Repsonse From E.D Hancock

Hancock's response to KP Coalition's Feb. 6th email

Brandon,
 
Thank you for your e-mail.   There continues to be a strong consensus of support for the BCS among the college presidents, athletics directors, coaches and commissioners.
 
The BCS is working; it is the best system ever developed to match the top two teams in a bowl game.  It enhances the regular season, preserves the bowl system and fits within the academic calendar.
 
When the time comes to consider the future, every institution and conference will have ample opportunity to state its preferences for the future.
 
Regards,
 
Bill Hancock

However, Hancock has not replied to the Feb. 13 email.

Bill,
I am uncertain of the message you are trying to paint in your response.

We in the Coalition understand that there continues to be a strong consensus of support for the BCS among the college presidents, athletics directors, coaches and commissioners; however, the KP Coalition is founded, in a sense, to represent the three parties you did not include: the student-athletes, the student bodies, and the fans. 

But, as E.D of the BCS, why didn’t you include the players? That’s because the BCS has never asked the players if they would rather have the BCS or the BCS and the insertion of a multi-game playoff.  In addition, the Kennedy Proposal modifies the current BCS arrangement by increasing the number of games—not the adjustment of revenue and/or access that has already been agreed.

I will reiterate our stance: the players should be asked if they are interested in competing in the multi-game playoff afforded by the Kennedy Proposal.

With all the things going on right now, meaning furlough days, proposals to cut back regular seasons and travel squads, the elimination of collegiate sports,  which is all leading to the minimizing the student-athlete experience for cost purposes, could you please explain to me why the BCS is paying J.C Watts to lobby on Capitol Hill? Reports have measured out to over $70,000 last year alone. What will the total for 2010.

In addition, the NCAA, the ACC, the MWC, Michigan, Purdue, Boise State, and others I may not know, have taken efforts to lobby lawmakers on the Hill. Collectively, these sums extend into the millions and the reason behind this lobbying is the unfair system of the BCS.

By stating that the BCS is working when millions of dollars are being invested by members within the BCS, whether pro or con, and/or for the use or improvement to the current system, ignores the basic realities of life.

If the people of higher education are more equipped to manage college football, then those people need to start getting together and investing in a promising future. The BCS in its current state is not going to last. Commissioner Tranghese has already stated that he believes the BCS is going to dissolve after the 2014 season due to anti-trust violations.

The Big Ten and Pac Ten have announced they are shopping for new teams and if they are truly interested, I don’t see why they wouldn’t succeed.  Does this mean we are headed for 2003 all over again?

Instead of the ACC and the Big East, will it be the Pac Ten and the MWC, the Pac Ten and MWC, or what about both? Will C-USA, MAC, or maybe even the Big 12 want to discuss conference expansion on the Hill?

I do not see Commissioner Benson filled with joy if Boise State relocates to another conference. I do not see Commissioner Thompson gleeful if Utah and BYU decide they want to compete for the Rose Bowl ever year.  And I do not see how you are going to fight off the “there will be no changes to the BCS until the 2015 regular season” because with teams shifting conferences that means revenue and access most certainly will have to be shifted as well.

For example, if Utah and BYU introduce the Pac 12, (even if its football only), I don’t think President Young is going to accept non-AQ money when his institution is an AQ school.

Could you imagine the next time Young is on the Hill? “ We were capable (of) hiring gifted coache(s) and doing all the right things to become a member of an AQ conference and now that we have worked to that, current conference members receive more money from the BCS, we(re) even capable of finishing higher and beating that team but they still received more money than we.” Would that really happen? If the Pac Ten added Utah and BYU, would those two institutions still receive non-AQ money?

I highly doubt it.

All of these expansions are either going to occur after the current BCS contract or the BCS is going to have some explaining to do.

 
If regular season contracts are going to be broken to expand conferences from 2010-2014, then post-season contracts can change, too. In fact, it’s inevitable, because teams in new conferences would fill different post-season bowls.

Furthermore, on the BCS website it states, “[BCS] is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game”; however, your response is  off base and contrasts with the website.

Actually, the BCS has enhanced the regular season by inducing cross-conference interest; however the BCS drives on field cross-conference competition—which would further ignite cross-conference interest—to an idle state.

A system that simply preserves the bowl system is not good enough. This may be a little bit before my time, but the entire bowl system had implications on the national championship because there simply was not a national championship game and because the quantity of bowls. As the fans watched good vs. good and great vs. good matchups leading up New Year’s Day,  the excitement would build for the great vs. great matchups.

Thanks to the (6-6), (7-5), and some (8-4) teams, who should be asking themselves what more can we do this off season to play in a bowl game next year, are permitted to compete in a bowl.  That has brought bad vs. bad and good vs. bad, into the bowl lineup—No thank you, the system can be improved.  Indeed, “bracket creep” has occurred in the FBS post- season and irreparably damaged the bowl system.

The BCS does not fit within the academic calendar. Teams rest for more than three weeks before they compete in their bowl game. As a former player I do not think that is within a reasonable time frame. I understand that the players have finals but they are also athletes and a three week resting period is entirely too long.  Besides, do other NCAA student-athletes compete during finals?  Let’s hold FBS student-athletes accountable.

I have been traveling the U.S and other NCAA student-athletes hear the academic reasons against a multi-game playoff and they cringe just about as much as I do. Probably more because I was a football player, we don’t have to miss that much school because of traveling, but then again, we can’t command television, so we don’t have to play road games on four days rest like the Ole Miss Rebels of 2009.

Can you explain to me how that is safe for the health of the student-athletes? The Hill has held hearings on concussions that occur in the NFL yet the college teams are playing on four days rest? I understand that you contend that the regular season is a playoff but teams in the NFL don’t compete in playoff-games after four days rest Bill.

That does make sense to ask a team not to a lose a regular season game and compete at their highest level, rest for three weeks, and then be asked to play at their highest level again, against the top competition, in the biggest games of their lives.

 
Once again, on the claim of merit and logic, the BCS does not fit within the academic calendar. Also, the first BCS National Championship was played Jan 4th, 1999 but next year’s game is scheduled for the 10th—the academic calendar will always remain the same but the BCS calendar seems to be drifting deeper into the second week of second semester. That too is a product of bracket creep.

This may seem insignificant, I do not know, but the Big Ten is a follower of mine on Twitter. The Conferences may have the ample opportunity to speak its preferences for the future, but the future is now. We have taken the stance that they will continue to strongly support the BCS; therefore, we will continue to reach out to others who are interested in pursuing a multi-game playoff.

I look forward to hearing your response to the questions and issues that have been laid out in my response.
 
Thank you again,
 
Brandon
Executive Director of the KP Coalition

Since that time, an email has been sent to the vast majority of FBS Preisdents and Chancellors asking if we should send out proposal to them and recieve legislation or continue with antitrust lawsuit. President Simon of Michigan State University is the single response suggesting that we continue with antitrust lawsuit.

Summer isn't officiall here but the heat is being cranked up.

www.ncaarevolution.com