[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES: MONEY AND OTHER ISSUES OF FAIRNESS FOR
PUBLICLY FINANCED UNIVERSITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 1, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-34
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-883 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
HILDA L. SOLIS, California JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JAY INSLEE, Washington MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
JIM MATHESON, Utah PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
(ii)
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Vice Chair Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
BART STUPAK, Michigan Mississippi
GENE GREEN, Texas GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York MARY BONO MACK, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah LEE TERRY, Nebraska
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JOHN BARROW, Georgia SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 3
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, opening statement....................................... 5
Witnesses
John D. Swofford, Commissioner, Atlantic Coast Conference........ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 87
Craig Thompson, Commissioner, West Mountain Conference........... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Answers to submitted questions............................... 95
Derrick Fox, President and CEO, Valero Alamo Bowl, Football Bowl
Alliance....................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Answers to submitted questions............................... 97
Gene Bleymaier, Athletic Director, Boise State University........ 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Answers to submitted questions............................... 104
Submitted material
Letter of April 29, 2009, from the Bowl Championship Series...... 83
Letter of April 28, 2009, from the Football Bowl Association..... 85
THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES: MONEY AND OTHER ISSUES OF FAIRNESS FOR
PUBLICLY FINANCED UNIVERSITIES
----------
FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in
Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rush, Green, and Barton (ex
officio).
Staff Present: Christian Tamotsu Fjeld, Counsel; Valerie
Baron, Legislative Clerk; Michelle Ash, Counsel; Brian
McCullough, Minority Senior Professional Staff; William Carty,
Minority Professional Staff; Shannon Weinberg, Minority
Counsel; and Chad Grant, Minority Legislative Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will come to order.
I want to thank the members of the committee, the
witnesses, and those who are in the audience today for taking
the time out for appearing before this rare Friday a.m.
Subcommittee hearing; and the Chair now recognizes himself for
5 minutes for opening statements.
Crowning a national champion in college football has long
been controversial. Whether it has been decided by the AP
sportswriters poll or by the current bowl championship series,
fans and sports-talk radio have always argued over which team
deserves to be number one. While personally I favor some sort
of playoff system to determine a national champion, as does
President Obama, I understand and appreciate the history and
tradition of the bowl system.
However, criticism of the BCS goes beyond just a mere
sporting interest in determining the team that most deserves to
be national champion. This is indeed about money, and it is
about money at taxpayer-funded colleges and universities.
College football is big business, and the BCS strikes many
critics as unfair from a financial perspective.
There are 11 athletic conferences that make up Division 1
college football. Under the current BCS system, six of those
conferences--the ACC, SEC, the Big East, the Big 12, the big
10, and the PAC 10--are guaranteed $18 million each to
distribute among their member schools; while the five other
nonautomatic conferences--the Sun Belt, the WAC, the MAC,
Conference USA, and the Mountain West conference--only receive
$9.5 million combined. Notre Dame, an independent school,
automatically receives $1.3 million all by itself.
How can we justify this system during these tough economic
times when States are slashing their budgets and cutting
spending on education? And let me be clear that we are not
examining a trivial matter at today's hearing. Colleges and
universities are funded by taxpayer dollars; and we have to ask
whether or not the big, dominant conferences are engaged in
uncompetitive behavior and negotiating contracts at the expense
of smaller conferences and their schools. In other words, are
the big guys getting together and shutting out the little guys?
Such disparity in revenue distribution would arguably be
justifiable were the schools from the automatic conferences
simply better athletically than those from the nonautomatic
conferences. But for the past year, and for in the past several
years, this has clearly not been the case.
Let's look at last year. Both the ACC and the Big East
failed to produce a single team in the Top 10 of the BCS
standings, while the Mountain West and the WAC each had a team
in the Top 10, Utah and Boise State. Yet both the ACC and the
Big East received almost $19 million each in BCS revenue, while
the Mountain West received only $9.8 million, and the WAC
received $3 million. On its face, this does not seem fair or
tied to actual performance on the field.
