[Senate Hearing 108-462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-462
BCS OR BUST: COMPETITIVE AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP
SERIES ON AND OFF THE FIELD
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 29, 2003
__________
Serial No. J-108-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
93-795 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 6
DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio......... 8
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 1
prepared statement........................................... 63
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 10
WITNESSES
Bennett, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 3
Brand, Myles, President, National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Indianapolis, Indiana............................. 12
Cowen, Scott S., President, Tulane University, New Orleans,
Louisiana...................................................... 15
Edwards, LaVell, former Head Football Coach, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah........................................ 19
Perlman, Harvey S., Chancellor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Nebraska.............................................. 14
Tribble, Keith R., Chairman, Football Bowl Association, Miami,
Florida........................................................ 17
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Brand, Myles, President, National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Indianapolis, Indiana, prepared statement......... 41
Cowen, Scott S., President, Tulane University, New Orleans,
Louisiana, prepared statement.................................. 50
Edwards, LaVell, former Head Football Coach, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah, prepared statement.................... 58
Perlman, Harvey S., Chancellor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Nebraska, prepared statement.......................... 65
Tribble, Keith R., Chairman, Football Bowl Association, Miami,
Florida, prepared statement.................................... 89
BCS OR BUST: COMPETITIVE AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP
SERIES ON AND OFF THE FIELD
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Hatch, DeWine, Biden, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Chairman Hatch. Welcome to today's Judiciary Committee
hearing on competitive and economic effects of the Bowl
Championship Series.
Many of you may not be aware that when I was in high
school, I had a promising future in football, but things didn't
work out. BYU already had a halfback and I was too slow and I
couldn't seem to go to my left, so it was a big problem for me.
Well, some things never change. I still don't go to the left.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Hatch. But on a serious note, I am pleased that
the Judiciary Committee is examining the competitive effects of
the BCS because of the notion of basic fairness that has been
called into question by the current BCS system. I believe there
is value to ensuring fairness in our society whenever we can.
And while life may not be fair, the moment that we stop caring
that it isn't, we chip away at the American dream.
Let me just say that many sports fans in Utah and all
across the Nation have strong feelings about the BCS. Almost
without exception, these fans make the same two points. First,
the current system is unfair. Second, they care deeply that it
isn't. And I think it is worth a couple of hours of this
Committee's time to consider the matter.
In my opinion, the current manner in which teams are chosen
to play in the four major bowl games and the way in which a
national champion is determined are fundamentally unfair to
non-BCS teams. The first problem is one of access. There are
only four BCS bowls, limiting participation to eight teams. Six
of the available slots are guaranteed to the champions of the
BCS conferences, leaving only two slots for the remaining 11
teams in both the BCS and non-BCS conferences, and these two
slots are filled using a ranking system that many claim is
biased against non-BCS teams. Under these circumstances, it is
hardly surprising that not a single non-BCS football team has
played in a BCS bowl since its inception in 1997.
The second problem is that the non-BCS teams are placed at
a financial and competitive disadvantage because the BCS
conferences retain most of the tens of millions of dollars of
bowl revenue. The financial disparities that result from the
current system translate into a competitive disadvantage for
non-BCS teams. Combined, the revenues of the four major bowls
in the upcoming year are projected to be $89.9 million.
According to the revenue distribution information on the BCS
web page, the BCS will quote ``contribute $6 million to other
Division I-A and I-AA conferences to be used in support of the
overall health of college football.''
Under this system, the minimum payout for the BCS
conferences will be $13.9 million, and if, as will probably be
the case, no non-BCS team plays in a major bowl, approximately
$17 million will be paid to each BCS conference that has one
member team invited to a BCS bowl, and $21.5 million to the BCS
conferences lucky enough to have two member teams invited. This
is compared to the $1 million that most of the non-BCS
conferences will receive. Where BCS conferences stand to
receive more than 20 times what the non-BCS conferences get,
the resulting competitive disadvantages are unmistakable.
A third conclusion is that the combination of extremely
limited access and enormous financial disparities may severely
damage or disadvantage non-BCS teams in the area of recruiting.
As I believe Coach LaVell Edwards will emphasize in a few
minutes, one of the biggest recruiting hurdles for non-BCS
teams is that coaches from the BCS conferences are able to tell
potential recruits that if they attend a non-BCS school, they
will never play in a national championship game or probably
even in a major bowl. The financial disparities that I have
mentioned also affect recruiting, for obvious reasons.
According to the title, today's hearing will examine the
effects of the BCS both on and off the field. I have outlined
my principal concerns about how non-BCS teams may be
disadvantaged on the field, but what about off the football
field? I would like to briefly highlight three areas of
particular concern.
First, because football revenues are often used to fund
other college sports, I am concerned about the impact that the
financial disparities caused by the BCS may have on these other
sports.
Second, I am concerned that the financial disparities
resulting from the BCS may make it more difficult for non-BCS
schools to provide fair and equal opportunities for female
athletes as required by Title IX.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, I and many others are
concerned that all this college football money is turning
college sports into nothing more than a minor league for pro
football rather than a legitimate educational opportunity for
student athletes.
Unfortunately, Chancellor Gordon Gee of Vanderbilt
University could not be here with us today. Vanderbilt recently
took steps to deemphasize its athletic program and I really
would have enjoyed hearing his perspective on all these issues.
Of course, just because something is unfair doesn't make it
unlawful. However, the principle of fairness and, in
particular, fair competition is to a certain extent reflected
in our antitrust laws. For example, it is generally unlawful
for two competitors in any particular market to agree to
exclude a third. Some would argue that this is effectively what
the BCS does. But while the antitrust implications in the BCS
will be part of what we discuss here today, I think it is
unclear how a court would rule on an antitrust challenge to the
BCS.
I, for one, hope that we don't find out. It is my sincere
hope that the BCS system will be improved through a negotiation
rather than litigation. I note that representatives of BCS and
non-BCS schools met in September and will meet again on
November 16 to discuss how the current system might be changed
to be more inclusive.
So in closing, I urge the participants in these meetings to
work toward a mutually acceptable solution that will answer the
criticisms of the BCS that we discuss today. If nothing else, I
would admonish the participants simply to do what is fair.
I look forward to hearing testimony from our witnesses, but
before I introduce them, whenever the Ranking Member comes in,
we will turn to him or his representative to make a statement,
whenever they come in.
We are delighted to have Senator Bennett, my colleague from
Utah, here today. He is doing a great job in the Senate and
naturally he is concerned about these issues, as am I. Senator
Bennett is a graduate of the University of Utah. Senator
Bennett, we look forward to your comments at this time and any
suggestions you can make for us.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to be with you. I appreciate your
opening statement in which you outlined all of the primary
arguments with respect to this issue. Rather than repeat those
arguments, even though I have learned since coming to the
Senate there is no such thing as repetition--
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. --I would like to put a slightly different
face on this issue that I hope will send a message of reality
to the BCS schools and those who are supporting the present
situation.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am the Chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee and I have spent a lot of time in my Senate
service focusing on economic issues. One of the things that has
come out of that experience is a recognition of the ultimate
fate of monopolies. Monopolies seem really wonderful at the
beginning. If you have a monopoly on something, you can set the
price virtually wherever you want it. You can charge whatever
the traffic will bear. There are no penalties. You can do
whatever you want because you have no price to pay down the
line. People have to buy your product because you are the only
one who has it.
The history of monopolies throughout history is that they
don't last. Monopolies become bloated, they become inefficient,
and eventually they die. And people who participate in
monopolies look back on that history and say, you know, we
would have been better off if we had had vigorous competition
right from the beginning, if we had been forced to improve our
product in order to continue to sell it for fear that somebody
else might take it away.
The BCS is setting themselves up, if they succeed in
maintaining their present cartel, for ultimate extinction. They
should understand what will happen to their product, in
monopoly terms, if they do not move away from the clever
structure that they have created for themselves.
They exist to take advantage of television money. The BCS
system was created to make sure that 96 percent of all bowl
revenue went to BCS conferences. That is a tremendous incentive
to keep the present situation. Ninety-six percent of the TV
revenues that come from covering the New Year's Day bowls go to
BCS conferences. Why would somebody in a BCS conference want to
upset that? The reason they might want to upset that would be
to look into the future and discover what could very easily
happen, indeed, what is very likely to happen. People will get
tired of seeing Miami play Ohio State one New Year's after
another. They want some excitement. They want some diversity in
college. They want the opportunity for a Cinderella story.
We have just seen what a Cinderella story can do to revive
a dying sport in the last World Series. I remember when
baseball went through its strike and people were staying away
from baseball stadiums in droves. There were even suggestions
that baseball as a sport was finished because everybody was
tired of the greedy owners and the greedy players and why
should they watch that sport. TV ratings for baseball went
down.
Well, they went through the roof this year because we had
the Cubs and the Marlins. We thought the Red Sox might someday
finally overcome their curse and beat the Yankees. We had
excitement, and the Marlins, whose payroll is one-third of the
Yankees', came through and won the World Series and all the
Yankee haters all over the country rejoiced.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bennett. They followed baseball in a way that
baseball has not been followed for a long, long time.
If we prevent a college football version of the Florida
Marlins from ever coming forward, playing in the Rose Bowl or
the Cotton Bowl or whatever it might be, and attracting
national attention, we run the risk of having the TV promoters
say, you know, we can sell something else on New Year's Day
that can get higher ratings than a rerun of the Big Ten and the
SEC playing one more time with their top teams.
The TV revenues, of which the BCS get 96 percent, can go
down if the product gets tainted by public boredom. Oh, that
will never happen, say the chancellors of the BCS schools. They
should understand that TV producers do not go on sentiment. TV
producers go on ratings, and if the ratings start to fall for
college football because people get bored with the same old
match-ups, there will be no sentiment in the board rooms of the
TV executives. They will look to the ratings and they will find
something else to put on.
You mentioned that I was a graduate of the University of
Utah. That is true. I grew up in Salt Lake City and I remember
as a young man the most exciting college sports experience that
I could ever have experienced, and it still stays in my memory
and those who are of my generation still talk about it. It was
basketball, not football, but it illustrates the point I am
trying to make here.
The University of Utah basketball team in the 1940s--sorry,
I can't put the exact year on it, my memory is not that good--
went to the NCAA finals, and in those days, the NCAA finals
were the second tier. The real national championship was
determined by the National Invitational Tournament, the NIT.
The University of Utah team did well, but not well enough. They
lost out.
They were on their way home when a team that was scheduled
for the NIT was involved in an accident and unable to
participate, and the NIT reached out to fill out their schedule
and said to the University of Utah, will you come compete in
the NIT? So here was a team that was not good enough by its
records to get invited to the big games, but by virtue of a
tragic accident that had eliminated one of the teams, got an
opportunity to go.
It still fills me with goosebumps and chills to think of
what happened. They went to the NIT and they won the NIT, two
points, as I recall. I can still name some of the players on
that team--Arnie Faron, Watt Masaka. All Utahans can remember
that, and the Nation at the time was transfixed by this
Cinderella team from out of the West, last-minute substitute
that went on to win the NIT, last basket, buzzer-blowing, all
of the things. It may not have been as exciting as I remember
it now, but it certainly was exciting at the time.
BCS is structured to make sure that that kind of thrill,
that kind of opportunity, will never, ever come to college
football. No matter how good a team might be from a non-BCS
school, the way the thing is structured now, will not have an
opportunity to thrill the Nation and keep alive television
interest in college football.
Oh, the BCS people say, well, there are two slots available
and those two slots, you might have the college football
version of the Florida Marlins show up and take one of those
slots and win the national championship. It is possible. No, it
is not, not because there isn't a team out there that could do
it now, but because, as you, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out,
the recruiting will make it clear that the good players won't
run--good high school players won't run the risk of being on
one of those Cinderella teams that could come out from nowhere
and win it.
They will go to a BCS school and then the BCS monopoly will
say, see, we are the best teams, so naturally we should get 96
percent of the money and it is all being decided on the playing
field. No, it is being decided by virtute of the structure, and
long-term, if they are allowed to continue that kind of
monopoly practice, they will suffer the same fate as every
other monopoly in history.
