Obama Wants Playoffs

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and President Obama have at least one thing in common: A distaste for college football’s Bowl Championship Series.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel, of which Hatch is the top GOP member, will hold a hearing July 7 on the BCS. In an article for Sports Illustrated, Hatch says the case for government involvement — either from Congress, the courts or the Justice Department — is “compelling.”

Obama has taken every opportunity to say the BCS should be scrapped and a playoff should be put in place, most recently in April when the University of Florida visited the White House as national champions.

Hatch no doubt has gotten an earful about the University of Utah. In 2008, the Utes were undefeated and snagged an invitation to a BCS game — but not the national championship. Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, 31-17, and remained undefeated.

Hatch notes the sentiment for a college football playoff and writes that “almost anything would be better” than what the BCS has in place now.

But before you go thinking that Congress has better things to do than mess with the BCS, think again. The senator cites the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits “contracts, combinations or conspiracies” designed to reduce competition.

If “those with the power to reform the system” don’t do so voluntarily, Hatch writes, then “legislation may be required to ensure that all colleges and universities receive an equal opportunity.”

Hatch’s article is in the issue of SI that goes on sale tomorrow.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/06/hatch-makes-case-for-fed-intervention-in-college-football.html

by the decision.”I hope there will be continued discussions about postseason football in the future,” he said.

The Mountain West Conference’s hopes of changing the format in which teams are selected for the Bowl Championship Series were rejected by BCS presidential oversight committee Wednesday, but the fight may not be over for the MWC.

MWC commissioner Craig Thompson, who has led the push for a change in the BCS at the urging of the league schools, will discuss options with the MWC Board of Directors and decide the league’s next move.

“The Mountain West appreciates the thorough review that each conference gave our reform proposal,” Thompson said in a statement Thursday. “However, the MWC continues to believe that there are fundamental flaws in the BCS system that need to be addressed. We will take yesterday’s action under advisement and consider our next steps.”

The presidential oversight committee rejected the MWC’s proposal for an eight-team playoff and a 12-member selection committee based on a lack of “overall support.”

The committee’s decision isn’t surprising because the BCS and ESPN agreed to a four-year, $500 million deal in November that will keep the current system intact.

The MWC pushed for reform after the Utes went undefeated but were left out of the national championship. Utah finished the season No. 2 in the Associated Press final poll and No. 4 in the USA Today /Coaches poll.

Utah coach Kyle Whittingham voted his team No. 1.

Utah Athletic Director Chris Hill said Thursday he wasn’t surprised by the decision. “I hope there will be continued discussions about postseason football in the future,” he said.

http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_12692216

Cry if you want, Mountain West Conference, but college football’s Bowl Championship Series isn’t going away anytime soon.

That seemed to be the message from the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee after a teleconference this week. It scuttled the Mountain West’s proposal for an eight-team playoff, with committee Chairman David Frohnmayer issuing a statement afterward that said there was “no overall support” for the plan outside the MWC.

Frohnmayer, the outgoing University of Oregon president, said this latest attempt at changing college football’s postseason carried familiar elements of proposals — even President Obama wants a playoff – that failed in the past.

“In the last six years, I’ve read pundits, heard the pronouncements of broadcasters and collected several cubic feet of e-mail printouts from advocates of an NFL-style playoff system,” he said in his statement. “Even those that go beyond sound bite certitude share two intertwined and fatal deficiencies: they disrespect our academic calendars and they utterly lack a business plan.”

Frohnmayer seemed particularly flabbergasted that anyone might think the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose bowls would be happy to serve as playoff quarterfinals.

He told USA Today: “They’d wreck the Rose Bowl, which is the most storied bowl in American history. To say it would be a quarterfinal destination is ridiculous.”

The next BCS national title game will be played Jan. 7, 2010 at the Rose Bowl, six days after the annual Rose Bowl game.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/06/rose-bowl-as-a-playoff-quarterfinal-not.html

College sports power brokers surveyed at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics convention in Orlando weren’t the least bit surprised that the Mountain West Conference’s proposal to reshape the Bowl Championship Series didn’t gain support at a recent meeting of conference commissioners.

“You’ve got six conferences and the schools that are members have a system that works for them,” said Paul Kowalczyk, the athletic director at Colorado State, a Mountain West member. “Really, the issue is, why would they change it? Why would they allow five other conferences — or at least one other conference — into the mix when they have the controlling rights and they bring home most of the bread?”

The Mountain West proposal calls for the creation of an eight-team playoff using the current BCS bowls and a 12-person selection committee to choose participating teams instead of the current selection system of polls and computer formulas.

In the current system, the champions of the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and the Southeastern Conference receive automatic BCS bids.

Teams from the other Division I-A conferences face a more difficult road.

Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner and BCS coordinator John Swofford said “there was no overall support for the proposal” following a meeting of conference commissioners Wednesday in Colorado Springs.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/orl-sportsorl-athletic-directorsb21062109jun21,0,224275.story

Conference commissioners have been meeting this week in Colorado Springs with the Mountain West’s proposal on the agenda, but presidents would get the final say on any changes.

After undefeated Utah was left out of last season’s BCS title game, Mountain West Commissioner Craig Thompson put forth a plan that would utilize an eight-team playoff using current BCS bowls. The proposal also would scrap the current selection process, setting up a 12-member committee and throwing out the polls and computer rankings.

However, existing TV contracts with Fox (this season) and ESPN (the following four seasons) probably would preclude significant changes in the system for at least five years.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-06-16-bcs-presidents_N.htm

RCS: Most college football fans wouldn’t know it, but you may represent the best hope to reform the nearly universally detested BCS. Other than the President, you have been the most prominent and outspoken BCS opponent in Washington. In fact, you’ve previously held hearings about the BCS and you’re on the record calling the BCS “Un-American.”

But, although loathed, the BCS is the status quo, has some powerful support and has proven resilient. Practically speaking, what can Congress do bring about BCS reform?

Sen. Hatch: As far as I’m concerned there are antitrust issues involved here, and I don’t think there’s any doubt that college football fits as a commercial enterprise. These BCS schools – in fact all of the schools of any size – market there teams like they would a commercial product. In the case of BCS schools they receive substantial revenue in return. Some of them outside of BCS do too, but certainly they get an advantage if they play in a BCS conference. Also, it isn’t just the schools and conferences that are involved here. There are the TV networks, the corporate bowl sponsors, and others as well.

Our antitrust laws are designed to prevent people from acting in agreement and coordination to reduce competition. I think that’s precisely what we have going on with the BCS.

I’m a member of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, and its Ranking Member. We already have plans to hold another hearing to look into the antitrust implications of the BCS. Hopefully we’ll be having that hearing within the next few weeks. And we’ll look at these issues very soon. Like I say, I think there’s a pretty clear case that the BCS is exclusionary. There’s no question that the way they’ve designed it, has a negative impact on the schools left on the outside. So I think it’s important for us to determine whether or not the system is legal, and personally I don’t think it is.

http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/06/12-questions-with-senator-orrin-hatch.html

Q: Does it bother you that you are portrayed as an obstructionist by the pro-playoff crowd?

A: I primarily reflect the view of the conference. . . . If people disagree with that view, I don’t take it personally.

I think many of the people who advocate a playoff have no real understanding in the difficulty of a playoff.

Q. Would that include the president of the United States?

A: Yes, and I don’t think he begins to understand the difficulties of a playoff. I think he’s probably very well-versed on North Korea and the Middle East but not particularly the college football playoff.

Q: Are you confident the BCS can withstand another legal challenge?

A: I am confident. We’ve had excellent legal counsel. And I trust lawyers from all over the country who comment that there’s nothing illegal about it.

The only thing the federal government could do to force the issue, I think, would be to cut off funding for higher education. Well, that isn’t going to happen.

Q. What if ESPN, which takes over the BCS package starting in 2010, eventually wants a playoff?

A: They’re not going to influence the [university] presidents. That’s where the decision on this lies. And a lot of people just don’t understand. It’s not the athletic directors and the coaches saying no, no, no . . . it’s the presidents.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-tom-hanson-qanda16-2009jun16,0,5100420.story?page=1

The Bowl Championship Series, with few friends in the federal city, routinely receives pointed criticism from senators and congressmen, even the president.

Who speaks for an unpopular system that brokers a national championship game with polls and algorithms rather than passes and power sweeps?

J.C. Watts, best friend for hire.

Watts is a triple threat: lobbyist (the BCS has paid his firm $620,000 since 2003), former legislator (Republican congressman from Oklahoma, 1995-2003) and local hero (Oklahoma Sooners quarterback, late 1970s and early 1980s).

“The BCS, no matter how unpopular they might be, everybody has a right to tell their story,” Watts says. “That’s the American way.”

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-06-14-lobbyists-cover_N.htm

Idaho Statesman

When the Presidential Oversight Committee of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) meets next week (June 15-19 in Colorado Springs), perhaps it will consider how to apply the same values espoused and celebrated by American higher education across the nation to the most recognizable pastime and the biggest business on many university campuses — intercollegiate football. There is considerable irony in the fact that in the highest temple of political correctness, American higher education, the BCS worships the false idols of monopoly, inequity and greed at the expense of the virtues of fairness, access and competition.

The BCS is a fundamentally flawed system that is unfair in its access, governance and revenue distribution. Historically, there were a handful of power brokers in intercollegiate football that showed up year after year for postseason play in the traditional bowl games, and in those days few questioned the system.