Nonetheless, I do want to keep an open mind on this matter
and hear from our distinguished panelists today. I am eager to
hear from Commissioner Swofford and Mr. Fox on their views on
the way the BCS revenue is currently distributed, why it is
fair and equitable to taxpayer-funded colleges and
universities.
I want this to be a deliberative hearing and a robust
exchange of ideas. The BCS recently signed a new television
contract with ESPN reportedly worth $125 million a year
starting in 2011. I will be interested to know how the BCS
intends to distribute this considerable sum of dollars to
colleges and universities across the country.
Lastly, I just want to thank my friend, the distinguished
ranking member and former chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Barton, for his extensive and commendable work on this matter.
Mr. Barton has some strong--I might say very strong opinions on
this subject, and I appreciate his passion and commitment to
exploring this issue among many other issues that this Congress
is facing. Mr. Barton has introduced legislation on this issue,
legislation that I have cosponsored, and I sincerely hope that
we can discuss this bill as well.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before
us today, and I appreciate your travel to the Nation's capital
on relatively short notice.
I yield back the balance of my time; and now I recognize
the ranking member of the full committee, my friend from Texas,
the one and only, Joe Barton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have strong opinions. My strongest opinion on this
issue is the fact that my team, Texas A&M, is never mentioned
in the same breath as national champion for college football,
but with Coach Sherman maybe one of these days will change.
I, along with you, want to welcome our distinguished panel.
This is not the oversight subcommittee, so we don't subpoena
people to testify. You folks all came of your own volition when
we asked you to, and we appreciate it, both those of you who
are proponents of the playoff and those of you who have some
doubts about it. So we are extremely gratified you would come
on Friday.
When I was chairman of this committee, I held a hearing on
the same subject 3 years ago, 4 years ago, to just give
attention to it; and at that time in that hearing I had hoped
that through a spirit of volunteerism that the BCS would decide
to go to a playoff system. That hasn't happened yet.
It is interesting that people of goodwill--and I think
everybody on whatever side of the issue you are on this one is
a person of goodwill--keep trying to tinker with the current
system; and it is to my mind a little bit like--and I don't
mean this directly--but it is like communism. You can't fix it.
It will not be fixable. Sooner or later, you're going to have
to try and remodel. And that's why we are here today.
We have heard about the thrill of victory and the agony of
defeat on ABC Wide World of Sports, but, as Mr. Rush says,
sports fans seldom think about the money. We are going to talk
about the money a little bit today. Chairman Rush mentioned it
in his opening statement, and it is I think an important reason
why we do not have a playoff system.
Last year, the so-called championship game had two teams
that had each lost a game, but there were several other games
that had only lost one game, and there was a team that hadn't
lost any games, Utah, that wasn't in the national championship
game. If you had a playoff system, you wouldn't have that
problem. The people in the playoff game, the championship game,
would be there because they would have beaten everybody else.
No system is perfect, but why is it in the NCAA, every
other sport they give a championship? It is won on the field or
on the track or on the golf course or in the gymnasium. It is
not won because two teams are kind of picked out of a hat or as
a result of a poll in a computer system and allowed to play for
the national championship.
Several college coaches that are well known have said that
they are advocates for a playoff system. Urban Meyer, who is
head coach of the current national championship team, Florida,
has stated in the past that he favors a playoff. Nick Saban,
Pete Carroll, the head coach at Texas, Mack Brown.
In May of 2008, one of the winningest college football
coaches of all time, Joe Paterno, said, and I quote, I think
you ought to win it on the field. I've always been for a
playoff. End quote.
We didn't ask the coaches of Boise State and Utah to be
here today, but if they were here and testifying I think they
would say they were for a playoff.
There are countless coaches, even a few university
presidents, and, believe it or not, the President, President
Obama, who has stated that they think we need to have a playoff
the same as we have in every other sport.
The more I think about it and the more people I talk to who
really know college football, it is clearer and clearer to me
that the reason we don't have a playoff system is a very green
reason. It is not green environmentally. It is green money. It
is that simple.
