Congress and the BCS
By
I came across this story over at ESPN.com this morning. Apparently, there was a congressional hearing last week concerning the current Bowl Championship system in college football. One conference (the Mountain West) has even gone so far as to hire a lobbyist in order to promote its own agenda amidst the people of power in Washington.
Of course, it is more or less the guys who were left out of the championship that are calling for government officials to intervene and maybe even legislate how college football crowns its winner. It is no coincidence that the goverenment officials proposing reform are more or less from states that have had college teams left out of the BCS over the last few years.
I’m not entirely sure what to think of this, but the following thoughts came to mind.
1) Should this be something that our government officials deal with and legislate?
I’m not sure, frankly, but my initial inclination is to say, ‘No’, unless of course, there are some sort of legal anti-trust issues with the current business model. And it is a business model. That should be plain enough to us all. For if schools couldn’t make money with their football programs, the programs themselves would not last long.
But again, is this something that should come before Congress? I don’t think so. At the very least, there is no way the government should end up telling College Football officials how to best run their business by mandating a playoff format. This, in my opinion, would definitely serve as ammunition for arguments against big government.
2) Realize that those who are calling for change (particularly the smaller conferences) are not doing so because they are so concerned with justice and the championship itself, but because they want to get in on the money as well.
Sure, they accuse the big schools of monopolizing the BCS for the sake of money (and part of that may be true), all the while being motivated by the same ‘green’ bottom-line. I am hopeful that whoever is listening on that Congressional panel will see clearly enough to recognize the same motivation in both. The Mountain West Conference doesn’t hire a lobbyist in order to give its teams a better chance to win the championship, but in order to get in on the big jackpot that is found in the BCS.
But they would never say that plainly before Congress.
3) Yes, the BCS system is imperfect, but is it really that unfair?
I know there are plenty of people out there that would argue me on this point. And many of the arguments are legitimate, because there is no doubt that it is an imperfect system. However, it is a system that also has a lot of positives to it. Why do I so thoroughly enjoy college football every Saturday (when I can watch)? Is it not because national championship hopes are on the line every single weekend? After all, every game counts. Every point counts actually. And this naturally makes the regular season a whole lot more exciting (and watchable and marketable- which is better for business in the end).
Not only that, but is it wrong that the biggest and usually best teams have an advantage in the BCS? Is it wrong that Utah, whose schedule was obviously not as difficult as say, Florida’s, doesn’t get a shot at the championship even though they were undefeated? I’m not convinced it is. Sure, it would be nice if everyone had equal schedules, but what business in the world can maneuver things in such a way so as to make everything fair for everyone involved? For even if an eight team playoff was formed, the troubles would not cease. There would still be plenty of imperfection because of the nature of the college football landscape and the sheer amount of teams.
The NFL has only 32 teams. It’s not too difficult to come up with a simple playoff system that everyone can agree upon (and make money on b/c there is only one league). Division 1 College Football has 120 (all in various conferences). Any system is bound to be imperfect. Yes, NCAA basketball has its tournament, but that is basketball. It’s a different game. You can play 3 games in one week if you so desire. No so with football. Once a week is more than enough.
I realize that the big conferences have a monopoly in many respects. And because of that, maybe a playoff would give some of the little guys a legitimate opportunity to win the title. At the same time, millions of dollars would be taken away from schools that had great seasons, but failed to make the playoff round (for whatever reason). And that isn’t good for business.
All that being said, I am convinced of only a few things. First, that Congress should stay out of things, instead focusing its energies on more important and pressing matters. And second, that no matter what the system for the BCS is, there will be plenty of conflict involved. It will be interesting to see where it all heads in another 10 years.
13 Comments
May 4th, 2009 at 9:33 am
The BCS is a joke. If they did an 8 team playoff (like Div. IAA) it would overnight be bigger than the Final Four. Talk about money and TV ratings! I don’t know much about how all the money stuff works, but just as a fan it seems insane that the powers would persist in a system that is so unexciting.
z
May 4th, 2009 at 9:34 am
1. No and yes. No, for the playoff, but I do believe that the BCS is in violation of anti-trust legislation, which makes it a legal issue– not congressional.