They will become bloated, complacent, inefficient, and
eventually kill the golden goose from which they are now taking
the eggs because national television will say, people don't
care about college football anymore. There is no excitement.
There is no opportunity for a newcomer to come in. It is a
closed corporation. We will find something else to broadcast on
New Year's Day. And the successors of today's chancellors of
the BCS schools will wonder what happened to the great
opportunity we had to maintain excitement for college football.
I urge the Committee to continue to probe this issue. I
will do what I can to continue to probe the issue. I think it
is a very significant one that is worthy of your attention.
Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your
excellent statement.
I have to remember, I didn't have the privilege of living
in Utah at the time, but I was a basketball player in high
school in Pittsburgh--
Senator Biden. And a union member, as well.
Chairman Hatch. That is right, and a union member, as well.
Senator Bennett. I want that for the record, Mr. Chairman,
that you were a union member.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Hatch. No, I am still a union member, but you guys
have just gone too far off the reservation, that is all.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Hatch. But in any event, I remember Arnie Faron
and Watt Masaka and Vern Garner and two All-Americans on that
team. And one of the thrills of my life was after, of course,
moving my family to Utah, becoming a very good friend of Arnie
Faron's. He is a great friend to this day, because he was a
hero of mine, I will tell you. I followed that team and I
remember that very, very well. So bringing that to all of our
recollection, I think under these circumstances is a very, very
good thing and you have done a very good job.
But we know how busy you are. We will let you go.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. We know you have a full plate. Thank you
for being here.
We will turn to Senator Biden at this time and then we will
go to our witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Biden. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank your colleague from Utah, who I always enjoy listening to
and, I might say for the record, is one of the fairest people
in the United States Senate and I hope everyone listened to
him.
Let me apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and the witnesses. I
am shuttling between the Foreign Relations Committee hearings
on the new ambassador for Afghanistan here, like I know you
have similar conflicting responsibilities. But the bad news is
when you are Chairman, you have to be here, and I get to do it
between two places.
Let me begin by commending you and the Ranking Member for
deciding to hold this hearing. Although this Committee held
hearings on this subject back in 1997, I requested this hearing
because recent events have convinced me that further
examination and discussion of the Bowl Championship Series
system is warranted.
Let me say at the outset that mine is not a parochial
interest. My alma mater, the University of Delaware, plays
Division I-AA football and so is not eligible for any of the
bowls we will discuss today, although I might note for the
record we are ranked number two in the Nation, beat Navy, a
Division I team, in their homecoming at Navy last week and I
predict will end up number one in the Nation, but that is a
different issue. [Laughter.]
Having played at Delaware, I am incredibly proud of my alma
mater, but rather, I am concerned about the allegation that BCS
has created a system of haves and have-nots when it comes to
Division I-A football. Since its inception, to state what I am
sure has already been stated, in 1998, no non-BCS member school
has played in a BCS bowl game. That means that 52 major
universities' Division I-A football programs have not had the
opportunity to compete for a national championship in the
foremost prestigious and lucrative college football bowls. As a
result, during the 2001-2002 season, BCS member schools enjoyed
$101 million in revenues while their non-member counterparts
received only $5 million.
According to a recent New York Times article, over the 8
years of the BCS contract, the BCS, quote, ``while the
Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big
East, the Pacific Ten, the PAC-Ten, the Big 12, the Big Ten,
and Notre Dame will split $900 million over 8 years of the Bowl
Championship Series contract, which runs through 2005, the
schools that have been left out will split just $42 million
over that period.''
It is not difficult to imagine what impact this revenue
imbalance can have and does have on Division I-A
intercollegiate athletics. BCS member universities have
substantially greater budgets for athletic programs than non-
members. These larger budgets accord BCS members the advantage
in recruiting student athletes, retaining coaching staff, and
maintaining a strong student fan base.
In contrast, the non-BCS members with lower athletic
budgets suffer from inferior athletic facilities and rising
deficits. I am aware, for example, that Tulane's athletic
program is running a significant budget deficit and I would
appreciate hearing more about Tulane's situation from President
Cowen this morning. I should, in full disclosure, acknowledge
that my daughter recently graduated from Tulane. I like Tulane
very much, but she did not play football at Tulane. [Laughter.]
My concerns aren't just about money. It is not just the
perceived unfairness to excluding non-BCS member schools from
playing in the national championship, but I am also concerned
about the multiplier effect caused by the BCS. As the
Washington Post recently noted, and I quote, ``The cost of NCAA
Division I-A membership has become exorbitant. The latest rules
require colleges to support 16 sports in order to participate.
Without the funds provided by lucrative bowls, non-BCS
universities are increasingly facing a very real Hobson's
choice. Academics must often take a back seat to provide the
funds needed to support college athletics, or just as bad,
these same schools are finding it increasingly difficult to
provide sports teams for their female athletes as required by
Title IX.''
And I must tell you, that is one of the overwhelming
reasons why I became interested in this item. Not only is there
a bit of an onslaught on Title IX to begin with from other
quarters, I think this is a very high price that would be paid
if something isn't changed, because I think it has been the
single most significant thing that has happened to women,
collegiate women in America, is the increase in since Title IX
and the participation of competitive women's sports, and it
goes far beyond their sports capability. It goes to their image
of who they are. It goes to the possibilities they think are
available, and I don't think it can be underestimated. So I
want to be straight about that.
Such a robbing of Peter to pay Paul approach--that was the
end of the quote, by the way, but since the robbing of Peter to
pay Paul approach totally undermines the original goal of the
NCAA-sponsored sports to produce scholar athletes, I think we
have to look very hard at this. The professed goal of the BCS
system is to provide a championship game between the two best
Division I-A intercollegiate college football teams selected on
the basis of fair and objective criteria.
It is clear to me that BCS members and non-members are not
competing on a fair and balanced playing field. It is sort of
like college basketball telling Gonzaga at the beginning of the
season that they most likely won't make it to March Madness no
matter how well they do this season. I call that unfair. In
lawyers' terms, it also appears to raise a significant
antitrust concern to me.
I know that the various sides of this dispute have begun to
get together and negotiate a solution. I view today's hearing
as another step in the process of attempting to resolve this
problem. However, if the sides cannot come to an agreement that
eliminates the clear problems that the current BCS system
demonstrates and evidences, it may well be the case that this
Committee and this Congress will have to revisit the issue, and
this Senator may decide to do what I think we should avoid
doing, and that is at all costs, we should try not to legislate
an outcome here. But that depends upon, in my view, how sincere
and legitimate the negotiations are.
In closing, let me welcome our esteemed panel of witnesses,
and I applaud both sides of this debate for expressing what
seems to be an absolutely sincere desire to negotiate. I
applaud their desire to find a solution to this problem that
will benefit the 5,000 talented young athletes involved in
Division I-A football, and I applaud their desire to design a
system that millions of college football fans across the
country will truly embrace, a system that allows any one of the
117 Division I-A college football teams the right to a shot at
the title, and I hope these proceedings will help promote that
end, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I thank you for holding these hearings and I
apologize for being late.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator. Thanks so much.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Hatch. Senator DeWine?
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OHIO
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement I
would like to give.
Chairman Hatch. That would be fine.
Senator DeWine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding today's hearing on the Bowl Championship Series, the
BCS. This hearing will highlight issues both on the field and
off the field surrounding the college football bowl system. As
Chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee and as certainly a
college football fan, I was particularly interested in seeing--
I am interested in seeing that the bowl system is both
competitive and fair.
Many of the issues that the bowl system faces today are the
same ones that we faced 6 years ago when our Subcommittee held
a hearing examining the Bowl Alliance, the predecessor to the
BCS. First, the BCS, like the Bowl Alliance before it, does, in
fact, exclude several conferences, such as the Western Athletic
Conference, Conference USA, and the MAC.
Second, the BCS raises the same antitrust and competition
concerns that I noted with the Bowl Alliance 6 years ago,
namely that potential antitrust problems may arise any time
competitors, like the BCS conferences, agree among themselves
instead of competing.
I want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to talk about the
antitrust analysis that I think applies to the BCS. The first
step in the analysis is in examining the agreement between the
BCS conferences, the Big Ten, Pac Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC, and
the Big East, and the BCS bowls, the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and
the Rose Bowls. We have to look, I believe, Mr. Chairman, at
both the purpose of the agreement and whether the agreement has
had any harmful effects on competition. BCS proponents claim
that the purpose of the BCS is to ensure a number one versus
number two bowl game.
Assuming this purpose, we still need to look at whether the
BCS has harmed competition. To do this, I think we need to look
at the bowl situation prior to the BCS. For example, let us
look at the teams that played in the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and
Rose Bowls since 1971. In that time frame, only three teams
currently in non-BCS conferences played in any of those four
bowl games. So looking at it that way, at least, the BCS has
not had much direct effect on the schools.
Of course, we need to examine the effect on consumers, in
this instance, the fans. So we need to examine if the BCS has
deprived these consumers of higher quality bowls than they may
have otherwise seen without the BCS. Of course, this is hard to
evaluate, and this will be depending on who you ask, I guess.
For example, would there have been higher quality bowl games
after the 1998 season if undefeated Tulane had played in one of
the BCS bowls, or after the 2001 season if 12 and one BYU had
played in a BCS bowl game?
In any event, Mr. Chairman, if we assume the BCS actually
does cause harmful effects on competition, we need to balance
those harmful effects against the benefits that the BCS brings.
To me, we only have to look back to last January's Fiesta Bowl
game between number two-ranked Ohio State and number one-ranked
University of Miami to see the benefits of BCS. Obviously, I am
a little prejudiced. That unbelievably tense game ended,
happily, in my view, with Ohio State winning the national
championship.
Now, Mr. Chairman, prior to the BCS, that game simply would
not have taken place. Ohio State would have played in the Rose
Bowl, as we always did, against the PAC Ten champion, or as the
Big Ten champion always did, while Miami likely would have
played in the Sugar or the Orange or the Fiesta Bowl. So for
the Ohio State-Miami game, the system worked. In fact, the BCS
has resulted in match-ups between the top two teams in each
year of its existence.
Contrast that with what happened after the 1997 football
season, when both Michigan and Nebraska went undefeated but
played in separate bowl games. That year, there were two
disputed national champions instead of one undisputed national
champion.
Just, Mr. Chairman, to finish the antitrust analysis, if we
assume the benefits of the BCS outweigh the harmful effects of
the BCS, then we need to consider whether our so-called less-
restrictive alternatives, in other words, ways in which we can
achieve the benefits of the BCS with fewer of the harmful
effects. For example, would a playoff provide the same benefits
of the BCS without the harmful effects? I am interested in
hearing from the panel members on all of these issues. What are
the goals, potential harms, and benefits of the BCS system, and
how else could we operate the bowl system.
Mr. Chairman, our scrutiny should not end with the
antitrust analysis. As I mentioned, the bowl system needs to do
more than survive legal scrutiny. It also must be fair.
I worry particularly about the agreements between the BCS
conferences and the non-BCS bowl games. The Cotton Bowl, for
example, automatically matches a Big 12 team against a team
from the SEC. The Peach Bowl automatically matches an ACC team
against an SEC team. Arrangements such as these are common and
they completely foreclose any chance for worthy teams outside
of the BCS conferences to earn spots in many non-BCS bowls.
Many of these bowls might act as catalysts for non-BCS programs
to improve their national visibility, to become more attractive
for potential recruits, and to compete more effectively against
the BCS conference programs, but under our current system, non-
BCS teams are almost totally shut out of this system. I think,
Mr. Chairman, we must examine why non-BCS bowls select teams in
the manner that they do.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have a lot to discuss today in
looking at the competition and fairness issues that the bowl
systems raise and I thank you very much for holding this
hearing.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your
Chairmanship of the Antitrust Subcommittee and your interest in
being here today.