As Chairman Rush has said, you know, a $125 million
television contract and all the other contracts that are not
through nationally but through regionally, it is just too much
money being made this way and people don't want to change that.
This is interstate commerce. This committee has every right
to regulate interstate commerce. The bill that I introduced
that Chairman Rush is a cosponsor of doesn't say there has to
be a playoff. It simply says, if you're going to advertise it
as a national championship series and a national championship
game, it has to be the result of a playoff. Otherwise, it is a
false and deceptive trade practice under the Federal Trade Act.
So you couldn't advertise. You couldn't get the money. You
couldn't sell the T-shirts. You couldn't do all those things
that you do under the current system.
So it is not Congress being dictatorial. It is Congress
saying truth in advertising. If we're going to have a national
championship game, a national championship team, it ought to be
the result of a playoff.
I think equity is a factor here, too. My guess is when Mr.
Swofford and Mr. Fox talk later they are going to talk about
the student athlete, as well they should. But it is interesting
to me we just added another regular season game. I don't see
how that helps academics. And we are also playing college
football on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Those are not
normal evenings that our student athletes should be out on the
football field. They should be in study hall or something like
that.
And the reason that they are playing Tuesdays, Wednesdays,
and Thursdays is not because they are making straight A's in
classes, although some of them may be. It is because their
schools need the extra money; and their coaches are hopeful
that the extra exposure, especially if they are from a non-BCS
conference, might get a little bump in the polls and move up so
that they might have a shot at one of the at-large bids in the
BCS.
Some movement has been made. I am told that there was some
discussion at the last BCS meeting, wherever that was, about a
playoff, but that it was rejected. I think that is a step in
the right direction that they are talking about it. But the
real step is to go ahead and implement it.
I don't buy the argument that you can't change because of
television contracts. Those contracts have kick-out clauses. It
would be very easy to implement a playoff system.
I also don't buy the argument--although I am going to
listen closely to Mr. Fox from the Alamo Bowl--that it would
somehow destroy the bowl system or the mid-range bowls, things
like this. They could be a part of the playoff system. They
could be an addition to the playoff system.
The NIT basketball tournament has thrived in the midst of a
65-team playoff for the college basketball championship. As I
asked Mr. Fox off camera, if Texas A&M and Texas Tech were in a
playoff and the first round was at the Alamo bowl, I think the
Alamo Bowl would do pretty well.
So, in any event, Mr. Chairman, I see my time has way
overexpired. I am for college football. I enjoy watching it. I
enjoy going to the games in person.
I have a wife who is a fanatic University of Texas longhorn
fan. She had season tickets at Texas. And so it makes for some
interesting Thanksgivings when A&M and Texas are playing in my
home. I have had ham sandwiches on the back porch as much as I
have had hot turkey in the dining room in some of these last
few years.
But I hope we can work this out. And, again, thank you for
holding the hearing; and, you gentleman, thank you for
testifying. At least you are willing to go on the record. And
as I've told some of you privately, there is a whole bunch of
heated intensity off the record, but there is not nearly as
many people willing to go on the record. So we appreciate you
being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the ranking member.
Now the Chair recognizes my friend, my classmate, the
Congressman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes of an opening
statement.
And, prior to that, the chairman sees that the gentleman
has a helmet. Are we going to engage in any kind of combat on
the hearing? Or that is just----
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, that violates House rules, but I
am not going to object.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I have a blue collar district. We
normally wear hard hats, just not this hard.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding the hearing
on this. And, just for the public's interest, our Energy and
Commerce Committee has been spending weeks and actually months
now working on carbon sequestration and health care; and this
is much more fun to talk about. Because I am actually here
today, even though Congress is not, because I thought we were
going to have some work on our energy work. And coming from
Houston, Texas, that is awfully important in our community, but
I am glad the Chair of our subcommittee held the hearing on
bowl championship series and NCAA Division 1 college football.