2. I disagree. As a fan and student from a small non-BCS school (The smallest in Division I-A football by the way), we want a chance at the title. Had this past season not imploded (dang injuries), we might have had our shot. Big schools do not like to play us, which essentially means we must have a perfect season in order to even be considered.
The undermining of the desire to be champions is magnified by the fact that most schools do not turn a profit from football. Sure– The Ohio State University, Texas, Florida– they are making money, but Northwestern, Baylor, and Cincinnati? They are losing money, and bowl games do not net what many thing. People look at the payout, but not the costs and sharing (varies by conference, except Notre Dame), which eats up that payout.
The Mountain West has actually played in BCS games recently. Lucky them. So has Boise State (”upset” of OU none the less) out of the WAC. But then there are teams like Hawaii…
3. My solution. I think all us little guys, as you called us, should take our ball and start our own league. The BCS schools would feel some significant pain, after all, the lower level teams from the “little guys” would no longer be a guaranteed win. They would be forced to beat up on their own teams, and teams that finish in the middle or even the top of their leagues by playing the “doormat” teams (as the OU fans so eloquently call some of their pre-conference games) will be relegated to where they belong– staying home during bowl season.
In the mean time, we do what we can at TU– generally by playing other top non-BCS Conference teams (i.e. Boise State’s of the world). The only team from the “big” conferences that we will play– OU. OU and OSU recently broke their “we won’t play you all” attitude after being pressured by fans.
And here is a bit of trivia for you– just for fun…
Which school invented the “tower play” (1915), which was subsequently banned in 1916?
Which school was the first to go to five straight New Year’s Day Bowls? (Sun, Sugar x2, Orange, Oil)
Which school brought back the passing attack that was dormant for over thirty years?
My point? The “little guys” were competing quite well before the BCS and we will continue in spite of our obvious disadvantage. The history of the “little guys” is quite rich. Don’t be so quick to dismiss their desire to compete.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Z,
As I said, I believe the BCS is imperfect, however, the bowl system guarantees more money to more people. From the big conferences, of course. But also for the little conferences as well. Even though many people complain about all the insignificant bowls out there today, there are still more than enough people watching to justify their existence. Plus, the bowl system gives greater emphasis to the regular season, which in turn, raises tv and ticket revenue higher throughout the season, which may not be the case if they moved to a playoff. I think we can all agree that an eight team playoff would certainly be highly watched. However, I think we also can agree that if it would generate more money for more people, it would already be in place.
Maria,
1) Can you explain why the BCS may be in violation of anti-trust legislation? I am curious to know.
2) I am of course from a big-time football school, a school whose football team generates probably 20 million dollars a year or so. That being said, I am probably not as sympathetic as I should be to the little guys! However, I certainly understand scheduling issues. It is the same in basketball, and actually may be worse, even for teams that play in big-time conferences. But there are numerous reasons for this. Money is involved of course, but also a host of other ones as well (e.g. a coach may schedule smaller teams rather than tougher teams just to get wins in order to keep his job, etc.)
That being said, I trust you would agree that it goes beyond non-conference schedule, simply because most of a team’s games are played in conference. So the biggest factor is being in or joining a conference that is full of strong teams. This is why even though the current system is imperfect, I believe it is still right to (at least for now) reward the teams that are playing very tough teams week in and week out (as a PSU or Texas or Florida is). Sure, those teams have some easy games on their schedule, but oftentimes that is the case because the rest of their schedule is filled with very different in conference games.
Again, I think the system is flawed, but I don’t think anyone can be angry with the big teams for scheduling as they do. They are simply doing their best with the current system. Creating a system that will enable conferences in traditionally weaker conferences to show their merit is by no means an easy task, primarily, I believe, because of the nature of football and the amount of teams out there.
