Lawmakers want probe of college football bowl system

[BULLO12]

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer

Apr 17, 5:05 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP)â€â€Forget government corruption or corporate fraud. Three members of Congress want the Justice Department to investigate whether college football’s Bowl Championship Series is an illegal enterprise.

Reps. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., and Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, are introducing a resolution rejecting the oft-criticized bowl system as an illegal restriction on trade because only the largest universities compete in most of the major bowl games. The resolution would require Justice’s antitrust division to investigate whether the system violates federal law.

The measure also would put Congress on record as supporting a college football playoff.

“Who elected these NCAA people? Who are they to decide who competes for the championship?†Abercrombie said at a press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill, gripping a souvenir University of Hawaii football.

Abercrombie said the matter is worthy of federal review because college football is big business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

“It’s money. That’s what this is all about,†he said.

But it’s no coincidence that all three lawmakers have home-state schools with recent beefs against the bowl system.

The University of Hawaii and Boise State University in Idaho each had an undefeated season in recent years, but were denied a shot at the championship. And Westmoreland said he is still smarting about his University of Georgia Bulldogs being passed over for the national championship game last year.

Georgia instead was matched up against undefeated Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl, winning 41-10.

Westmoreland and Abercrombie said they started talking about the resolution after that game, as Abercrombie was paying off a bet with chocolate-covered macadamia nuts.

The lawmakers say the bowl system is rigid and blocks all but the largest universities from competing in post-season bowls, denying dozens of others not just the opportunity to compete but also a shot at the big payoffs and national exposure that come with bowl appearances.

Abercrombie maintained that television markets are one factor in selecting which teams go to high-profile bowls.

“We shouldn’t have to argue about who the champion is,†Westmoreland said, citing the excitement and unpredictability of the NCAA college basketball tournament. “That should be decided on the field.â€Â

The BCS was created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences. It relies on polls and computer ratings to determine which teams qualify for the top bowls.

Congress held a hearing on the BCS in 2005, but no legislation came of it.

In a statement, ACC Commissioner and current BCS Administrator John Swofford said the BCS allows all qualified teams to participate and is beneficial for student athletes, universities and fans.

“This issue has been looked at before,†Swofford said. “We’re confident that it complies with the law.â€Â

[Bullschmutz]

Wow. congress is focusing on something important for once.

/sarcasm

[CowbellBandit]

I feel like it's absurd to try and take down the BCS from an anti-trust standpoint. The government cannot on one hand have such strict guidelines in regards to payment of athletes via the NCAA, and then on the other claim that the system is a business. Professional sports is one thing; they get paid. But college athletics, though a money-maker, does not pay its athletes.

This whole thing strikes me as campaigning- these congressmen are out to get some hometown love by introducing an empty and pointless resolution.

[WoolyBully]

...“Who elected these NCAA people? Who are they to decide who competes for the championship?†Abercrombie said at a press conference Thursday on Capitol Hill, gripping a souvenir University of Hawaii football.

Well...the thing Mr. Abercrombie needs to get his arms around is the concept that decisions - regardless of venue - are not the sole domain of congress. The CEO's of  corporations are not elected (in the popular consent context), yet their decisions are far more important and have much more impact than those weilded by the esteemed Neil Abercrombie, D-Coppertone & Pina Coladas.

Another example of the "say anything" world in which we find ourselves.

[RicanBull]

I guess they are tired of talking about steriods.

While I do think hat only the big name universities get a decent chance at the title, going as far as to say anti-trust violation...i dunno. I'm sure you could find a couple of cases of collusion amonst voters though.

[Guest]

I feel like it's absurd to try and take down the BCS from an anti-trust standpoint. The government cannot on one hand have such strict guidelines in regards to payment of athletes via the NCAA, and then on the other claim that the system is a business. Professional sports is one thing; they get paid. But college athletics, though a money-maker, does not pay its athletes.

This whole thing strikes me as campaigning- these congressmen are out to get some hometown love by introducing an empty and pointless resolution.

The government does not restrict the payment of players, the NCAA does.  If the NCAA (a democratic institution. mind you, run by its members) wanted to allow schools to pay athlete's, it could.

And the athlete's are paid. Free tuition. Free room and board.  Access to tutors, study labs, computer equipment.  Strength and conditioning coaches and trainers to keep them in top physical condition.

At private schools, like Miami, an athletic scholarship can be the equivalent of a $50,000 per year.... at USF it may be more like $20,000 per year.

[CowbellBandit]

Fair enough, JimUSFSig. But do you think it is proper to investigate the BCS under anti-trust rules?

[BullsOnThaRize8]

I can't stand this. The BCS is fine it just needs to be tweeked. I think it ultimately works out and the best teams are crowned. The BCS teams are all champions in my opinion and the only playoff I think there should be is the winners of the bcs games play for the true National Championship.

[WoolyBully]

Fine...open it up to all IA conferences. I doubt you'd see much of a change. What are the

odds that the Akron Zips or San Jose Spartans ever get a sniff of the NCS game. All this does

is remove the caveat of 'regardless of performance, you are ineligible from the first snap'.

Remember...whatever 'playoff' is instituted, it's not going to be some 16-8-4-2 series. It's going

to be, at most 4-2.

The lawmakers say the bowl system is rigid and blocks all but the largest universities from competing in post-season bowls, denying dozens of others not just the opportunity to compete but also a shot at the big payoffs and national exposure that come with bowl appearances.

Abercrombie maintained that television markets are one factor in selecting which teams go to high-profile bowls.

Opportunity to compete? So a 41-10 waxing isn't good enough? Well...who should Hawaii have played? LSU?

Hawaii is a big draw....on Hawaiian TV coverage...not so much in the humid south east in Autumn. Aaarrghhh!

[Guest]

Fair enough, JimUSFSig. But do you think it is proper to investigate the BCS under anti-trust rules?

Yes. It's worth looking into.

The BCS is a conglomeration of corporations -- the 6 conferences, Notre Dame, the 4 bowls, and two TV networks.

The BCS conferences want to keep non-BCS teams out.  The bowls want to keep smaller schools out because bigger schools sell more tickets and more hotel rooms.  TV networks want to keep smaller schools out because they want competitive games for TV.

So, there is some basis for talking about this as anti-trust.

Bear in mind, the BCS is not sanctioned by the NCAA itself.  The NCAA would, in general, prefer a playoff system with TV contracts it could issue -- like March Madness.

The BCS is, essentially, the football equivalent of the original NIT -- back when it was the National Championship.