By Doug Bandow

The U.S. Congress has spent the country blind, inflated a disastrous housing bubble, subsidized every special interest with a letterhead and lobbyist, and created a wasteful, incompetent bureaucracy that fills Washington.

But now, argues Playoff PAC, legislators should take a break from all their good work and save American college football.

If there's one process which Americans ― at least sports fanatics ― love to hate it is the curiously convoluted Bowl Championship Series.

Alabama and Texas, slated to meet for the title on Jan. 7, might really be the best teams this year, though I don't claim to know, since I don't follow college football.

However, undefeated Texas Christian University and University of Cincinnati complain they were unfairly frozen out of the championship race.

Most every year there is controversy over the worthiness of a contender or, more often, the worthiness of uninvited potential contenders.

Matthew Sanderson, co-founder of Playoff PAC, says: ``We need real reform in college football. Let's stop running this game needlessly on two cylinders and start a playoff.'' Or more accurately, he wants Congress to force a playoff.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), who calls the current system ``communism,'' defines all trade practice that markets any contest as a national championship game as ``unfair or deceptive'' unless it's ``the final game of a single elimination post-series playoff system.'' A House subcommittee approved his legislation in early December.

Of course, if Congress is going to start policing sports claims, it is going to be very busy. Consider a so-called baseball ``World Series'' based in one country, with one team from one neighboring nation (Toronto Blue Jays) tossed in as a seeming afterthought. Sounds like an ``unfair or deceptive'' practice to me.

Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Calif.) has introduced the ``Championship Fairness Act,'' which would bar any university from receiving federal funds if it maintained a Division I (American-style) football team but did not participate in a playoff system.

The best argument for Miller's proposal is that it would cut off funds that probably shouldn't be going to universities anyway. Earlier this year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held hearings.

Barry J. Brett of Troutman Sanders complained that the moneylenders had invaded the temple of higher learning: ``The greed of some has also clouded the message of sportsmanship, competition and interest of the student-athletes.''

There's much to say about the rip-off of student-athletes, but by the college sports cartel which denies the players any money while coaches win munificent salaries and endorsement deals and schools grab the rest of the cash.

What made Sanders's claims almost charming was his contention that it was the other guys who were motivated by greed. In contrast, those wanting to get in on the scam while treating athletes as indentured servants are public spirited educators.

But there's a larger issue: why should any of this involve the federal government?

In response to criticisms that Congress has more important issues to attend to, Commerce subcommittee chairman Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) responded: ``We can walk across the street and chew gum at the same time.'' That's certainly not evident in the quality of legislation that emerges from Capitol Hill these days.

Still, what authority does Congress have to meddle in college football? Why do politicians get to decide the right format for a sports championship?

Playoff PAC explains: ``College football is a billion dollar industry of significant cultural importance.'' So are celebrities. Should Congress regulate who gets to be a celebrity?

Playoff Pac's second contention is: ``Congress plays an important role in holding out-of-line individuals and institutions to account and has a unique ability to expose the BCS.''

The world is filled with ``out-of-line individuals,'' many of whom serve in Congress. And what is Congress, but an ``out-of-line'' institution?

Legislators are elected to pass laws concerning select public matters. It is Congress' job to protect us in the exercise of our rights, not to satisfy the fantasies of influential sports enthusiasts.

Puffed up, sanctimonious meddling legislators are far more dangerous than an inefficient college football championship system.

Matthew Sanderson also argues: ``Since the BCS is unresponsive to overwhelming public sentiment, our elected officials should speak up for their constituents.'' Perhaps congressmen also should tell the Pope to let Catholics use birth control.

Playoff PAC grandly declares: ``College football reform is Congress' business because it is the people's business.'' No. Everything is, in one way or another, the people's business. But that does not mean everything is the government's business.

The BCS may be flawed. There is, however, no evidence that politicians would do a better job running the system. It's time for the U.S. Congress to admit that there is at least one problem which is not the American government's responsibility to ``fix.''

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including ``The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington.'' He can be reached at chessset@aol.com.