By Jon Bingham
Indiana Policy Review
Which system do you prefer: college basketball’s March Madness or college football’s bowls-playoff? Your answer may indicate your view of the beneficial role of government. Should the government facilitate competition or predetermine much of the outcome?

March Madness relates to the free market. College football exemplifies government control.

For years, college football has been plagued with debates regarding the legitimacy of its championship declarations. Such questions do not linger in college basketball. Its champion has silenced the critics by earning it on the court for all to see. But the champion of college football has simply been declared by the powers that be. Thus the critics often rage.

When the failures of systems of government control become apparent, the leaders of those systems feign reform. However, attempts at effective and meaningful reform (requiring the loss of control to allow significant competition) are thwarted.

And so it has been in college football. An earlier attempt to appease critics (while essentially maintaining the status quo) was the BCS (Bowl Championship System), but this “fix” merely replaced declaring a single winner with declaring the top two teams that would be allowed to become the winner. The artificial creation of a “championship” game proved to be of little satisfaction to most teams and their fans.

Predictably, this year’s expanded playoff system falls short as well. Yes, a playoff of four is better than a game of two or a declaration of one, but the fundamental problem remains: The powers continue to control access to the championship. They are not open to real competition.

“But how is this any different than what the March Madness selection committee does?” you might ask. “Is not college basketball just another manifestation of the same government control?”

A free market is not within anarchy. A well-functioning economic system is benefited by a properly functioning, limited government that does what is necessary to establish the framework within which competition can flourish. Then, the competitors are allowed to determine the champion.

Yes, college basketball’s selection committee is a governing body. And yes, each year there are a few “bubble teams” that feel unjustly left out of the Big Dance. But the selection of 68 teams is sufficiently large; no one can credibly argue the true champion was not given its chance to compete for the title.

The College Football Playoff is still not open to this. Apparently the football selection committee thinks it knows best. Tell that to 7th-seeded Connecticut and 8th-seeded Kentucky, however, or to Cinderella teams like Butler. Explain it to Baylor and Texas Christian University.

The solution for football is a full tournament in addition to bowl games. As they have done for so many years, college football fans can continue to enjoy a bunch of bowl games for teams that win at least half of their games but don’t make the cut for the championship. Now let’s create a fully credible competition for the championship within the bowl structure. Here is how it could be done.

A large number of teams mean true competition. Sixty-four teams won’t be necessary for college football but four teams or even eight teams are inadequate. Use 32 teams by taking the top 25 and then selecting the remaining seven slots in a way that includes the next-best but also ensures representation by all participating conferences.Once the tournament starts, the losing teams can be paired into an additional, final bowl game scheduled over the holidays (roughly two weeks after the teams lose).

Here’s the schedule that would work:

1st weekend in December: Announce the selection and pairings of the 32 teams.
2nd weekend in December: The 32 teams play.
3rd weekend in December: The remaining 16 teams play.
4th weekend in December: The remaining eight teams play. Consolation bowls from the round of 32 are played.
The following weekend (late December or early January): The final four teams complete. Consolation bowls from the round of 16 are played.
The following weekend: Consolation bowls from the round of eight are played.
The final weekend (possibly using the following Monday as well, as in basketball): The final games are played. The third-place consolation game is followed by the championship game.
This solution provides the opportunity for more games and more competition resulting in an undisputed champion. So, which system do you prefer?
Jon Bingham is a senior lecturer in economics at Indiana University Southeast.

By Hannah Troyer
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – The state will not appeal a judge’s decision that Michael Dean Overstreet – who was convicted of the 1997 abduction, rape and murder of a Franklin College student – is incompetent to be executed.

Overstreet was sentenced to death in 2000 in the death of 18-year-old Kelly Eckart. But last month St. Joseph Superior Judge Jane Woodward Miller ruled that Overstreet’s hallucinations and delusions would prevent him from understanding the execution.

The Indiana attorney general’s office said in a statement Tuesday that an appeal of that ruling “is unlikely to succeed.” The office said that Miller’s ruling, which was based in part on testimony from four psychiatrists, “is likely to be considered reasonable” and won’t be overturned.

That means Overstreet will remain on death row but can’t be executed unless a judge finds that he is competent.

“My office has defended the conviction obtained by the prosecutor for the past 14 years during multiple appeals and will continue to faithfully defend the jury’s verdict and death sentence,” Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement.

“My decision was based on the conclusion that Judge Miller’s determination of incompetency was done in a manner as set out by the United States Supreme Court that did not provide adequate grounds for appeal,” he said.

Overstreet has spent the last 14 years on death row for the murder and rape of Eckart, whom he strangled by a shoestring and a strap from her overalls. Eckart was also shot once in the head.

In a 2007 decision in another case, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that death row inmates who are mentally ill cannot be executed if they cannot rationally understand why they are being executed and what execution means.

The attorney general’s office can petition the trial court to reconsider Overstreet’s competency when and if his mental state improves enough for him to be executed.

Hannah Troyer is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

You may also like…

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

Because the state couldn’t prove that a man intended to use a syringe to inject a legend drug, as is required by the statute to convict him of possession of a syringe, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the man’s conviction. The man intended to use the syringe to inject heroin, which is not covered by the statute.

Lafayette police arrested Stuart Bookwalter after he and a friend prepared to inject heroin that Bookwalter had purchased in Illinois. Police were monitoring Bookwalter’s travels to and from the Chicago area. A search of his car recovered 18 grams of heroin and several syringes. Bookwalter was charged with dealing in a narcotic drug, possession of a syringe and possession of paraphernalia.

He was found guilty as charged and found to be a habitual substance offender.

In Stuart Bookwalter v. State of Indiana, 79A04-1402-CR-69, Bookwalter claimed that he could not be convicted of possession of a syringe because the evidence shows he intended to inject heroin as opposed to a legend drug. To convict him under I.C. 16-42-19, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bookwalter possessed, with intent to violate the Legend Drug Act, a hypodermic syringe or needle for use of a legend drug by injection in a human being.

“[T] he expressed purpose of the Legend Drug Act is to supplement Indiana’s statutory scheme related to food, drug, and cosmetics safety, and most provisions of the Act pertain to the use of legend drugs, insulin, and anabolic steroids. Without reference to the use of a legend drug, insulin, or anabolic steroids, we cannot discern what it means to intend to violate the Legend Drug Act,” Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote.

Given the Act’s ambiguity, the COA must construe the statute in favor of Bookwalter to conclude that intent to inject heroin is not fairly covered by the Legend Drug Act’s definition of possession of a syringe.

In addition to reversing Bookwalter’s syringe possession conviction, the judges ordered his conviction of possession of a narcotic drug reversed based on double jeopardy concerns. The possession of a narcotic drug conviction and the dealing in a narcotic drug conviction were based on the same evidence.

There is sufficient evidence to uphold the Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug conviction, the judges ruled. The case is remanded for further proceedings.