The landscape of college football has changed dramatically over the years, especially for mid-major programs, due to the limitations on scholarships, increased marketing opportunities and the bounty of televised games that appear weekly as a result of the universities of Oklahoma and Georgia suing the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 1984 over its television plan, because it violated antitrust laws. There is no question that parity among college football teams is greater than ever before in its modern history.

So you would think that when Boise State opens its football season against the University of Oregon on September 3, the dream of a national championship would beat in the heart of every player, coach, alumnus and fan. Instead, there will only be a faint pulse thanks to the constraints placed upon us by the BCS. An estimated 6,000 student-athletes play for football teams that have no realistic chance of competing in a BCS bowl, given the hurdles placed in the path of the non-BCS conferences and teams.

How can this happen when the NCAA sponsors 88 championships in almost every sport from bowling to water polo? The glaring exception is football! The NCAA does not sponsor a championship for the Football Bowl Subdivision — formerly Division I-A. This so-called championship has fallen into the hands of the commissioners of the six BCS automatic qualifying conferences. They wrote the exclusionary BCS rule that created six automatic qualifying conferences — Atlantic Coast, Southeastern, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-10 — and gives to the six conference commissioners the authority to send their respective champions to a BCS bowl regardless of how their won/loss records stack up against the champions of the non-automatic qualifying conferences — Conference USA, Mid-American, Western Athletic, Sun Belt, and Mountain West.

To take a page from recent history, in 2004 Boise State went undefeated and finished the season No. 9 in the BCS, yet was excluded from a BCS bowl while No. 13 Michigan and No. 21 Pittsburgh qualified. In 2006, Boise State went undefeated and finished the season ranked No. 8 in the BCS and was invited to the BCS Fiesta Bowl where the Broncos defeated Oklahoma in one of the greatest games ever played. In 2008, Boise State went undefeated and finished the season No. 9 in the BCS, yet was passed over for a BCS bowl while No. 10 Ohio State, No. 12 Cincinnati and No. 19 Virginia Tech were all chosen for BCS bowls.

In 2008, the University of Utah made the most convincing case for BCS reform when the Mountain West Conference school completed a 12-0 regular season, but was not given the opportunity to compete for the national championship. Utah was eliminated by a system — not a team — and further proved its championship status in a convincing BCS bowl victory over Alabama.

Exclusionary rules that produce such unfair results can only be made by a governance structure as unfair as the result, and that is certainly the case when it comes to the Presidential Oversight Committee of the BCS. George Orwell, aiming at the hypocrisy of those who claim equality for all, but reserve power for a small elite, is famous for his Animal Farm quote, “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” So it is with the BCS power structure. The 65 schools in the automatic qualifying conferences have six votes, one for each conference, but the 51 schools in the non-automatic qualifying conferences have ONE vote total! And in a gesture to days gone by, Notre Dame has one vote as an independent all to itself.

Nowhere is the inequality of the BCS system more evident than in revenue distribution. The formula is heavily weighted toward the automatic qualifying conferences that are guaranteed a spot in a BCS game and walk away with the $18 million payout that goes with it. The automatic qualifying conferences and Notre Dame receive 90 percent of the $132 million generated by the BCS bowls, a monopoly that if uncovered in the business world would be cause for a Department of Justice antitrust investigation. If a non-automatic conference qualifies for a BCS game, 82 percent of the revenue goes to the automatic qualifying conferences and Notre Dame while the non-automatic qualifying conferences receive 18 percent of the revenue. Annually, non-automatic qualifying conferences are only guaranteed 9 percent of the total revenue to split among 51 schools. If there is a bottom line to the current BCS position, it is the monopolistic control the BCS has over the millions of dollars earmarked for the chosen few.

When the BCS meets next week, they will do so under the scrutiny of congressional oversight. Both U.S. House and Senate committees have expressed continued interest in applying the principle of fairness to intercollegiate football. The U.S. Senate Antitrust Subcommittee with the urging of Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah will be scheduling hearings soon to investigate the antitrust implications of the BCS system. Congressman Joe Barton of Texas has introduced legislation in our nation’s capital that would prevent the BCS from labeling a game a national championship unless it is the outcome of a playoff system. That is not a foreign concept for the NCAA that earns most of its revenue from its performance-based Final Four basketball tournament.

The time has come for the Football Bowl Subdivision to go the way of the other three divisions of NCAA football, basketball and its other sports and base its national championship on actual play rather than opinion polls and computers. A playoff system that is organized by the NCAA and fairly addresses access, governance and revenue distribution is the next step. Even the President of the United States has publicly endorsed a playoff system. Only then will there be alignment between the values of fairness and access so often invoked in higher education and the policies and practices of the BCS and the NCAA.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/799314.html