Senate Hearing Held BCS's Feet To The Fire
“That may seem, and may in fact be unfair” - Harvey Perlman, Chancellor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Playoff PAC’s formation sent shockwaves through the college-football community, drawing praise from fans, criticism from BCS apologists, and an immediate response from the BCS, who decided it could deflect criticism by hiring a full-time advocate.[1] An emergin criticism of Playoff PAC's approach—pressuring the BCS through elected officials—is represented by Drew Sharp's October 21st column published in USA Today , where Sharp argued that, "[t]here are many other inequities more deserving of political time than this."[2]
The “college football is only a game” argument is perplexing for two reasons. First, it demeans college football and its fans. College football, they say, is not important enough to merit Congress’s attention. They’re wrong. College football is a billion dollar industry of significant cultural importance.
Second, and more importantly, the argument does not address the efficacy of congressional action. Congress plays an important role in holding out-of-line individuals and institutions to account and has a unique ability to expose the BCS. When a member of Congress asks a BCS representative a question in a congressional hearing, the BCS is required to respond. Don’t see the value in this? Take a look at the hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee held this summer.
On July 7, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights held a hearing entitled “The Bowl Championship Series: Is it Fair and In Compliance with Antitrust Law?” Senator Hatch (R-UT), who presided over the hearing, presented the following question to the witnesses: “Does the BCS comply with the law?” Senator Hatch continued:
“The law requires that all business enterprises meet certain standards with regard to pro- and anti-competitive behavior. Our focus should therefore be on comparing the current system with the standards required by our nation’s antitrust laws. Personally, I believe there are enough antitrust problems with the current BCS system that we’ll have more than enough material to cover during the course of this hearing. Put simply, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies to limit competition. I’ve said before that I don’t believe a plainer description of the BCS exists.” [3]
University of Utah President Michael Young responded, agreeing that “the BCS is perpetuating an unfair system” which ensures three things: that “[u]niversities from certain favored conferences…are, for all practical purposes, guaranteed nine of the ten berths available in the most prestigious and lucrative bowls…regardless of their performance on the field,” “[u]niversities from the AQ Conferences are the only teams, along with Notre Dame, with any realistic opportunity to compete for the national championship each year,” and “[u]niversities from AQ Conferences are guaranteed to receive the vast majority of the revenue from the BCS, regardless of their performance on the field of play.”[4] "Championships should be decided by competition, not by conspiracy," said President Young.
Harvey Perlman, Chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln offered the defense of the BCS, arguing that “the only alternative is to return to the old bowl system that operated from 1902 until 1991,” “[t]he BCS does not deny any conference or institution or student-athlete a "fair opportunity" to compete in certain bowl games or to play for a national championship,” “the distribution of BCS revenues is fair,” and “any alternative post-season structure will raise the same access and revenue issues.”
The fireworks didn’t begin, however, until the following exchange between Senator Hatch, President Young, and Chancellor Perlman took place:
President Young: We were undefeated...I don’t know what more we could do. We have worked hard, we have hired good coaches, we have invested heavily in our program...and after a year like that, could not rise.
Senator Hatch: What more could they [Utah] have done to play their way into a national championship game?
President Young: Well if we had been part of an automatic qualifying conference, I suspect we would have had a chance to play for a championship.
Chancellor Perlman: Senator, it’s hard to respond to this without appearing to be disrespectful of Utah, which I am not. There is in reality something that Utah could do. They could have played the schedule Nebraska played last year—where we played Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Missouri.
Senator Hatch: Did they even have a chance to do that?
Chancellor Perlman: Well they got a non-conference schedule they can fill.
Senator Hatch: Well, they played a lot of big time teams last year...they whipped one team that was number one for most of the season.
Chancellor Perlman: If they had played Alabama before that game they might have had a shot at it.
Senator Hatch: I see, well you are making my case for me...Is it fair to pick teams when you don’t even go see a game?
Chancellor Perlman: That may seem, and may in fact be unfair…
The hearing exposed the faulty logic of the BCS for all to see. It’s no wonder why the BCS is so worried about Congress getting involved. If the adage that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” is true, we need Congress to keep shining the light on the BCS. Not convinced yet? Follow the links below to read the transcripts of witness testimonies or watch a recording of the hearing.
Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, “The Bowl Championship Series: Is it Fair and In Compliance with Antitrust Law?”
Date: July 7, 2009
Presiding: Chairman Herbert H. “Herb” Kohl (D-WI)
Witnesses: Michael Young, President, University of Utah (testimony ); Barry J. Brett, Partner, Troutman Sanders (testimony ); Harvey S. Perlman, Chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (testimony ); William Monts, III, Partner, Hogan and Hartson (testimony ).
Webcast (provided by the Committee on the Judiciary)
[1] John Feinstein, BCS is busy trying to fix its image, but nothing else, Washington Post, Nov. 3, 2009.
[2] Drew Sharp, Capitol Idea: Keep BCS Politics Away from Congress, USA Today, Oct. 21, 2009. Interestingly, Sharp’s statement admits that the BCS is an inequity.
[3] Press Release, Senator Orrin Hatch, available at http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=56f346ed-1b78-be3e-e09d-5fcd7bca8fcd&Month=7&Year=2009 .
[4] Testimony of Michael K. Young
.jpg?w=256 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
.jpg?w=480 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
.jpg?w=600 "Colts Release Kenny Moore")