Senator Sessions, we will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a
healthy thing to discuss these issues. I do hope that this
Federal Government does not find itself in a position of
passing laws, trying to decide who goes to the bowl
championship and who ought to be number one. Alabama claims, I
think, 12 national championships. Several of those are
disputed, but we believe they won it every time. Others claim
they won it some of those years. I mean, my heart is not broken
that somebody else claimed the national championship in one of
those years.
I really don't want to see us go to a playoff game. I think
we are getting close enough to picking the national champion
now. I noticed just a few weeks ago, by chance, that now teams
are playing 12 football games a year, regular season. Just a
few years ago, it was ten. Then you have got an SEC
championship game on top of that, and then a bowl game on top
of that. So I am a little dubious about us trying to
micromanage college football and directing that we ought to
have a playoff system that I am not sure would be good for the
players or for the system. As a matter of fact, I would like to
see us drop one of those games, it seems to me.
Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of ways to do this. I know in
the Tulane situation, they weren't ranked in the top. I think
they were ranked tenth, and maybe that was unfair, but how do
you rank a team? One thing I do believe is you have got to have
a strength of schedule. That has got to be a part of it.
Alabama started off with Oklahoma the last 2 years and didn't
come away with a win. Auburn lost to Southern Cal 2 years in a
row; lost one, won one with Syracuse. Would those teams take
those games if they knew that strength of schedule had no
impact on their chance to be a national champion? They would
take the easier games.
So it is a difficult, difficult situation. I think the BCS
was designed to sort of break up these contracts between
conferences and bowls and to provide at least a chance of
having one good national championship game, and pretty much, it
has worked. Mr. Cramer at the BCS came up with this convoluted
system, but it seems to be working. I think the public would
pretty much agree that the top two teams are ending up in the
championship series.
I guess we could discuss, and I would like to hear, whether
people believe a playoff is necessary. I am dubious myself. It
is easy to say a playoff is the answer, but a football game is
a week's preparation. It is a big deal. Unlike basketball, when
you can play games back to back, you just can't do that in
football. It is stressful on the players and injuries are a
problem. It just can't be done. I think these are youngsters
and there is a limit to how much we ought to ask of them--we
may be asking them too much already. Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today. I
would like to thank each of them for testifying at this hearing
today.
First, we are going to hear from Dr. Myles Brand, President
of the NCAA. Dr. Brand, I want to thank you for the effort you
made to get here today. I think it is important that we have
you. I know that you need to leave by around noon, but I don't
think that is going to be a problem.
Next, we have Chancellor Harvey Perlman of the University
of Nebraska at Lincoln. Mr. Perlman will be speaking on behalf
of the BCS schools.
After Mr. Perlman, we will hear from Dr. Scott S. Cowen,
President of Tulane University. Dr. Cowen is the President of
the Presidential Coalition for Athletics Reform, which consists
of more than 50 non-BCS universities that have concerns about
the current bowl system.
After Dr. Cowen, we are happy to have Mr. Keith Tribble
here, who is here in his capacity as Chairman of the Football
Bowl Association.
And saving the best for last, we will be pleased to hear
from Coach LaVell Edwards, former head football coach at
Brigham Young University. LaVell Edwards is truly one of the
most talented, respected, and beloved coaches in the history of
college football. Under the tutelage of Coach Edwards, the BYU
Cougars accumulated 257 victories in 29 years and Coach Edwards
led BYU to 20 conference championships, took his team to 22
bowl games, and won a national championship in 1984. He was
named National Coach of the Year twice, in 1979 and 1984. So,
Coach, we are happy to have you here. We know it has been an
inconvenience for you to come, but we are happy to have you and
Patty with us today.
We will start with you, Dr. Brand, and go right across the
table.
STATEMENT OF MYLES BRAND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Mr. Brand. Thank you, Chairman Hatch. I appreciate the
opportunity on behalf of the NCAA for the invitation to be here
today.
It has become surprisingly apparent to me since assuming
the position of NCAA President last January that there is a
confusion in the public and media with regard to what the NCAA
is, where its role as national office ends, and where the role
of the NCAA as a membership association begins. With every new
issue that emerges in the media, there is the expectation that
the national office and I, as President, should exert authority
to set things right.
In fact, the national office and the NCAA President have no
authority other than that explicitly granted by the more than
1,000 member colleges and universities. This is a critical
point. The NCAA is not an all-powerful presence and the NCAA
President is not the omnipotent czar of college sports. Rather,
the NCAA is an association made up of universities and colleges
that acts only after considerable deliberation, reflects the
majority will of the membership, and authorizes the national
office to execute its decisions. The member institutions retain
far more autonomy over their athletics programs than they cede
to the NCAA.
The association's three membership divisions each have
their own governance structure. In Division I-A, decision
making is in the hands of 18 university presidents appointed by
the conferences to a board of directors. Division I is further
subdivided in the sport of football into three parts, I-A,
consisting of 117 schools with the broadest financial
investment; I-AA, which offers fewer football scholarships; and
I-AAA, which does not sponsor football at all.
There are NCAA football playoffs in Divisions I-AA,
Divisions II, and III, each having been established by a vote
of the member schools. The membership in Division I-A has never
voted to conduct an NCAA football championship. Instead, I-A
has a tradition of post-season football participation through a
series of bowl games conducted during the Christmas and New
Year's holidays.
Unlike the NCAA's administration of other championships,
its role in I-A post-season football is minimal, focused
primarily on a certification process. The association's
involvement in I-A football was significantly diminished in
1982 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the NCAA's regular
season television contract a violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. As a result, schools negotiate television contracts
through their conferences. The 64 BCS schools have further
negotiated joint television contracts for the four major bowls.
The goal of the BCS is, through the bowls, to match the
number one and number two teams in a season-ending game. It is
focused on post-season events. Participation in the 64 BCS
schools and four major bowls of the series--Rose, Orange,
Fiesta, and Sugar--has long been dominant.
Currently under debate is access to the BCS bowls by the
non-BCS conference institutions. These 53 schools have formed
the Coalition for Athletics Reform. Now, many of the media and
the public favor a full Division I-A playoff not unlike that of
the basketball tournament. I do not, not because I believe it
is academically unsound, but rather because it would diminish
the tradition and benefits of the bowls. The addition of a
post-bowl game or another BCS bowl, while still controversial,
may be worthy of consideration.
I certainly understand the concern for greater access to
the major bowl games. For those who assign football a high
priority in their expenditures, there should be a fair means of
competing for post-season play. This is, I believe, the essence
of the Coalition's position. No school, including the BCS
institutions, should be disadvantaged by any new approach. In
that regard, I do not favor redistribution of current revenues
that accrue to the BCS universities through their football
media contracts. The current revenue structure is a result of
the free market system at work. Any changes to the current
approach must add value for all participants.
On September 8, I facilitated a meeting where the
representatives of the BCS and Coalition schools began a
conversation to address these issues. I am pleased to report
that the meeting accomplished more than anyone would have
expected. All the participants emerged from the meeting with a
greater appreciation for those things they have in common as
well as respect and understanding for the differences. These
presidents have agreed to meet again November 16 to consider
post-season football options put forth by their fellow
presidents and their conference commissioners.
This is the preferred approach to resolving differences.
Intervention by external bodies, including the courts, will be
counterproductive. Ultimately, the university presidents are
the decision makers and I have confidence that they will be
statesmen and women. I urge the Committee to encourage the
Division I-A institutions, as you have, to come together,
discuss their issues in good faith, and find solutions that
advantage intercollegiate athletics and higher education as a
whole, and I thank you.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Dr. Brand.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brand appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Mr. Perlman, we will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF HARVEY S. PERLMAN, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF
NEBRASKA-LINCOLN, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
Mr. Perlman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Bowl Championship
Series is a limited arrangement designed to create for post-
season college football a national championship game and to
avoid an NFL-style playoff system, which most university
presidents oppose. I would be happy to talk about why that
occurs in the questioning if it makes sense. But what I would
like to do is to talk about three myths that are perpetuated by
the critics of the BCS and to give you our perception of them.
The first myth is that the distribution of revenue from the
BCS has created the haves and have-nots in college football.
This myth fails to account for the economic realities of
college athletics. Let me use my own school as an example.
Nebraska receives approximately $1.2 million annually from the
BCS distributions. By contrast, we earn about $3 million from
each home game in a stadium that seats 77,000 fans and for
which we have had over 200 consecutive sell-out crowds.
The total budget for Nebraska athletics and for other
schools that have sustained success is in the $50 million
range. For the most part, these funds come entirely from
athletic revenues. My own athletic department is entirely self-
supporting and, in fact, contributes $1.5 million annually to
the academic programs of the university. If all of the net BCS
revenue were equally divided among all the Division I-A teams,
regardless of their participation, each school would receive
about $750,000.
There are, to be sure, major disparities in wealth between
football programs in Division I-A, but it is not the product of
the BCS. Rather, they are the direct result of the passion and
generosity of our fans and the investments we have made in
stadiums and other facilities. What critics are asking is to
share in money they did not produce, to, in effect, have
Nebraska fans or students or taxpayers subsidize their athletic
programs. But even with such sharing, the amount of funds in
the BCS is insufficient to make a noticeable dent in any
disparities that exist.
Myth two is that we have denied access to teams or student
athletes for the opportunity to play in a national championship
game. This is an argument that is emotionally charged but empty
of substance. Any Division I-A team has access to the BCS. Any
team that is ranked in the top six at the end of the season has
automatic access. Any team that is in the top 12 may be chosen
by the bowls for two at-large positions.
Even prior to the BCS, the participants that are now in the
BCS bowls came almost exclusively from BCS conferences, with no
opportunity for other conferences to participate. Now they have
such opportunities by winning on the field over the course of
an entire season. The BCS did not alter the landscape of who
played in the major bowl games. This was and still is dictated
largely by networks and bowl committees who want the best teams
and the teams whose fans are likely to fill their stadiums.
Myth three is the fairness myth, that somehow it is unfair
for these non-BCS schools not to have a visible role in the BCS
even though they have not fielded highly competitive teams on a
sustained basis. The argument is too broad and has very serious
implications.
My university competes with other universities on a wide
range of issues beyond football. We compete for students, for
faculty, for research grants, for recognition. Our success in
this competition is determined by our natural advantages, our
traditions and location, the support of our constituents, and
most importantly, by the strategic decisions we make in
directing our resources.
All of the major universities can point to some programs
that are highly ranked, whether they are academic or athletic.
This success did not happen by accident but by the choices we
made and the context in which we operate. A law student who
attends a Midwestern university has less access to employment
opportunities in a Wall Street law firm than those who attend
Harvard, even though many are just as bright and well trained.
A student who wants to be an oceanographer will find it very
difficult to do so by enrolling in Nebraska, just as a student
interested in agriculture would be disadvantaged going to
Harvard. Similarly, a student who wants to maximize his chance
of playing for a national championship in football will most
likely enroll in a school that has a history of football
success.
The strength of American higher education is in its
diversity. We all have areas in which we excel. Why is it valid
to only claim that those who happen to excel in football are
being unfair in doing so? Why shouldn't we open up access to
endowments, to tuition income, to nationally recognized
faculty, to Federal grants, to gifted students under a similar
theory that it is unfair for any institution to be more
successful than any other institution?
I thought that fairness in our society meant that if you
worked hard, if you made the right decisions, if you were able
to retain the allegiance of customers or patrons, and if you
were successful, you should be able to enjoy the benefits of
that success.
Notwithstanding our view that the BCS arrangement is wholly
appropriate, I assure you that the BCS presidents are exploring
in good faith with the other five conferences to see if there
are ways to improve their situation without diminishing ours.
We are doing so because we are colleagues, not because we fear
antitrust inquiry or other legal action. I believe all of us
recognize that any proposal that might emerge from those
discussions will have to be tested in the marketplace to see if
it has any economic value.
I thank you very much for this opportunity and I will be
happy to respond at the appropriate time to any questions.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Chancellor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perlman appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Dr. Cowen?
STATEMENT OF SCOTT S. COWEN, PRESIDENT, TULANE UNIVERSITY, NEW
ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Mr. Cowen. Chairman Hatch and esteemed members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to address the issue of
fairness and access, or lack thereof, in the Bowl Championship
Series. I am here today representing a Presidential coalition
from more than 50 universities which are not part of the BCS.
