PSCI 3041: The U.S. Congress
Legislative Brief Assignment
11/20/09
Policy proposal brief for Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) of the 111th US Congress:
The BCS, a system used to determine college football’s postseason matchups, is prejudicial and violates the antitrust trust act. The six major conferences and the BCS operate as a cartel restricting the ability of others to enter a market and giving themselves a competitive and financial advantage. Because of the way the system is set up, it is very difficult for a small conference team to be selected to play in one of the lucrative and prestigious BCS bowl games and is nearly impossible for them to play for a national championship. Legislation should be introduced to eliminate the monopolistic BCS and implement a playoff system. A playoff is the fairest system (both financially and competitively) and is overwhelmingly favored by the American public, including your constituents in Utah. Although it’s not viewed this way, collegiate football is a multi-billion dollar business and warrants the same level of congressional oversight and reform as any other major industry. Passing the legislation may be tough, but there is mounting support for the cause.
Since 1998, NCAA Division I football, has utilized a system known as the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) to determine which two universities will play in the annual NCAA national championship game as well as in four other lucrative and prestigious BCS bowl games (Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar Bowl). Overall, the BCS is exclusionary, bias, unjust, and wildly unpopular amongst Americans. Specifically, it is in violation of the Sherman Antirust Act (competition law). The Antitrust Act essentially outlaws monopolies, cartels and contracts or agreements which restrict free trade and competition.(1) According to the Supreme Courts, “The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself” (Supreme Court 1993). The six major conferences operate as a competition limiting (both on and off the field) cartel while the BCS in essence employs a monopoly over the major bowl games and the national championship game and knowingly restricts the ability of a select group to take part in the market. The system restricts certain schools through pre-arranged contracts between the conferences and BCS rather then performance. Large conference schools are put at both a competitive (by being placed in more prestigious bowl games sometimes undeservingly) and financial (the payouts/exposure of these games) advantage over others. This advantage is a direct result of collusion between the major conferences as a means to protect their own interests at the expense of others. It is congenital inequalities of the system which perpetuate these advantages rather then athletic competition. It is evident the practices of the BCS are in blatant violation of the antitrust act. (2, 3)
The BCS uses combination of computer data and arbitrary human polls to rank and ultimately place teams in bowl games. Each school that reaches a BCS bowl game receives a payout of $17 million where as payout from non BCS bowl games range from just $300,000 to $4 million. (4) The winners of the six “major” conferences (SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, ACC, Big East, Big 10) automatically receive a spot in one of the BCS Bowl games while the schools which earn the top spot in the less heralded conferences (Sun Belt, Mountain West, MAC, Conf. USA, WAC) do not receive an automatic bid. These schools must finish in the top 14 of the BCS rankings just to qualify to be in BCS Bowl. It should be noted that on several occasions, including this past year, larger conference winners who received automatic bids have not always finished in the top 14. (5) The BCS rankings themselves are highly prejudicial as a major component of them is subjective human polls which instinctively show some level of bias against non “powerhouse” programs. Even when one of these schools have qualified, it is still unlikely that they would be given the opportunity to play in a BCS Bowl. Representatives of the bowl games themselves get to choose who the at large bids go to and almost always take a more high profile conference school (regardless of who is ranked higher) simply because they assume it will increase ticket demand, publicity, and television ratings. Since the systems installment, just 4 times (of a possible 94) has a small conference school played in BCS game. This is despite the fact that almost half of all DI football programs are in the smaller conferences. For the record, in three of the four BCS games featuring small conference schools, the small conference school defeated the major conference school. (5)
A portion of the $17 million payout going to BCS bowl participants is shared with the other schools in each team’s conference. (3) So, not only are specific schools put at an advantage, but the entire conference is as well. As a result, 54% of the DI programs (the preferred conferences) have received 87% of total BCS funds over the years while the other 46% shares 13% of the revenue. (2) The rich get richer. A perpetual cycle is in effect created. By earning more revenue, the top conference schools have more funds to spend on improving athletic facilities, athletic scholarships, and to pay top tier staff and coaches. Ultimately, these financial advantages as well as increased exposure gained through appearing in BCS games greatly aid large conference schools in recruiting thus allowing them to field more talented teams then other schools. The greater exposure and pageantry of playing in a major bowl game also would figure to increase fan support, booster donations, and ticket and merchandise sales. (3)