I want to thank our witnesses, like my colleagues did, for
traveling across the country. The problem is, you have two
Texans here and only one fellow from Chicago. So you are going
to have to listen to a lot of UT A&M and, in this case,
University of Houston, because I know you traveled from across
the country.
Over the last several seasons, there has been growing
frustration from the system and less than unanimous agreement
on the teams that should be playing a bowl championship series
national title game. The most recent title game this January
was no exception. There was hardly agreement from professional
commentators and fans alike that Oklahoma and Florida were the
two best teams in the country.
Now I am an alumnus of the University of Houston, and while
it has been a while since the Cougars were at the top of the
polls, my family is divided because my son went to Texas A&M,
my daughter went to University of Texas. And as we know that UT
beat Oklahoma earlier in the year in the Red River Shootout,
many people thought they were a better team to contend for the
national title.
There were also two undefeated teams, Utah and Boise State,
that established themselves as top caliber teams over the
recent years with bowl wins over larger schools and impressive
regular season records.
Despite coming from conferences that do not receive an
automatic bid into a BCS bowl game, the coalition conferences
that do not receive an automatic bid at BCS bowl game also
receives significantly less money from BCS-generated revenue,
approximately half of the $18 million the automatic BCS
conferees receive.
While the coalition conference does receive a larger share
if they place a team in the BCS bowl, the odds are so highly
stacked against them, as we saw last year with Utah and Boise
State, they rarely have that opportunity.
Last season, my alma mater, University of Houston, actually
won its first bowl game since 1980 when it defeated Air Force
in the Armed Forces Bowl. If the Cougars program gets back to
where it was in late '70s, when they finished fourth in the AP
and Coach's poll in '76 and fifth in 1979, I would hope they
would have the opportunity to compete in the BCS bowl. But
recent history has shown that, under the BCS system, odds are
not in their favor since they are a coalition conference.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing and look
forward to fairness of the BCS system. I know our witnesses
today have a number of different viewpoints on the issue, and I
look forward to the testimony.
In the sports pages and in the college towns across the
country there is growing frustration that the current system is
significantly flawed, and I am pleased Craig Thompson is here,
because I read several articles last week in the Houston
Chronicle about your presentation of BCS and suggested changes.
And while I understand it may be still under consideration,
again, thank you for being here and appreciate the time today.
But, again, for the mass public who is worried about carbon
and health care, we are working on those, but we can walk and
chew gum at the same time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Now the Chair is indeed gratified to welcome our witnesses
before this panel. Again, I want to reiterate our deep
appreciation for you taking the time out from your very busy
schedules to appear before this subcommittee; and I just want
to assure you that this subcommittee, the chairman, and I
believe that the Members of Congress have a keen interest in
this particular issue and that this interest will give us an
opportunity to have some meaningful discussions and debate
around this particular issue as we go forward.
Before I swear you in, I just want to say that about a week
ago I read in the USA Today a comment that was at the risk of
our congressional involvement--legislative involvement on this
particular issue, but--and I can't remember the author of the
statement, the gentleman that the statement was attributed to,
but I can assure you each and every one of you, that he was
dead bang wrong. We are quite interested in it. Indeed, some
are very passionate about it. And I don't see it is not in the
interests of college football for anyone to be dismissive of
our congressional intent, our responsibility, and our
congressional commitment.
So, with that said, I am going to welcome our witnesses;
and I would ask you, because it has been a new practice of this
subcommittee, to swear in witnesses. So I would ask you to
stand and please raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Please let the record reflect that all witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. Please take your seat.
And I will introduce the witnesses first, because we hear
their opening statements. To my left, to your right, is Mr.
John D. Swofford, who is the current Commissioner of the
Atlantic Coast Conference. Next to Mr. Swofford is Mr. Craig
Thompson, who is the Commissioner of the West Mountain
Conference. And next to Mr. Thompson is Mr. Derrick Fox, who is
the President and CEO of the Alamo Bowl, representing the
Football Bowl Alliance. And, lastly, next to Mr. Fox is Mr.
Gene Bleymaier, who is the Athletic Director of Boise State
University.