These universities represent approximately half of all Division
I-A schools. I want you to understand that this issue is really
about creating a just system for millions of fans and for over
13,000 student athletes, including the 5,000-plus young men who
play football at the 53 schools not in the BCS.
My commitment and passion for this subject is borne out of
respect for these young people. Have you ever had to stand in
front of a top ten-ranked team and tell them there was no
opportunity for them to play in a BCS bowl, much less the
national championship, because of an unjust system? I have, and
it is not a situation I want anyone else to have to experience.
The Coalition's position is simply this. The BCS is an
unnecessarily restrictive and exclusionary system that results
in financial competitive harm to the 53 Division I-A schools
who are not part of the arrangement, even though all of these
schools must meet the same membership requirements. From our
perspective, the BCS is unjust and unjustifiable.
Let me tell you what this issue is not about. It is not
about who invests more money in their football programs. It is
not about what system was in place prior to 1998. It is not
about us wanting to transfer money from one university to
another. These arguments, or ones like them, are merely
smokescreens that fail to address the real issues. They are
intended to divert us from the fact that the BCS is an anti-
competitive and highly exclusive system created in concert by
six conferences, four bowls, and a TV network. The fact that
the goal of determining a national championship can be
accomplished in a much less restrictive manner makes the
current BCS system an even more problematic one.
Our legal concerns with respect to the university have been
thoroughly vetted by the Coalition's legal counsel, Covington
and Burling, and we are convinced the BCS presents significant
antitrust issues. However, we also believe these concerns can
be addressed by modifying the BCS system in ways I will
describe momentarily.
The BCS needs to be significantly modified because it
severely limits access to post-season play through its system
of automatic qualifiers for favored conferences, preferential
treatment of Notre Dame, statistically suspect ranking system,
and interlocking arrangements with the major bowls and a
television network. This nationwide web of competitive
restrictions is a far cry from the old traditional bowl system.
In the past 25 years, Florida State University and the
University of Miami grew from independent regional teams into
national football powers. It is unlikely they could have
achieved this success in the face of today's BCS restrictions.
The current BCS system has created significant branding,
competitive and financial disparities between those schools in
the BCS and those outside it. For example, since the inception
of the BCS arrangement in 1998, the BCS conferences' 63 schools
have shared a pot of approximately $450 million, while the
other 54 Division I-A schools shared $17 million. Yet, we are
all part of Division I-A. In other words, 96 percent of the
revenues go to BCS schools and four percent to the remaining
Division I-A schools, even though we account for approximately
half of all Division I-A. This financial disparity is a
consequence of a highly restricted system, not one based on
free market principles.
In addition, the BCS causes disparities that go beyond
money. They affect Title IX, recruiting, facilities, the public
perception of schools, and the very survival of many athletics
programs. We believe the current system can be fixed by
replacing it with one that has the following characteristics.
One, a system that is fair and inclusive.
Two, it fosters a unified Division I-A and enhances the
vitality of all Division I-A programs.
Three, it provides reasonable opportunity for all Division
I-A football programs to have access to what are now referred
to as the BCS bowls, including the national championship.
Four, it meets the highest standards of legal soundness and
is reasonably consistent with how national championships are
conducted in all other NCAA-sponsored sports, including
Division I-AA football.
Five, it respects the historical role of the bowl system
and further enhances the value of post-season play for our
fans.
And finally, it allows our student athletes to realize
their competitive dreams.
Our Coalition will offer approaches with these desirable
characteristics at our next meeting with our BCS colleagues on
November 16. The Coalition believes our differences with the
BCS representatives will be successfully resolved because we
all share the same common goal, doing what is in keeping with
the highest standards that guide our universities.
This hearing is an important part of the resolution process
and we want to thank the Committee once again for recognizing
the importance of this issue.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Dr. Cowen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cowen appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Mr. Tribble, we are happy to have you here
and look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEITH R. TRIBBLE, CHAIRMAN, FOOTBALL BOWL
ASSOCIATION, MIAMI, FLORIDA
Mr. Tribble. Thank you. Chairman Hatch, Senator DeWine, and
Senator Sessions, my name is Keith Tribble and I am the Chief
Executive Officer of the Orange Bowl Committee, a not-for-
profit organization that produces the annual FedEx Orange Bowl
and its ancillary events. I also appear today as the Chairman
of the Football Bowl Association and its membership of 28
individual bowls, virtually all of which are nonprofit
organizations.
On behalf of the Orange Bowl Committee and the Football
Bowl Association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the merits of the college football bowl structure.
Although the Orange Bowl is a participant in the Bowl
Championship Series, I am not appearing here today in that BCS
capacity.
The Football Bowl Association was formed in 1983 to provide
a forum for bowl issues, to ensure that the quality of the
bowls is maintained, and to promote the continuing respect for
the bowls within intercollegiate athletics. Our organization
today speaks with a unified and strong voice for the
preservation of one of the Nation's greatest annual traditions,
post-season football.
A host Committee made up of community and business leaders
manages each bowl game within the Football Bowl Association. In
South Florida, the local organization producing the FedEx
Orange Bowl is the Orange Bowl Committee. Since 1935, our
mission has been to maintain a self-sustaining, independent
organization supporting and producing activities and events
that enhance the image, economy, and the culture of South
Florida. I would like to point out that the Orange Bowl
Committee proudly has Senators Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, as
well as Governor Jeb Bush, among its membership.
Simply stated, for the past 90 years, bowl games have been
the heart and soul of college football. The system has never
been better. I would like to identify eight key areas that
outline the merits of the bowl system.
The first one is participation. More teams participate in
college bowl games than ever before. Fifty-six out of 117
Division I-A football teams will play in a post-season bowl
game this year. Seventy-nine teams have participated in bowl
games at least once during the past 5 years. Approximately
5,000 student athletes, 11,000 college band members, 1,000
cheerleaders, and millions of fans will take part in this
tradition.
Number two, experience. Student athletes, alumni, and fans
annually take part in the traditional college bowl experience,
typically encompassing a week of special activities. Across the
country, from Georgia to Texas to Idaho to California, no other
post-season sports model is as unique as that in college
football.
Number three, fan attendance. Fan attendance is at an all-
time high in post-season football. A record 1.4 million fans
attended bowl games last season. This figure represents 85
percent of total stadium capacity.
Number four, television viewership. The growth of
television viewership for post-season football has reached
unsurpassed levels. Last year, a record television audience of
117 million households watched college bowl games on six
national networks.
Five, financial contributions to higher education. College
bowl games contribute a huge amount of money to higher
education. Collectively, the bowls have paid out an outstanding
$800 million over the past 5 years and will pay out a record
$185 million this upcoming bowl season. It is projected that at
least $2.1 billion will be contributed over the next 10 years.
Six, economic impact. Bowls are a boost for the local
economy and help promote the local tourism industry. This past
bowl season, 28 bowl games generated an estimated $1 billion
worth of economic impact for their host communities.
Number seven, the importance of the regular season. Bowl
games bring a measure of importance to the regular season not
seen in any other sport. No other collegiate sport plays as few
regular season games as football, and every game means
something. Conference championships mean something.
And number eight, the charitable contributions. In addition
to the NCAA institutions participating in post-season college
football, bowls also contribute significantly to local
charities and causes.
Bowl games have been a historic part of this country for
almost a century. They have provided some of the greatest
moments in college football history and add to the pageantry,
color, and excitement of this fabled game. Indeed, college
football is a proud symbol of America.
On behalf of the Football Bowl Association and the Orange
Bowl Committee, I would again like to thank you for allowing me
to appear here today before you.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tribble appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. We will wind up with Coach Edwards. We are
looking forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LAVELL EDWARDS, FORMER HEAD FOOTBALL COACH,
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, PROVO, UTAH
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to
be here this morning. What I want to talk about today are
dreams and opportunities.
All of us dream about the great accomplishments we want to
achieve in our lives. I have spent my life with young athletes
and I can tell you that dreams are the fuel that drives them to
excel. Now, there are dreams and there are fantasies. A dream
can come true; a fantasy can't. The difference is opportunity.
The problem with the Bowl Championship Series is that it
prevents student athletes at 54 universities from achieving the
dream of ending the season ranked number one. Being a national
champion is only a fantasy for these players. That is because
the BCS is stacked in favor of teams from their six-conference
alliance who alone can play in the national championship game
at a predetermined bowl game site. In fact, players from those
54 non-BCS schools are the only college football players who
can't compete for a national championship. Every other division
in college football allow and offer their players the
opportunity to compete for a national championship.
Mr. Chairman, the BCS system not only disadvantages some
players' ability to compete, but also negatively impacts all
bowl games. In addition, it creates a two-tiered recruiting
system, as well as an unfair imbalance between universities in
terms of revenue derived from football.
The national champion selection has altered greatly since
1984, the year that we won the national championship. Under
today's BCS scheme, that 1984 BYU team couldn't have played in
the title game. The system wouldn't have allowed it to happen.
Mr. Chairman, my fear is that if the BCS system continues,
the gap between the elite college football programs and the
rest of Division I-A football will continue to widen and many
universities will be forced to drop or alter their programs
altogether.
I have talked today about the national championship game,
but another consequence of the BCS setup is a negative ripple
effect it causes for the rest of the bowl games. After locking
up the top four games, teams from non-BCS schools are shut out
from the next level of bowl games. The organizers of those bowl
games extend invitations to second, third, fourth, fifth,
whatever place in those alliance conferences, bumping the rest
of us from the opportunity of playing in some of these games.
Mr. Chairman, teams from the six conferences use a stacked
deck to their advantage, namely in recruiting, what some will
argue is the most important component of winning teams. At BYU,
a traditional recruiting hurdle was encountering PAC-Ten
coaches who would tell kids if they attended BYU, they would
never play in the Rose Bowl. Well, that was difficult enough to
contend with.
After the formation of the 1996 Bowl Alliance, the
recruiting hurdle was set even higher. With the BCS in place,
PAC-Ten coaches and others could and would tell players not
only couldn't they play in the Rose Bowl, but they couldn't or
wouldn't play for a national championship game if they were to
choose to enroll at school in Provo, and they were right.
Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, parity has come into
college football because of fewer scholarships that are offered
annually. Many in the university community agree reducing the
number of scholarships per team has been good for the game.
Why, then, would the NCAA sanction a post-season system that
congregates more power and revenue in fewer teams? It is
inconsistent and counterintuitive.
The BCS system is not good for the game and it is not good
for higher education. Surely the NCAA and Division I-A football
can join the other 22 intercollegiate sports and devise a
system that determines a true champion, preserves the integrity
of the game, and levels the playing field.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, right now,
teachers, counselors, parents across the country are telling
young men and women that if they work hard, commit themselves,
and never lose sight of goals and dreams, they, too, can become
a U.S. Senator. Every person in our country has that
opportunity to turn dreams into a reality. It is the reason
each of you is here today. The reason I am here is that because
of this flawed BCS system, talented young athletes are denied
an opportunity to make their dreams come true, and I believe it
is wrong.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Coach.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. All five of you have given excellent
testimony. We have a vote on and I am a little bit late for it,
but I wanted to make sure I got through this panel. So we are
going to recess until probably Senator DeWine gets back and I
have asked him to ask any questions he has and anybody else who
comes and I will come back as soon as I can.
With that, we will just recess until we can get back, but I
really appreciate all of you.
[Recess.]
Chairman Hatch. I am sorry to have us interrupted by roll
call votes, but it is one of the necessary things around here,
so I apologize to you. I note that Senator DeWine is here.
Let me just start, with you, Coach Edwards. I know you are
the best and I don't know anybody who doesn't respect you as a
human being, as an honest person, as a great coach, and as
somebody who really has done an awful lot for college football
and pro football. I have a great deal of confidence in you.
What is the answer to this? What would you suggest we do, or
that the respective parties do, to resolve this? If there is
some way of doing it within reason, it would seem to me people
ought to consider that. Do you have any ideas there?