As for your questions, I am in ignorance. Though I could use my google! Let me know though. Please don’t leave us in suspense…
May 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
1. “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal” and “[e]very person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize…any part of the trade or commerce among the several States.”
The BCS has created a coercive monopoly in which only certain teams have a chance to compete for the title, and only the largest Universities compete in most BCS bowl games.
I think the only thing saving the BCS from legal ramifications under the Clayton Act is that they modified the rules so that a non-BCS conference team could possibly, under perfect conditions make it to the title game.
The BCS has said that the system rewards teams with football history. I would (and do) argue that they, in fact, ignore history. The answer to all three questions on the quiz– The University of Tulsa– the smallest Division IA representative in the sport of football. TU has a rich and deep history in football and yes, recent success as well. However, our shot, even with a perfect season IF we could schedule the Texases of the world to fill up our non-conference schedules probably would not land us a spot in the title game. With our “luck” Texas or whomever we scheduled would have their worst season in the history of their program!
Yes, some conferences are stronger top to bottom (Big 12, for example), but to assume the “good” teams all reside there– well– that is naive in my opinion.
Don’t get me going on basketball…
Truthfully, TU has an amazing history in football with amazing players. Are we at a significant disadvantage due to our size, academics and conference? Yes. The BCS hinders us far more than it helps or is even neutral.
Like I said, I favor taking our ball and going home. It’s too bad we can’t get more people to go with us!
May 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Joe,
You know I had to chime in on this one! The answer to all of this isn’t an either or situation. Instead you run it very similarly to Division I-A Basketball. THe first part is that you have an 8 team playoff. Much of the argument against the playoff originally stemmed from a scheduling conflict. The athletic director’s and presidents of the college argued that their teams could only play one game a week whereas basketball can play 3-4 a week. That is why a playoff system involving only 8 teams works. This playoff allows for the last number of teams to be impacted in regards to scheduling and missing school. Along with this you set the playoff up over the winter break of the college that way the students aren’t missing classes to play (not that this is truly an issue). The playoff games would still have titles with them that rotated on a yearly basis. So the first year the Tostito’s Fiesta Bowl may be the national championship game and the next year it may be the Rose Bowl. This way the sponsors still get their money.
As for the other teams who don’t get to be in the spotlight and don’t get a shot at the playoffs you simply continue with bowl games for these teams. This allows teams that aren’t in the playoffs to still have a chance at bringing in some cash and getting some national exposure. The argument that nobody would watch particular teams is bogus because it’s the exact same issue with regular bowl games anyways. These bowl games would operate much as the NIT does in college basketball. It’s not necessarily “The Big Dance” but it still gives your school time in the spotlight. The nice thing is that the bowl games would be picked up by ESPN because they have about 8 different channels anyways. The issue of money will never be completely solved and smaller schools will always struggle in college sports because there is no revenue-sharing like there is in professional sports.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“smaller schools will always struggle in college sports because there is no revenue-sharing like there is in professional sports.”
I have to disagree. Even without revenue sharing, many smaller schools are successful in the non-big three sports (M/W basketball, football). TU has numerous golf titles, for example. Rice in baseball is another great example. Rowing. All sports where smaller school’s excel. In football, conferences share revenue and using the assumption that sharing would equal success, the Vanderbilts and Baylors of the world would be stronger in football.
I also wanted to mention that I am no anti-trust attorney, and my opinion is based on my understanding of the legislation, BCS, and college football.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
My comments were made about football and basketball as those are the only two sports that bring money into most colleges (under normal circumstances, of course there are exceptions). Most of the sports that you were talking about lose colleges money. As for the smaller schools excelling you are of course going to have some smaller schools win championships, (it is a case of odds, eventually small schools will win) but to say that these schools excel would be an overstatement. If you look at the Learfield Sports Directors Cup which measures the number of national championships schools have won and awards points you will not see a small school anywhere inside the top 30 (here is the link:http://www.nacda.com/index-main.html). As for your examples you could come up with hundreds of examples where huge schools win small sports. Penn State just won another fencing title for example.
