Senator says BCS system 'looks un-American'

[NewsCopy]

WASHINGTON -- The Bowl Championship Series shuts out too many schools in its goal of crowning a college football champion and needs to be repaired, senators told representatives of the bowl system Wednesday.

"I don't know if you guys know how it looks to fans of teams that aren't part of this system," said Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del). "It looks un-American. It really does. It looks unfair. It looks like a rigged deal."

Created in 1998 by the six most powerful college conferences, the BCS guarantees that the champions of those conferences will play in one of the four most lucrative postseason bowl games, leaving only two at-large berths.

BYU, which won the national championship in 1984, is the only team other than Notre Dame outside the six BCS conferences to have won a national championship since 1945. In the 20 years before the BCS started, only one school other than Notre Dame that is not currently in the Big East, ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 or Pac-10 played in one of the series' four bowls.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a BYU graduate, said the system raises enough questions of fairness that it is in college football's best interest to fix it instead of forcing Congress to intervene.

NCAA president Myles Brand said he is open to a system that would be more inclusive, but does not believe there is a need for radical changes or adoption of a playoff system.

The rest of the story

By Robert Gehrke
Associated Press
October 30, 2003

[NewsCopy]

Collegiate football is unarguably the most revenue generating college sport. Football games attract anywhere from 40,000 to 106,000 fans per game; with each fan paying at least $10 for a ticket and more than that for the best seats, a huge market has been created. As always, when money is involved, things get complicated. To most that play it, it is a game, but for the thousands that live off of it, it is their life. Therefore, many may refer to it as a business. Bowl games payout to each university from $1 million to $13 million dollars. National championships payout more than can be counted and also, in other ways beyond money like top recruits, larger fan base, alumni/booster donations, better athletic facilities, better coaches, television exposure, and endorsement, deals to name a few. Recently, the top teams in the most prestigious conferences received invitations from bowl game committees to play in their game. Which created controversy in the determining of a national championship because oftentimes, the #1 team would not play the #2 team.

The ranking system also caused controversy because some believe that a lower team, maybe undefeated, should be ranked higher. Currently, a Bowl Championship Series Committee has an intricate system for ranking teams and also has a system that places the #1 and #2 ranked teams against each other for a national championship game.

Is there really a champion in Division I-A College Football today? The controversy remains, as to choosing a clear-cut national champion because of the current post season process. The sport of college football loses (interest), the Bowls lose (millions of dollars and fan interest), the Universities lose (millions of dollars), and ultimately the Fans lose (interest in a meaningless post season format). Today, Division I-A College Football still remains the only organized sport in America that does not determine a team champion by way of a structured playoff system. Presented are several proposals to improve college football's post season process.

This Year's Solution?

The "quote-unquote" solution, the past couple of years, is the Bowl Championship Series. The B.C.S., like the other earlier temporary solutions, (The Bowl Alliance and The Bowl Coalition) are not the answer, as proven over the last several years. The B.C.S. is a step in the right direction, a consolidated ranking system is needed to happen as it was proposed fourteen years ago in these proposals. But we are still not where the college football post season needs to be.

This past year, the B.C.S. announced a controversial national championship game in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma is a legitimate team with a 12-0 record. Their opponent is not so easy. Three teams have rights to a claim to be in the championship game: 1) BCS#2 Florida State Seminoles with an 11-1 record, 2) BCS#3 Miami (FL) Hurricanes with a 10-1 record and beat #2 FSU, 3) BCS#4 Washington Huskies with a 10-1 record and beat #4 Miami. F.S.U. was chosen. Who was the biggest casualty this year? Miami (FL) Hurricanes, Washington Huskies and of course the fans.

Last year, the B.C.S. lined up a legitimate national championship game in the Sugar Bowl, but the rest of the Bowl Championship Series Bowls was meaningless. Who was the biggest casualty last year? #6 Kansas State University with a 10-1 record is once again snubbed for a big payday for the second year in a row. A financial differential to the university of about $10 million, for this year. Five of the eight teams selected by the B.C.S. have 2 or 3 losses as compared to only one by the Wildcats. Is Kansas State a better team and deserving than the others selected? Absolutely, but they do not carry the lucrative television fan base as other larger markets, therefore not one of the chosen. Is this fair? No! Is it political? Obviously and practically every year. How does the NFL solve this, one may ask? Not allow a 14-2 St. Louis Rams in the Playoffs, but select a 9-7 New York Jets because of their lucrative television fan base. Not likely, a playoff system solves this problem but college football is not the same as professional football. Professional players get paid large sums of money, don't go to school, and have the ability to practice their skill the entire day. College players do not have that luxury, they have class schedules, graduation requirements, papers, exams, and they are still developing as young men.

