exactly know what that limit might be, I know that point is approaching faster every day.

In the meantime, the last means of covering the budget deficit is to simply print more money. The government continues to dilute the national wealth by printing more dollars. But I don't think we've seen anything yet. If, as I suppose, the US were to reach its credit limit at some future point and could no longer borrow money, the government would run out of options other than to print more money.

An increase in printing money = a decrease in the value of a dollar = an increase in inflation. The faster money is printed, the faster inflation will increase. Should we be frightened?