An alarming thought is the fact that the BCS is run by the DI colleges themselves. Its primary leadership is comprised of the 12 conference commissioners (plus the Notre Dame AD because they have no conference affiliation) and bowl representatives. (5) Yes, the individuals who run the BCS are also those who benefit from it most. There is representation of the smaller conferences within the BCS leadership but they are outnumbered by large conference representation and do not have as much power. The BCS operates as an independent entity, and thus, while it is sanctioned by the collegiate sports governing body (the NCAA), it essentially “reports” to itself and little, if any, practical oversight exists. The NCAA gets no revenue generated by the BCS and has no authority to create change within the system. Congressional involvement seems to be the only vehicle through which change can occur. (2)
As far as actual legislation to propose regarding this issue there are a couple of different routes you could take. The legislation could force major reform of the BCS to make it more just, or could ban the system from being used all together on the basis that it is unlawful. In addition to or independent from these ideas, you could introduce legislation which would force NCAA Division I Football to adapt a playoff system as a means to determining a national champion. A bill forcing a playoff would be my personal recommendation, and is an idea which appears to be overwhelmingly favored by the American public. Given the current framework of college football, there is a way to structure a playoff so that it works, while at the same time preserving the integrity of the game, competiveness of the regular season, and the tradition of the bowl season. It is the fairest (both financially and competitively) and most exciting method for fans, student athletes, and universities alike, and is the most logical way to determine a nation champion each year.
I do realize that this proposal inevitably leads to the issue of whether Congress should get involved in athletics when there are “more important things” to worry about. While most people don’t see it this way, the reality is that professional and collegiate sports leagues are a business and represent a major industry in this country with approximately $213 billon in combined annual revenue, a figure twice as much as the automobile industries annual revenue. (6) College football specifically is a multi-billion dollar business with revenue being earned through lucrative television contracts, sponsorships, ticket and merchandise sales, bowl payouts, and booster donations. Considering this all, congressional oversight, inquiry, and potential legislation is just as warranted in collegiate football as it is in other major American industries such as banking or steel. (2) This is especially true if the BCS is in fact in violation of the antirust act. Regardless of their true merit, athletics, specifically at the collegiate and professional levels, are an important part of our society and are of great importance to many Americans. There is also a precedent of congress passing legislation with regards to athletics. Some examples include: Title IX, The Student Right to Know Act, Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, The Professional Boxing Safety Act, Amateur Sports Act, Sports Agent Responsibility act, and the MLB antitrust act. Also, in recent years, their have been congressional hearings regarding steroid use in professional baseball, recruitment of collegiate athletes, and on two separate occasions their have been hearings regarding this very issue with the BCS. (7)
This also figures to be an issue of importance to your constituents in Utah where there are three collegiate Division I football programs (Utah, BYU, and Utah State) all of whom are in “smaller” conferences (WAC and Mountain West) that are continuously overlooked by the BCS. This is specifically true in the cases of Utah (your proud alma mater) and BYU. These are two universities rich in football tradition and success (both are currently ranked in the top 25 nationally) and yet under the current system will never be able to play in a national championship game and will have difficulty getting into one of the lucrative BCS bowl games. Just this past season Utah went undefeated and yet two big conference schools, each with one loss, were place in the championship game ahead of them. Legislation against the BCS would certainly increase your popularity back home.
The legislation against the BCS would go through the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. Because this issue deals with sports, it would mostly likely garner little attention on the floor compared to other pieces of legislation. However, I believe if you can raise awareness on the true gravity and extent of the issue, specifically highlighting the fact that this is not so much about athletics as it about reform of a major American industry, then I think the bill could gain some momentum. As I mentioned earlier, there have already been hearings regarding the legality of the BCS, and while no legislation came out of them, at least that “seed” has been planted. For a change, this is one issue that would figure to be completely bi-partisan. To gain support for the legislation I think you should target fellow male senators, simply on the basis that men tend to be more interested in sports then women. I also think that Senators representing states with other successful small conference football programs (i.e. Idaho, California, and Texas) would have an inherent interest with the topic. Also, many politicians, have already voiced support for a playoff in collegiate football including, Rep. Edolphus Towns, Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, your fellow senator from Utah Orrin Hatch, and, most importantly President Obama during an interview with “60 minutes.” (8) At the very least, even if the legislation is not passed, congressional involvement will help to escalate awareness of the issue and put pressure on the BCS cartel.