Mr. Edwards. Well, one of the great advantages I have right
now is the fact that I am not working for anybody and I am--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. --I am not associated anymore with a
university or with a bowl game or whatever else.
Let me begin by saying, number one, that I am in favor of
keeping the bowl games as we have it. I have seen a lot of
plans where people would like to incorporate the bowls in some
kind of a playoff. I think that would minimizes the bowls.
What I would like to see happen is they can expand the four
BCS bowls now to possible six and then at the end, after those
six games are completed, have a one-game playoff with just two
teams. They would have to seed them or however they want to do
it. But they could create a couple of spots.
I will tell you right now, unless you are playing in the
championship game, the other BCS bowl games, are losing
interest more and more every year. I watched the Orange Bowl a
couple of years ago when Nebraska was playing in it and I saw a
lot of empty seats in the stadium, which you never saw before
with a Nebraska team traveling anywhere. There are a lot of
issues dealing with that.
I believe that you could take the non-BCS schools and have
a one-game playoff similar to what people are having--it
wouldn't even be a playoff, it would be tantamount to a
conference championship game. I think the only reason the ACC
has raided the Big East Conference was to get three premier
teams so they can get to 12 total so they can have a conference
championship game. They tried to seek permission from the NCAA
to get a championship game with only 11 teams and they were
denied, so now they go out and pick up Boston College to reach
the number necessary.
We could take the four conferences in the non-BCS schools,
have a one-game playoff, take the champion of those two, and
play in one of these six BCS games. That would still give them
the opportunity--when I say them, speaking to BCS--they could
still take--they would have spots there in those games, and
every game would have meaning, which it doesn't have right now.
Any spin they want to put on it, that is simply not the case.
And then take the two top teams from that game and have one-
game playoff.
I don't think it would hamper at all the revenue that they
are receiving now. In fact, I think it probably would even
enhance it with this one-game playoff.
And you are not obligating--and we talk about the players
suffering, late in the season, whatever else. In 1996, we
finished a season 14 and one. We were denied access to the--
even though at the end of the season, we were 13 and one, the
first year of the Bowl Alliance, we were ranked number five in
the Nation. We never even got a smell as far as getting into a
BCS game. But we were invited to play in the Cotton Bowl and
the Cotton Bowl was a marvelous experience for us. It was a New
Year's Day and it was a great excitement, although we were
disappointed for not getting a BCS game, this was great. Now,
we can't even get the Cotton Bowl, we can't get a number of
bowls.
So it truly is unfair and I do believe that there can a
system worked out that is not going to take any money away from
them and come up with a system that would allow an opportunity
or an access and bring a little bit more fairness into the
whole system.
Chairman Hatch. You also mentioned the difficulty of
recruiting.
Mr. Edwards. Recruiting?
Chairman Hatch. Yes.
Mr. Edwards. Oh, no question about it. I mean, that issue
comes up all the time. Recruiting is a tough situation. If you
are out in the middle of nowhere, as Nebraska and other
schools, it is tough. You have to go a long way to get people
to come to your school. The closest for us is the West Coast
because of the nearest part of the population. Now, we have
always fought the battle of the Rose Bowl. That was one of
those realities.
But they just keep adding things now. We don't have the
benefit of even going to two bowl games--our conference started
the Fiesta Bowl and the Holiday Bowl. Pluse others close to us.
It is not fair, and not only that, it is not right. It is not
just.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Mr. Perlman, you argue that
BCS's revenues constitute a very small part of the overall
athletic program revenues at your university. Given that, why
are you so vehemently against letting non-BCS schools even have
the opportunity to compete with you for that revenue?
Mr. Perlman. Senator, we are not against them having the
opportunity to compete for that revenue. It is competition on
the playing field. BYU in 1996, I believe, would have played in
a BCS bowl. They were ranked fifth, and anyone in the top six
automatically qualified for a major bowl under the BCS
arrangement. It was the prior arrangement that prevented them
from doing so.
The issue isn't that. We have opened up access to bowls
that before were not possible. The fact is that it is possible
for a BYU player to play in the Rose Bowl now, where they would
have never been able to do so before. It is also possible for a
Nebraska player to play in the Rose Bowl, which was not likely
before.
The question is, how are you going to determine the
national championship in an arrangement in which there are a
lot of independent actors, where television networks and fans
want to see teams that have had sustained competitive success.
So there is no intent on our part nor in practice to preclude
them from the opportunities to compete.
Chairman Hatch. As you know, there are only four BCS bowls
and only eight teams can participate and six of those spots are
guaranteed to the champions of the six BCS conferences and,
thus, only two slots available for all 111 remaining teams in
both the BCS and non-BCS conferences. In addition, it is argued
that the BCS ranking system that determines which teams will
participate in the BCS bowls unfairly favors teams that are
members of the BCS conferences. Do you dispute that, or--
Mr. Perlman. Well, let me respond to both of those. The
reason there are automatic qualifiers in the current
arrangement was because the conferences that are currently part
of the BCS had affiliation agreements with these four bowls
prior to the BCS. So the question was, do we give up those
affiliations in order to create the BCS. That could be argued
one way or another, but it doesn't change the landscape by
adding the BCS to that mix.
The fact is that, again, if you look at the four bowls that
constitute the BCS, throughout their history prior to the BCS,
the teams that participated are largely, almost exclusively,
schools that now currently are in the BCS conferences.
So the question is cause and effect, and I guess our view
is that the BCS has not changed the landscape of competitive
equality. It has not changed the landscape of who plays in the
BCS and who gets the money. The only change we have made is we
have created a system where you could actually have a national
championship game and we opened up access to schools that
before had no access to those bowls.
Chairman Hatch. Dr. Cowen, tell me whether you like Coach
Edwards' ideas and answer Mr. Perlman why that is wrong.
Mr. Cowen. I think both in substance and spirit, the BCS
arrangement put in effect in 1998 is substantially different
than what was there before, because what we do now have in 1998
are six conferences, four bowls, and a TV network in a set of
horizontal agreements where they then also determine how a
national championship will be played. They develop the ranking
system without consultation with 54 other schools. And this is
substantially different than exists before. There was no
national championship before.
So I would say, first of all--and there is also a
presumption that the system that existed prior to 1998 was a
fair and legal one, and that was never really challenged even
though Senator DeWine had wonderful hearings about it and
raised a lot of issues.
That is why I say, I think we really have to look at the
substance of what is going on here. Six conferences, four
bowls, one TV network, a set of horizontal agreements. They
determine the ranking system. They determine the automatic
qualifiers. They are the ones that gave preferential treatment
to Notre Dame.
Chancellor Perlman do agree on one thing, is access is a
myth because there is theoretical access, which, in fact,
exists, but practical access does not. So that is my view of
the BCS.
Now, secondly, about the solution, my critics on the other
side always use as the straw man the deficiency of the 16-team
NFL-style playoff. That conjures up everything that could be
bad about college. And the fact of the matter is, we do
playoffs in every other sport in the NCAA, including I-AA
football. So the culture of playoffs is in the NCAA.
And we say, well, we can't do it here because of student
athlete welfare. Every university president would agree there.
I just wish we would have consistency about student athlete
welfare across all sports. Why all of a sudden is it only
germane when it comes to football when you, in fact, in
basketball play 35 games. Baseball plays 60 games. That is much
more intrusive.
So I think the arguments that I have heard in terms of not
doing a 16-team NFL-style playoff are interesting arguments,
but quite honestly, don't hold water when you really peel away
the layers of the onion.
Now, having said that, I think there is a way to do a
modified playoff that is somewhere between a 16-team and what
we have right now, and Coach Edwards did mention that. There is
a way that you can respect the integrity of the existing bowl
systems but let the championship game be after those bowl
games. That doesn't mean it has to be a round robin. You can go
right from 12 schools, if you had six bowls, let it get down to
six winners and select out of those six who will play in the
national championship game. By going to six bowls, you create
more access points for other conferences so you have taken the
fairness issue. So I think there is a modified playoff that
would take care of everybody's concerns if, in fact, we are
open to it.
The last thing I would say, Senator, is that on November
16, the coalition I represent is going to put a very concrete
proposal on the table for our colleagues on the other side. It
is going to be a principled solution consistent with what I
gave in my testimony, but it is going to be very concrete about
what we want. We are very optimistic, and I want you to know
this, that our colleagues are open and sensitive to these
issues and we will get them resolved.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Coach Edwards, you wanted to
respond.
Mr. Edwards. I just wanted to make one comment in answer to
what Chancellor Perlman said. He said had we in 1996, when we
were 13 and one, under the system now, we would have been
selected in 1998. That is not true, because in 1996, they did
not have their formula. They have a formula now that simply
would have preclude us because of our strength of schedule,
plus other criteria in the formula.
In 2001, BYU was 12 and zero after they had just finished
beating Mississippi State at Mississippi State. Then
unfortunately, they lost the next week at Hawaii. However,
there were projections made based on their formula and whatever
else. BYU would have never gotten higher than ten or maybe nine
on the radar screen as far as that formula is concerned. So to
say that the system had been in place in 1996 is simply not the
case at all.
Chairman Hatch. Okay. Senator Biden, we will turn to you.
Senator Biden. Gentlemen, I again apologize for having to
be down at this hearing on Afghanistan, and if this is
redundant, Mr. Chairman, you tell me and I will read it into
the record. But explain to me again why the playoff system in
AA does not work, would not work, in big-time college football.
Mr. Brand. May I try, sir?
Senator Biden. Sure.
Mr. Brand. The big difference in I-A football from
everything else, I-AA football, from basketball, from all the
other playoffs, are the bowls. That is the additional factor
that changes the landscape. The bowls have a deep and important
history, a part of football. We all know that. And I think
everyone is wont to make that go away. We want to find a way--
Senator Biden. That is not true, by the way. I mean, there
are a whole lot of us in the East who don't give a damn,
really, about the Rose Bowl. There are a whole lot of us in the
East who don't give a damn about the Sugar Bowl. There are a
whole lot of us in the East who don't give a damn about the
Orange Bowl. If they are the only things there to get to play
in, we care about them a lot. But there are a whole lot of us
in the East who would much rather see a playoff system.
But I want to know, what is the mechanical difference? Why
mechanically will it not work? Why functionally would it not
work in terms of stress on players or student quality of life
or all these other things?
Mr. Brand. There is no functional reason why it couldn't
work. That is correct.
Senator Biden. All right.
Mr. Brand. But the desire by others to keep the bowls
intact is what is leading in that direction. Now, what about
the idea of having a post-bowl championship? That is--
Senator Biden. What about the idea of having post-bowl
games after the championship?
Mr. Brand. That is what I just asked.
Senator Biden. Oh, okay. I am sorry. I have got it. I
misunderstood you. I apologize.
Mr. Brand. And here is the question that has to be
answered, if that makes sense. Some people claim that by doing
that, you diminish the interest, fan attendance, and most
especially the television-media interest in the bowls. Is
that--if there were a post-bowl game. Is that true? I don't
know. I mean, I think that has to be market tested. So the
solution that has been proposed may or may not be a good one
depending upon the market tests.
Senator Biden. What would you say if the market tests were
that you would find the television audience was three times as
big for a national playoff as it would be for the Rose Bowl,
the Cotton Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, or any of the four major
bowls? Or let us assume that you took all four bowls and
combined them, and I could show you--I can't--I show you the
market test that a playoff for number one and two for the
national championship would draw a larger audience than all
four bowls combined.
Mr. Brand. That would be a very important factor. Another
factor you are going to have to consider is what is the impact
on the local communities if the bowls are diminished, because
they produce a lot of local economic development.
Senator Biden. Well, I know that, but what about the impact
on our local communities where the bowls aren't and where teams
who otherwise might get to play in this are?