The whole idea behind revenue sharing/luxury tax and a salary cap is to give a chance for the little guys. This is why the NFL is so successful. Every year 28 of the 32 teams have a legitimate shot to win the Super Bowl. That was the point of saying that until colleges share or disperse the revenue evenly only then will small programs truly make a splash in the money-making sports.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
The Director’s Cup holds a natural advantage for larger institutions, because they sponsor more sports. For example, TU does not sponsor 8 of the sports used to determine the Cup.
Football and basketball revenue share with other sports on campus, when they are making money. Some schools even share with the academic side of the house (I seem to remember Florida does that).
Basketball is a separate issue. I think the smaller schools go through cycles, but they have “upset” more than one team to get to the final four in the past ten years. Memphis is in a “small” conference (in so much as CUSA is small). Marquette was successful while in CUSA, and Tulsa was in the WAC and Missouri Valley. Of course, one could argue that instead of six top conferences in basketball there are eight or ten, but those schools are not enjoying the BCS money either.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Maria,
I am pretty sure you just made my point about the fact that the smaller schools don’t win as many of the “other sports” because they can’t even fund them. As for revenue sharing this occurs across the entire league. For example the NY Yankees must share revenue earned with other major league teams that don’t make as much as them. The way this would work in football is to take all of the programs that made a bowl game and/or playoff and total the money earned from all of the bowl games. This includes sponsorship dollars and TV revenues. From there simply divide that money by the number of teams participating and everyone has an equal share of the pie.
As for the NCAA Basketball Tournament over the past ten years the biggest conferences in football and basketball (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, SEC, Big East, and ACC) have had 36 out of the possible 40 Final Four participants. Out of this the National Championship only 1 time out of the last 10 years has been decided from a school outside of these conferences and that was Memphis. These conferences are the same conferences that are the powerhouses in College Football.
May 4th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
No. What I said is that no one small school can fund as many sports as one big school. That does not mean that smaller schools cannot find a niche and be successful.
I am aware of what revenue sharing is. Thank you for the explanation. Maybe Joe needed it? I never said there is full sharing in NCAA football, but that conferences do do it, and taking your assumption that revenue sharing would make the smaller school’s better and applying it on a smaller scale, which I think we see does not work with the bottom feeders of the “big” conferences.
When it comes to financial gain and basketball, the final four participants all receive the same number of “shares” and therefore, the same amount of money. It is of no direct financial gain to advance to the championship over the final four. Then again, most teams simply want a shot at the title, which was my point way back how many ever posts ago in response to Joe.
Why is it that some men feel like they must explain every mundane detail to a woman as though she cannot possibly comprehend or follow collegiate athletics? Jeesh. Yes– that is the tone I got from your message.
I’m out. Thanks Joe. Can’t wait for the next topic.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Maria,
I apologize if my tone came across that way that was not my intention. My explanation was simply to try and explain how this idea of revenue sharing would be different than the current sharing of money occurs, where the rich conferences get richer. Anyways, like I said I apologize if my tone came across that way.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:59 am
Sean, I accept and humbly offer my own apology. It was wrong of me to jump to such a bold conclusion on the basis of an Internet message.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Hey there,
Sorry to miss out on all of this yesterday. I was too busy reading The Man With the Iron Mask and getting semi-frustrated with its ending.
Glad to see you, Maria and Sean came to a better understanding of one another. Just more evidence of the limitations of this medium, b/c I trust that if you were talking to one another face to face, you would in no one get frustrated, but probably smile quite a bit (unless maybe I butted in on things!).
I must say that the conversation at least made me question my big-school bias. I confess it is still there, particularly in certain sports like Football. As I said before, it will be interesting to see where all this is in ten years.
Maybe it will be more interesting to see if I am still blogging!