In 1998, the B.C.S. left out #3 Kansas State, but included #15 Syracuse. Kansas State had only one loss in a double overtime conference championship game to the #6 team in the country (Texas A&M). #2 Florida State, who played for the national championship had only one loss as well, but to unranked (7-4) North Carolina State who dominated the Seminoles 24-7 early in the season. Shouldn't both these teams along with Ohio State, UCLA, undefeated Tulane, and others have a shot at the title, but instead were selected to meaningless bowl games? This is the college football postseason system we live with today. We give our condolences to Kansas State for the discrimination, and financial spanking to the university's athletic program from the BCS for two year's in a row.

The rest of the story

By, Simba Hodari

[NewsCopy]

WASHINGTON -- The current system for crowning a college football champion is unfair and "un-American" in the way it excludes certain schools, members of a Senate panel said Wednesday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, suggested that Congress might well intervene if college football doesn't address the issues of inequity raised by Tulane University President Scott Cowen and others.


At issue is the Bowl Championship Series, a system created in 1998 by the six most powerful college football conferences -- the Big East, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Southeastern Conference, Big 12 and Pac-10 -- to determine who will play in the four most lucrative bowl games. Cowen said the system effectively locks out the 54 non-BCS colleges, including Tulane. In addition to the prestige of a national championship, an appearance in one of the elite bowl games can mean millions of dollars for a school and its conference.

"I don't know if you guys know how it looks to fans of teams that aren't part of this system," Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said during Wednesday's hearing. "It looks un-American. It really does. It looks unfair. It looks like a rigged deal."

Members of the House Judiciary Committee made similar comments during a hearing in early September.

The BCS system was defended by Harvey Perlman, chancellor of traditional football power University of Nebraska, who said BCS schools reap more revenue and have gotten all the BCS bowl bids because they put more resources into their football programs and their fans fill up their stadiums even as seating capacity grows.

"There are major disparities in wealth among football programs in Division I-A, but it is not the product of the BCS," Perlman said. "Rather, they are the direct result of the passion and generosity of the fans and the adjustments we've made in stadiums and other facilities. What critics are asking is to share money that they did not produce, to in effect have Nebraska fans, students or taxpayers to fund their athletic programs."

The rest of the story

By Bruce Alpert
Washington bureau

[Turbine]

Original quote of Harvey Perlman, chancellor at the University of Nebraska
"There are major disparities in wealth among football programs in Division I-A, but it is not the product of the BCS," Perlman said. "Rather, they are the direct result of the passion and generosity of the fans and the adjustments we've made in stadiums and other facilities. What critics are asking is to share money that they did not produce, to in effect have Nebraska fans, students or taxpayers to fund their athletic programs."

I beg to differ.

In the University of Louisiana’s case, the groundwork for mediocrity was laid in the 1940’s. At a time when fans were raising $300,000 annually in some years -money that could have been reinvested in athletics- the state legislature was confiscating the funds.

In the one particular year loosely mentioned above, the money was raised by gate receipts and donations through “the passion and generosity of the fans” $329,315.75 was raised in war bonds [ Link to story ] If not for the war bond option, this money would have gone back into state coffers.

That same year over $400,000 earned by the school for housing and teaching the V-12 athletes was confiscated by the state, with NO extra funds for handling the increased expenses being offered.

State law at the time would not allow UL to spend more than $50,000 a year on sports. Boxing alone raised this kind of money –and was self sufficient- but the program had to be dropped because the cost of producing national champions, left no money for football.

The point of this is that the hundreds of thousands of dollars back then -if parlayed back into athletics- would add up to millions and millions- of dollars today.

So when Harvey Perlman talks about Nebraska fans, students or taxpayers funding others athletic programs, he may be right. But in the case of Louisiana, he is way off, the opposite happened here.