Let me ask you one more question, and I am not in any way
denigrating the bowls. I mean, my Walter Mitty dream for real
wasn't to be a U.S. Senator. I actually thought I could be a
flanker back for the New York Giants. I know that is
ridiculous, but I really did think that--
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. and I went off to school on football. I got
a lot of football scholarship offers out of high school. I was
a relatively good athlete, and like much of the rest of my
life, it proved not to pan out.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. But at any rate, having said that, let me--
so I am not belittling the bowls. I mean, I understand the
great tradition that they are and what they--but the bowls back
in the days when I was coming up--I graduated from college in
1965--the Rose Bowl was essentially a regional fight. No one in
the East gave a damn about it. It was the pageantry. You turned
on the Rose Bowl to see the floats.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. I am not being a wise guy. I am not being a
wise guy. I went to Syracuse University. I mean, you know, the
Rose Bowl was the Big Ten and the Pacific--that is what it was,
basically. I mean, that is what it usually was every year. So
it was a great tradition, but it was like the Army-Navy game.
It is a great tradition but it doesn't mean anything except to
Army and Navy.
Chairman Hatch. You are losing the California vote, Joe.
Senator Biden. No, I am not--
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. Well, in addition to deciding I couldn't
make it as a flanker back, I have concluded I can't be
President right now, so I am not making any compromises here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. But all kidding aside, one of the things
that has happened is that--well, I shouldn't--the bottom line
here is that what you really seem to be saying to me when you
cut everything aside is that the only reason not to have a
playoff to find out in a more legitimate way, in my view, who
is the best team in America is that the regional revenues, the
local revenues the bowls generate--which is a legitimate
concern--for the cities in which they are held and the region
in which they are held, and secondly, because of the total
revenue produced from those bowls.
I wonder, and I realize it is not exactly comparable, but
is there any correlation between who watches what the market
share for the Final Four in basketball is and what the market
share is for any one of the bowls? Does anybody know that
answer?
Mr. Tribble. Senator--
Senator Biden. I realize we are comparing apples and
oranges.
Mr. Tribble. I can speak directly on that particular
question. I think last year, and I don't have the exact
figures, but the championship game for the BCS did better than
the final game of the Final Four in terms of the ratings.
Senator Biden. Okay. You mean each one of the bowls did
better than--
Mr. Tribble. Collective, no, just the national championship
game, the national championship game. The BCS national
championship game--
Senator Biden. Got you.
Mr. Tribble. --did better than the Final Four game, the
last Final Four game.
Senator Biden. Got you.
Mr. Tribble. So compare those apples to apples.
Senator Biden. But we are talking about a single game. We
are not talking about all four bowls, correct? Or are we?
Mr. Tribble. We are talking about a single game, a single
championship game.
Senator Biden. A single championship game. Got you. Okay.
Mr. Perlman. Senator, I wonder if I could respond.
Senator Biden. Sure. Please do.
Mr. Perlman. Because Miles--
Senator Biden. Chuck Hagel told me to be very careful with
you, whatever you said--
Mr. Perlman. I appreciate the Senator's help.
Senator Biden. So I understand. And he said he is not
feeling very good these days anyway, the last couple--but go
ahead.
Mr. Perlman. I would just report to you on the playoff
issue and what the university presidents I have talked with
think. We have had a conversation of this among the presidents
of the Big 12. I know the Big Ten and the PAC Ten presidents
have had the same. And we do think it relates not just to the
money or not just to preserving the bowl games, although the
bowl games are important to us because they have been a long
part of our traditions.
But many of us do think it has academic consequences for
student athletes. Football is a very demanding sport
physically. It is also a very demanding sport in time. It is a
sport that, right now, is played solely in one semester and it
gives the second semester for student athletes to catch up on
their studies--
Senator Biden. Well, the truth is, even when I was playing,
it was a two-semester sport. In your school, it is a 12-month-
a-year sport.
Mr. Perlman. Certainly the conditioning is 12 months, but
the question of being away and being at games is a single
semester. The question about how many physically demanding
games you can ask 17, 18, 19, and 20-year-olds to play is an
issue, and there is no medical evidence one way or the other.
We do not believe a playoff system would work well for our
fans unless those--
Senator Biden. Why are these same considerations not so
dire for I-AA? I mean, what is the difference here? Why for I-
AA, which on balance have academically higher ratings as
universities than you guys, why is it for them that it is not
so damaging to student athletes?
Mr. Perlman. Well, I can't speak for I-AA and I don't know
the comparative data. All I can tell you is what university
presidents--
Senator Biden. The number of games, I think would be the
same, right? Roughly, I mean. Are we talking about more?
Mr. Tribble. Senator, as a former student athlete, former
football player at the University of Florida, I can honestly
tell you that--
Senator Biden. You don't know anything about I-AA, being at
the University of Florida.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tribble. I can tell you the level of play is a little
different--I think Coach can tell you that--between I-A and
what he expects and the I-AA. It is a different game. It is
just a totally different game, from a former student athlete
standpoint.
Senator Biden. No, no, I am a former student athlete, too,
not as good as you, but I am a former student athlete, too.
Even at a little old school like mine, it was a 30-hour-a-week
job playing football.
Mr. Tribble. Right.
Senator Biden. And a lot of these I-AA schools, it is taken
very seriously and it is a big deal and you do, at least at a
little old school like mine, unless you started in another
sport, you had to play spring football, and spring football
wasn't just the 20 days. Spring football was the 20 days before
and the 20 days after and it was a full-time job and you showed
up and you had--now, you didn't travel. You didn't travel, that
was the difference.
So I am not suggesting the quality of the--I mean, it is a
different level. Little old Delaware has an offensive line
averages 314 pounds. I mean, these guys aren't--you know, this
is not like when I used to play. These guys are required to be
in the weight room 20 hours a week. It is--I realize you guys
are the real deal. You guys are one click below the pros, and
some would argue you are the pros and we should make it that.
No, I am serious. As you well know, some people, like me,
begin to think maybe we should just declare, look, you choose
to be a school that is going to have, essentially have
professional athletes and you can do that. But that is a
different story. That is not about this.
The point I am making is that although when I was playing,
I would get hit by a linebacker who weighed 210 pounds and it
hurt. Now you get hit by a linebacker that weighs 265 pounds
and runs the 40 as fast as I can run and it is a different
deal. I got that part. I understand that part. I remember
seeing those black and blue dots, you know, when you get hit by
guys like you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. I remember my coach once saying to me that,
look, the difference between playing--my high school. The
difference between playing caliber high school football,
caliber college football, and pro football is the following.
For a guy like you, Biden, once a game, you may get your clock
hit so hard you see those little black and blue dots. In
college football at a competitive level, you are going to see
those dots about every fourth time you get hit. In pro ball,
you see those dots even before you get up on the line. I mean,
it is just constant.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. So I got the difference in quality. I really
do. But what I still don't get is why the pressure on I-AA
athletes playing I-AA football--like, for example, you had a
little old school that was I-AA that you all kind of made fun
of, is now I-A and beat a number of the top--it beat two of the
top ten teams and it won the national championship in I-AA
every year, you know what I mean? They are not bad. A little
school like McNeese State could take you to the cleaners every
once in a while, Coach. You know, down in Louisiana, these boys
take that football seriously.
Mr. Edwards. That is why we didn't schedule them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. Oh, by the way, that is exactly why you
don't schedule them. No, I got it. So I am not trying to be
humorous here, but what I am trying to get at is not suggesting
that I-AA football is of the quality and the level of
competition that, quote, ``big-time football'' is. It is not. I
got that. But what I don't get is why that difference in
quality--not intensity, quality--is, in fact, so stark that it
is all right for the student athletes to play in a playoff in
I-AA but it doesn't work for big-time football. I don't quite
get that.
Mr. Edwards. May I make just one comment. We may be the
only Division I-A school that has played a 15-game schedule. I
don't think anybody else has. We were 14 and one in 1996, the
year that we were passed over by the Bowl Alliance, and I
didn't notice anybody flunking out of school or jumping off a
bridge or whatever else as a result of that season. That is
just one experience we had.
Senator Biden. My time is up and we probably are all
thankful for that--
[Laughter.]
Senator Biden. --but I just don't quite get it, why it is
that different.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Joe.
Senator DeWine?
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I am sitting
here, it sounds like 6 years ago when we held our hearing. I am
not sure things have changed a lot. The witnesses are
different, but the issues, I think, are pretty much the same
and the arguments are pretty much the same. We have had six
more years of experience.
Let me approach this kind of as a fan. In Ohio, we have
Ohio State and we have a lot of other good teams. We have the
Mid-American Conference, for example. So we can approach it
from several different perspectives in Ohio. I think you can
appreciate that.
I understand that a lot of this is about money. I
understand that the bowls, for example, have to have teams in
there that are going to attract fans. They have to get teams in
there who the TV networks know will attract people who want to
watch those teams play at night. They also have to have fans
who travel well. They pick teams that fans will follow them. I
understand that. I get that. I think we all do.
From a fan's perspective, it seems to me that the current
system does a good job, as well as can be done, of getting us a
game, one game a year where we see the number one team and the
number two team. That is never perfect. We can argue who is
number one, who is number two, who is three, and maybe it is
wrong, but it is probably about as good as we are going to get,
and that is an improvement and I think most fans want to see
that. So I think that is a positive.
I think there is a problem, though, with the current system
and I would like your reaction to this. When you have four
major bowls and you have eight slots and you have six of those
slots that are guaranteed already going in to certain
conferences, and then you have a seventh slot that is going to
go to Notre Dame if they are in the top ten, and so
theoretically, you have got seven slots that are gone, off the
table, in any given year. So you have got one slot left for
everybody else.
Now, let us start with Mr. Perlman. Tell me what is right
about that for a fan.
Chairman Hatch. By the way, this is coming from Ohio State
himself, so--
Senator DeWine. Yes, and I have already said I liked the
last year. Let me tell you something, watching that game, past
Ohio State wouldn't have been in a national championship game.
We would have been at the Rose Bowl, and I would have been here
arguing and saying we really were number one, and we won the
Rose Bowl and we should have been number one, but, you know,
some stupid people who were voting, the coaches and all these
other different rankings, they didn't put us number one.
So I am not saying we should even change our system. I am
not making that argument. But what I am saying is the current
system does a good job in giving us the number one and number
two game, but it seems to me the rest of what we are doing
poses a problem for fans and it poses a problem for all the
other schools, and the schools who--kind of the Cinderella
schools, who in any one given year may be--what are we playing
now, 11 and zero, 12 and zero, ten and zero, whatever they are
playing in any one given year, and who have a great year, and
then they look up at the end of the year and they say, what
about us?
What do you do to those teams that say, well, the system is
rigged now? And if your answer is it was rigged before, I get
that, but I am not sure that is going to satisfy me if I am a
young man or the coach of a team that has had a great year and
here we are and we think we ought to be there, and you say,
well, I could be in the rankings, but I am competing for one
slot, one slot left.
Mr. Perlman. Well, Senator--
Senator DeWine. What is fair about that?
Mr. Perlman. Well, first of all, I think you do have to
take into account the fact that we basically have a playoff
system in the fact that we play it off every Saturday during
the regular season. And so the teams that are in those rankings
have played strong teams and have been successful and that is
fan-based. One of the concerns we have always had with the
playoff is that it would diminish the value of the regular
season.
If you want to talk about Cinderellas, Northern Illinois
would never have had its game televised last week nor had
``Game Day'' appear on its campus if we were in a playoff
system where they would never have emerged at the end. But they
were the Cinderella team that beat three BCS teams and they got
a lot of attention and it was exciting and agrees to that. But
the structure--
Senator DeWine. Well, you have got to explain that to me,
because they were ranked and Bowling Green was ranked and that
is why we got a good game. So you have to explain that to me.
We had two teams that traditionally were not ranked. We had
them ranked in the MAC, which was very, very unusual, and so
the networks said, hey, this is interesting, and we had ``Game
Day'' at the MAC and Bowling Green, Ohio, and we all thought it
was a great deal. So I agree with you. We loved it.
Mr. Perlman. If we were in the playoffs--
Senator DeWine. And if you were Dick Durbin, you didn't
like the outcome, but if you are Mike DeWine, you did, but that
is okay.
Mr. Perlman. If we were in a playoff system, that game
would have been insignificant. That game would have been
insignificant. Right now, every game you play, every single
game you play is critically important if you have any--
Senator DeWine. Let me just interrupt you. You could devise
a system that was different from the old system. See, what you
are saying--your argument would be, well, we would have to go
back to the old system. What I am saying is the choices in life
aren't just the old system and the current system. There could
be another system which would not automatically say that
certain conferences get six of the eight, plus Notre Dame can
get seven. That is all I am saying. I am not advocating for
that, I am just being sort of the devil's advocate here to get
your answer.
Mr. Perlman. There are other systems and maybe some of them
would appear to be fair. You could take the top eight teams as
ranked and put them in the bowl games. That is something that
could be openly discussed.
The actors here, however--I mean, there are other issues
involved with doing that. The bowls want to assure that they
have teams whose fans will travel because their economic
survival depends upon it.
Senator DeWine. Sure. Oh, I get it.
Mr. Perlman. The networks want teams that will attract a
fan base beyond their own. And so, yes, there are other systems
that are, on one level may appear fair, but on other levels
raise very difficult questions about the economics of these
arrangements.
Senator Biden. Could I interrupt and ask a question?
Senator DeWine. Well, I have got a red light here, but yes?
Senator Biden. I am confused. Assume you took the top eight
teams. Is the suggestion that any one of those top eight teams
are not likely to have the fan base that would travel? Is that
what you are saying? In other words, only those in the
conferences who have demonstrated they draw these large crowds
would have enough of a fan base to travel? Is that the idea? I
am not disputing it, I just want to understand what you mean by
that.
Mr. Perlman. There are teams that travel better than
others. We have sort of been known for traveling well.
Senator Biden. I mean, are there any teams that haven't
traveled to the bowls? I mean, can you give me examples of a
history when the Rose Bowl wasn't filled? Can you give me an
example of when the Sugar Bowl wasn't filled? Can you give me
an example when the Fiesta Bowl of late wasn't filled? I mean,
I am confused by that one. That seems to be, in my old business
as a lawyer, that seems to be a bit of a red herring, Mr.
President.
I mean, if you can show to me now when so-and-so and so-
and-so played in the Rose Bowl, they only had 70 percent
capacity show up. That was it, and there were empty seats. Can
anybody name for me any time when any of the four bowls we are
talking about did not have a capacity crowd? Maybe that is
true. I don't know. It is a genuine question. I may be
mistaken. Or is it just they don't wear red?
Mr. Perlman. Well, if they didn't wear red, they wouldn't
be from Nebraska.
Senator Biden. That is my point. No, I mean--I wish we
would be a little more straight about this, you know what I
mean? If there is evidence of that, I would like it for the
record, that there are times when teams have been picked before
to play in the bowls where people didn't show up and what would
make anybody think that any university that made the top eight,
that was in contention to be the national champion, would not--
we would not fill that stadium, whatever it was?
Senator DeWine. Does anybody want to respond?
Mr. Tribble. I will take an attempt at it, Senator. I can't
recall of a specific time, particularly talking about the
Orange Bowl, in the top eight, but I think when you get, in
some instances, the top 12 or 15, depending on where the school
ends up, it depends on how the school finishes. It could affect
it.
I think one of the things that Senator DeWine was talking
about is that the bowls are very adamant that, you know, they
have obviously been doing this for 90 years and the point of
being involved in this business is to provide that economic
impact and to provide opportunities for the schools in terms of
the money we pay. But that is all based on a business model, a
model that looks at which schools can travel, which schools
have the appeal to television and so forth and so on.
The one, I guess, good point about having a lot of
potential at-larges, and yes, at some point we were looking at
Northern Illinois because they had a potential in our game. But
we were going to look at them just like the other six or seven
schools that could have a possibility for a potential slot in
our game and make a business decision based upon what is good
for our area and what is good for our economy and what is good
for producing the things that we need to do for the schools.
Senator Biden. I appreciate your answer, but what about the
teams that aren't in these conferences and the fans that aren't
in these conferences? It looks un-American. It really does. It
looks not fair. It looks like a rigged deal. It looks like if
you have the biggest team, if you spend the most money, even if
you have turn-out, not to have the best team that year, then it
is rigged. It is just not American. That is how it comes
across.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman--
Senator Biden. Now, it doesn't come across in your
conferences that way, but it comes across at Ohio University
that way, which is not part of this. It comes across in a lot
of these other places that way. I don't know, it just doesn't
smell right.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, in our previous hearing,
there clearly was testimony--that is why I alluded to it in my
statement--there clearly was testimony that certain teams,
quote, ``don't travel well'' or fans don't travel well, and
that was the testimony we had before. The allegation was that
certain teams did not--their fans didn't travel and also that
if they did travel, they didn't spend money. I know we had that
testimony last time. I am not saying that is right, but that is
what the testimony was.
There were examples last year, when you got away from the
top four bowl teams, I read in the newspapers, read on the
sports page where certain teams or schools were required, if
you were going to accept this bowl bid, you were going to be
required to guarantee X-number of tickets, that your school had
to buy X-number of tickets. Now, is that right, Mr. Perlman?
That is not unusual.
Mr. Perlman. No, that is common.
Senator DeWine. You are going to have to guarantee, I don't
know, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, whatever it is number of tickets,
and there were examples that I saw last year, at least one
example I recall where a school had to eat some tickets, and
they just had to guarantee X-number of tickets, so--
Senator Biden. For the top four bowls, Senator?
Senator DeWine. Not the top four, no, sir. Not the top
four. But these are bowls you had heard about and bowls you
watched on TV. So this issue does come into play, but I think
your point is that on the top four, when you are dealing with
the top four, that--
Chairman Hatch. Their ability--
Senator DeWine. --they are going to be sold.
Chairman Hatch. Dr. Brand, we promised we would let you
go--
Senator DeWine. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my time.
Chairman Hatch. --at 12. Do you need to leave.
Mr. Brand. This is too interesting, Senator. Can I stay a
while? I am having too much fun.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Hatch. We are glad to have you here, but we will
understand if you have to leave.
Mr. Brand. Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. Senator Sessions?
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Chairman Hatch. I love college
football. I remember in the 1960's when my little senior class
of 35, was graduating and we went to Montgomery. Our little
group of five bought a $30-something bus ticket to Miami to the
Orange Bowl to see Auburn and Nebraska play. We were convinced
that no one could beat Tucker Fredericksen and Jimmy Sidel, but
Nebraska did. Congratulations Mr. Perlman. So bowl games do
have--you know, the thought of going off to some tropical
paradise. There is a lot of history here and that is important.
I think about this past Saturday when Alabama and Tennessee
played. Both of them have had disappointing seasons so far.
Neither one will be in the national championship game. A packed
house at Tuscaloosa, almost 80,000 people, five overtimes, one
of the great games in recent years, and it was just a
magnificent sight and spectacle, really. College football is
special.
I think, Mr. Perlman, you touched on something that is not
insignificant and that is what happens to the regular season
games when you are not going to be in the national championship
game? Nebraska plays Oklahoma or Oklahoma State or Texas and
Auburn plays Georgia, the oldest rivalry in the South. Those
games are important. I would kind of hate to have us suggest
that the only thing that really counts in football is who wins
this playoff, who gets hot the last week. We want a team to
feel good about a seven-and-three, eight-and-two season. Mr.
Brand, do you have any thoughts about that?
Mr. Brand. I think the regular season games are absolutely
important, and just as you say, I agree with you entirely,
Senator, about the desirability for the fan base from the
schools and we should never do anything to harm those. I concur
with you entirely, Senator.
Senator Sessions. And that is why the TV ratings are good.
I am sort of surprised how many SEC games are shown in this
area on television. I realize people who grew up in the SEC
environment want to watch their teams wherever they are, and
there are a fairly decent number here.
Now, Coach Edwards' comments, I think, are not invalid. I
think they have some validity to it. But I also have got to
tell you, this knife can cut both ways. An eight-and-two
Georgia team could beat one of these 14-and-zero teams from a
smaller conference. Or you take a Florida team that plays
Miami, or Florida State plays Miami and loses by one point.
Florida State has all year played tough games and they lose one
by a small margin, it does not mean they are not as good as a
14-and-zero team who didn't have to play Miami.
So these conferences come together and they band together,
Mr. Perlman, and they choose the best competitive programs to
be in their conference. We can see expansion interest in the
ACC. They wanted the best teams they could get with the biggest
stadiums and the strongest programs because that helps the
conference, but it also increases the strength of their
schedule, does it not, and increases the likelihood that they
may not get to the end of that season undefeated?
Mr. Perlman. It is hard for me to know whether it increases
the strength of schedule or not. It may very well have that
effect. Certainly--
Senator Sessions. Depending on how good the team brought
into the program, you are right.
Mr. Perlman. You are exactly right--
Senator Sessions. It may not be.
Mr. Perlman. --and how many of the lower-tier schools of
the conference they have to play because of the conference
schedule.
Senator Sessions. Well--
Mr. Edwards. I was taken back a little bit by the comment
that someone made about the Bowling Green-Northern Illinois
game, that without the publicity of the game, its not meaning
anything if we had a playoff. That is simply not the case. If
we had a playoff, the winner of that conference is going to be
invited to get into the playoffs. That part doesn't make sense.
The problem with--you can have an eight-and-two team and
you can have a seven-and-three team, but you know what? They
still have the opportunity to get into this BCS thing. A 13-
and-zero Tulane team had no chance whatsoever and that is the
inequity of the whole thing. All we are trying to say is the
fact that there can be a way to work this out, to make it fair,
but also that is not going to damage the system that you have
in place today, and that is a closed monopoly on college
football, any way you want to look at it.
Senator Sessions. Well, I would say that maybe the system
can be improved. I think the Bowl Championship Series was an
improvement. Alabamians felt like the Rose Bowl entered into
that contract between the Big Ten and the PAC Ten to keep
Alabama from coming out there. They used to go out there and
win, and I guess they probably didn't travel, and didn't have
any money if they did, in the Depression days so they would
probably rather have a team that could travel better. But they
were shut out of that.
And so I hope we are in a movement, I really do, that would
provide more opportunity for openness. I really think we need
to do that. But I am not unmindful of the great traditions of
an Alabama or a Tennessee or an LSU or a Penn State, Ohio
State, that carry the popularity, a Notre Dame team, that
really drives the popularity of this sport. That is who people
turn on their television to watch most of the time. They have
those historic storied traditions, packed stadiums, bands, and
all the things that just really make college football such a
wonderful spectacle. I think it is the greatest sport there is.
A great football game between two big teams in college is just
unsurpassed. It is just magnificent.
I don't know that some changes are going to ruin that.
Coach Edwards doesn't believe it will, but I think we need to
let our institutions here work together. The bowls have an
interest. Television has an interest. They are paying the money
to put it on and you need to have a game that people will
watch. So all these things are factors.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is great for us to have this
hearing and discuss it. I think we ought to be careful that we
don't let lawyers and politicians stick our nose too much into
this subject.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator.
Dr. Brand, we realize your members are split on this issue,
but you have heard a lot of criticism here today. You have
heard Senator Biden say that this seems to be un-American, the
way this works, and very prejudicial and not fair. I guess what
I am saying is that you are an educator, you are a teacher. Let
me ask you, do you think this system is fair or can we make it
better?
Mr. Brand. I think the decision makers, namely the
presidents--
Chairman Hatch. No--
Mr. Brand. I am going to answer your question, sir.
Chairman Hatch. I am asking you.
Mr. Brand. I think the decision makers, the presidents,
share your view and my view, as well, that they will do
everything possible to make it fair, attractive to fans--
Chairman Hatch. So that implies it is not fair.
Mr. Brand. No, I didn't say that. They will do everything
they can to make it fair, whether it has to be changed
somewhat--I don't think radical change is in order, I really
don't, in going for an NFL-type football approach on the one
side and making no changes whatsoever on the other. I don't
think those radical solutions are there. But there is a window,
I think, to provide additional access for institutions and I do
think that the presidents, the decision makers, will work
towards that goal.
I have confidence in them that they do want football to be
successful. They do see the benefits, as Senator Sessions said.
And they do want fairness. That doesn't mean equality for all
independently of what you start with. It means opportunities
based upon success on the field. So I think they will work
towards that, but I don't think one should expect radical
change from where we are right now.
Chairman Hatch. Dr. Cowen, you wanted to comment.
Mr. Cowen. Just a couple of comments, Senator Hatch, if I
may. First of all, I would like to just comment on something
Senator DeWine said, because it was very key, about the fans.
You ought to know, in the last 3 months, there has been at
least three national polls of fans, and in each poll, over 80
percent indicated they want the BCS system changed. So the fan
support out there is not for the BCS system if you could
believe these polls.
The second thing is I think there is a lot of mythology
about the competitiveness of non-BCS and BCS schools. I don't
know if you realize that in the last 5 years, in bowl games
where non-BCS schools have played BCS schools, the record is
eight and eight. So this mythology that somehow they are so
much superior than we are doesn't exist in fact.
The third thing, if you look at the ESPN ratings for games
where non-BCS play non-BCS schools, those ratings are very
comparable to when the BCS schools play each other. So that
would indicate that the audiences out there want it.
The fourth thing is, and this is the great irony for me, if
the BCS schools are so superior competitively and they have
invested so much money, why do they need all these
restrictions? Because then, according to them, it will come out
the same way anyway. So how on the one hand can you say we have
invested all this money, this is a priority for us, it is a
birthright, and then say, well, just in case, we are setting up
all these restrictions to increase the probability. The logic
of that doesn't strike me.
Having said all that, Senator Hatch, my colleagues on the
BCS side are good and honorable people. I know a lot of them
personally, including my colleague to the right. I am totally
comfortable that we will reach a settlement because I do think
everybody is going to the table with an idea of fairness and
openness and opportunity. So I am cautiously optimistic we will
get it. There is no doubt in my mind the current system is
unjust and unjustifiable. But I think it can be changed and
preserve a lot of the things that are good about it and also
make it a fairer system for all the rest of us who constitute
Division I-A.
Chairman Hatch. Let me just go back to Coach Edwards, and
we will end this pretty soon. Senator DeWine's comments
reminded me just a little bit of--Coach Edwards has one of the
greatest senses of humor of anybody who has ever coached in
college football and we all love him out there, but one time,
Coach Edwards, he joked about BYU. He said, they don't travel
well because BYU's fans arrive in town with the Ten
Commandments and a 50-dollar bill and they leave without
breaking either of them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. And I got in trouble.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Hatch. Yes, he got in trouble for that comment. I
am not--
Mr. Edwards. But we always filled stadiums where we
traveled, for the most part.
Chairman Hatch. That is the point. There is a huge
contingency all over this country of BYU fans that always fill
those stadiums. But I just love that comment. That just tickled
me to death.
But Coach Edwards, and then Mr. Tribble, as well, could you
comment on how important traveling well is in getting a bowl
invitation? Go ahead.
Mr. Edwards. Well, I don't think there is any question when
you go to a bowl game that that is an issue that does come up.
A couple of years ago, I don't know, three or 4 years ago, when
New Mexico, I think, was ten and one and were not invited to a
bowl game anywhere because the perception was that they didn't
travel well. They certainly deserved to be somewhere because
they had an excellent football team. I think that perception
out there hurts and it creates a situation where it even
continues to make it difficult for a team to get out from under
this. I think that had they had a chance, I think that
particular team would have traveled well, but that is just
supposition on my part.
But, you know, there are teams that travel well, but that
is an issue. There is no question about it. Bowl teams always--
that is one of the number one considerations that they have,
that and probably how they are going to sell on television.
Chairman Hatch. Because of the great quarterbacks you
developed over the years, BYU had a lot of non-Utahans, non-
Mormon people who supported BYU and just loved to see the game
played the way you coached it. So they didn't have any trouble
filling those stadiums, I have got to say that, in spite of our
propensity to carry the Ten Commandments and a 50-dollar bill
and not breaking either.
Mr. Tribble?
Mr. Tribble. Chairman Hatch, I agree with Coach. It is the
number one issue that bowls look at. I mean, bowls are looking
to see how many fans will travel to their areas, and that is
not just the BCS bowls, that is all 28 bowls, and we make
decisions based on that. We make decisions based on the alumni
base, the appeal to television. So we have a business model and
all of us have a business model that we have been using for
over 90 years.
An example is that last year, we had Iowa versus USC. Iowa
had 40,000 fans that attended that game and USC had 15,000 to
20,000. So the economic impact for our area was obviously
tremendous. So we had a lot of people visiting our area during
the time when, as we all know, we all need to stimulate the
economy. So this, obviously, we do our part as a bowl to help
that, and that is done in all 26 communities to help that part
of it. But we do look at the fan support. We do look at the
amount of fans that will travel as one of the criteria.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Are there any further questions?
Senator Biden. Yes. Could I ask one? I am confused about a
few things. Let us assume that, for just the sake of
discussion, as we say, to argue in the alternative, Mr.
President, do you think that the four major bowls would not
fill the stadiums if there was a national playoff and post-bowl
play? Would you worry that they would not be filled?
Mr. Tribble. Yes. I think from the Bowl Association's
standpoint and from the BCS, and obvious, the BCS bowls are
part of that, we are very concerned about anything that will
really diminish the bowls. It has been said that it is akin to
basketball, but basketball is different. We are talking about a
sport that has to travel 30,000 to 40,000 people week to week
and there are certain parts of the United States that an
airline ticket will cost you $1,500 to travel to Miami, and if
next week you are going to the Rose Bowl, that is another
$2,000. Today, people just don't have that disposable income to
be doing that kind of thing.
So that is why we feel very strongly that the system that
we have in place today is good. It has worked, and obviously,
the BCS is part of that.
Senator Biden. Okay. The second question I have is,
President Perlman, you talked about the importance of the
weekly games in a season. The Senator from Alabama talked about
the spectacles, which I agree with him. I mean, it is
incredible. One of the most exciting games I have ever seen--I
didn't care about either team--was Miss playing Ole Miss and
being in the Grove down in Ole Miss. I mean, it is an
experience. It is an experience.
But is anyone suggesting that if we had a different system,
that Michigan and Michigan State wouldn't put 100,000 people in
that stadium, or that Auburn-Alabama or Auburn-Georgia wouldn't
put, whatever, 87,000 people in that stadium that week, or any
of these great traditions would suffer week to week because
there was a different system at the end determining who the
national champion was? I mean, is that implicit in the concern
about--I am not sure I understood this notion about affecting
week to week.
Mr. Perlman. Well, Senator, I don't think any system is
going to keep us from filling our stadium.
Senator Biden. Yes. I don't think so, either.
Mr. Perlman. And I am certainly not an expert on this, but
I am told there is at least evidence that suggests that the
playoff system in collegiate basketball diminishes the value of
the regular season, both in terms of television revenues and
others. You know, it is--
Senator Biden. But I don't understand--
Mr. Perlman. It is not going to hurt our fans, but the
question is, how enthusiastic are people not directly connected
with a university going to be to watch it during the regular
season.
Senator Biden. Well, the point is that, you know, I don't
know how--I mean, look. Dr. Brand, you said the NFL football
model. A lot of us who are in States that don't have these big
schools think you are an NFL football model. I am not being
facetious. I am not trying to be a wise guy. They think you are
an NFL football model. In every other way, you are a model of
NFL football. All I have to do is go down the list of scandals
every year that are legion. So nobody has to--I mean, the idea
that the rest of the country out there that doesn't have a team
in one of these six conferences, the idea that we don't look at
you already and think you are an NFL football model, because
that is what you are in the minds of many of us.
I don't know that you all get what other people think when
they are not in these conferences and I find it kind of
compelling, what Senator DeWine said. You have got eight slots.
At least six are guaranteed of the eight slots. And you get to
determine the ratings and the rankings about what constitutes
competitiveness. I mean, that is like talking about the fox
guarding the henhouse. I mean, you get to determine what
constitutes competitive. That is like us saying, you know what
we are going to do? We will let each party determine when the
election results turn in and whether or not it was fair based
on the outcome.
This patina of fairness and openness is just so much
malarkey. There is no other place where you would say that a
national championship or the champion or the winner has to be
determined, which understandably, based on being weighted,
based on their competition, and the six outfits that already
get a slot are the ones that determine how to weight it. I
mean, that is kind of interesting. I think you are all phony
about that, not personally phony, but I think you are being
disingenuous. There is nothing objective about this. There is
nothing objective about it.
Now, if you said, all right, what you are going to do is
you are going to go out and the conferences and the other teams
are going to submit the names of 15 people who each week will
decide what the ratings are and there will be four independent
folks that don't represent any conference in here or whatever
sports writers, then, okay, I get that. There is no doubt it
should be weighted, because, Coach, you are right. There are a
whole lot of seven-and-three teams that could beat 14-and-zero
teams.
And the one incredible thing about college football, or at
least used to be, is that what does matter, even more than in
the pros, is what does matter is heart. There are those
incredible games where the folks with less talent beat the
folks with a great deal more talent. That used to be the single
most exciting thing about football, college football.
I am going to get in trouble here for saying this, but the
reason I don't watch college football anymore, it is like pro
football. Watching Miami--a wonderful school, by the way--play
Florida State, I might as well turn on and watch the Eagles
play the Packers. These are schoolboy athletes who have come
out and made their way.
I mean, you guys are operating in a--I just don't get it
and the point I want to make is the idea that this thing--it is
like Senator--he wouldn't mind my telling this--Senator Dodd
tells a story. When he first got here as a young Congressman,
he was under the--neither one of us served in the House, but he
was serving in the House and they have a five-minute rule where
you get to stand up in front of the chamber--usually no one is
in the chamber--and you get the chance to make a speech. Here
with us, the danger is you can get up at any time and make a
speech if you want and there is no limitation.
And he was making his first speech, he said, and I will not
mention the other Congressman's name, but while he is standing
in front of the House making a speech to essentially an empty
chamber, he said this senior Congressman walked up and walked
behind him and whispered. He said, ``Kid, you are acting like
this thing is on the level.''
You guys are acting like this is on the level. You guys are
acting like there is an objective means by which we weight
this. Maybe what you all should do is go out and find an
objective means to weight it, not change anything, but not let
you guys determine how to weight it. Anyway--
Mr. Perlman. Senator, could I make one quick response to
that?
Senator Biden. Sure. Please.
Mr. Perlman. I mean, it is clearly the perception that we
control the rankings, and to be sure, we decide what elements
go into the rankings. But each of those elements is out of our
control. The fact is that we use the AP writers' poll, the
coaches' poll, which includes coaches from Division I from
these five conferences that are not part of the BCS. We use
computer surveys that we have no control over. We use strength
of schedule, which you can debate whether it is appropriate or
not, but I think most of us intuitively think that the stronger
teams that you beat, the better team you are. And we use wins
and losses.
So while, sure, we put it together and we said, these are
the elements to be considered and here is how you figure it out
and that creates a perception that we are in control, each of
those elements, we have nothing whatsoever to do with.
Chairman Hatch. Let me just say in closing that one thing I
am getting about this is there will be an effort to try and
straighten this matter out. Now, I am suggesting to you as
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that that effort needs to
take place, because there are a lot of people very, very upset
at what they consider to be inequities and justice here and
partiality and, to use the term, maybe phoniness.
So I am hopeful you are right, Dr. Cowen, that you can get
together, all of your friends on all sides of this issue, and
resolve this matter, because if it isn't resolved, it seems to
me Congress could step in, because I do see antitrust
implications here. Admittedly, admittedly, they are not clear-
cut, but I do see them and I see some real problems if that is
the route that has to be taken, or if the Congress has to
rectify this situation. But it is not right to not have
fairness in a system that we all value very highly.
So with that, I just want to compliment all of you for
being here. We really appreciate you taking the time to be
here. This has been a very, very important hearing. I have
enjoyed all the questions of my colleagues and I have certainly
enjoyed all that you have had to say. With that, we will recess
until further notice.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3795.057