Again, welcome each and every one of you.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN D. SWOFFORD, COMMISSIONER, ATLANTIC COAST
CONFERENCE; CRAIG THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER, WEST MOUNTAIN
CONFERENCE; DERRICK FOX, PRESIDENT AND CEO, VALERO ALAMO BOWL,
FOOTBALL BOWL ALLIANCE; AND GENE BLEYMAIER, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR,
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Rush. Mr. Swofford, we will begin with you for 5
minutes of opening statements or thereabouts. Please pull the
mic to you and turn it on, and you're now recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN D. SWOFFORD
Mr. Swofford. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, Ranking Member
Barton, ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Swofford; and I
have been commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference since
1997. Prior to that, I was the Athletic Director at the
University of North Carolina, my alma mater, for 17 years.
I speak to you today not only as someone who has been
fortunate to spend my entire professional career as an athletic
administrator but also as a former student athlete in the sport
of football. While I was in college I was fortunate to play at
UNC and participate in two post-season bowl games. Like most
student athletes, my football career ended when I received my
undergraduate degree. My own experiences in the Peach Bowl and
Gator Bowl remain among the fondest memories of my athletic
career. As an administrator, I have tried to ensure that those
same post-season opportunities exist for as many student
athletes as possible.
Currently, the Atlantic Coast Conference serves as the
coordinating offices for the bowl championship series. This is
an assignment that rotates every 2 years among the conferences
that are a part of the BCS arrangement. The BCS is now 11 years
old, and it is the result of a group of people at the various
conferences and selected bowls asking one question: How can we
keep the bowl system and also create a championship game that
includes the number one and number two ranked teams on an
annual basis?
Prior to the current BCS structure, the two top-rated teams
played each other only nine times in 45 years. The BCS exists
to accomplish three relatively simple goals: one, create the
opportunity for a national championship game; two, maintain the
bowl structure and create quality match-ups; and, number three,
maintain and enhance college football's regular season as the
best and most meaningful in all of college sports.
The BCS has been successful in reaching these three goals.
It has paired the number one and number two ranked teams in the
Nation on an annual basis. It now includes all 11 of the
football bowl subdivision conferences. Every conference has
more access into the highest level of bowl games, more money
and access potentially into the national championship game than
ever before.
During the BCS 11-year span, college football has
flourished, attendance is soaring, television ratings are high.
BCS television ratings regularly outrate the NCAA basketball
Final Four, the NBA playoff finals and the World Series.
Recently, the level of interest of young people in various
sports was measured. NASCAR and the NFL over the last decade
gained 1 percent. College football gained 9 percent in the 12
to 17 age group, the largest gain of any sport. Most every
other sport has actually devalued the regular season, while
college football's regular season has only gained in stature,
interest, attendance and television coverage. While realizing
that many American sports fans relate very well to a playoff
system, much of this could be lost if the regular season were
turned into a seeding process.
The current system maintains long-term bowl alliances.
Bowls have existed for over 90 years, in some cases, starting
with the Rose Bowl. They stand as cultural icons in our
country. Twenty-nine non-BCS bowls create regional interest,
support charitable causes, generate tourism, economic impact,
and tax dollars for host cities, as well as give approximately
6,000 young men, most of whom are not fortunate enough to play
on college championship teams, the chance to enjoy a memorial
post season experience.
Bowls are not merely games. They are events.
Teams do not travel to them the day before the game and
leave immediately afterward as in the regular season or would
be the case in a playoff. Rather, they go to the host city and
stay as many as 6 days, enjoying the hospitality of the bowl
organization. Fans travel to the games and stay for several
days, thus generating economic benefits for the host city and
allowing the bowl to attract local sponsors and support that
help it fulfill its economic and charitable missions.
For example, the Sugar Bowl estimates that the two BCS bowl
games played in January, 2008, created an economic impact in
the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana of nearly
$400 million. State and local governments realized nearly $25
million in tax revenues as a result of those two games.
We cannot reasonably expect fans and teams to travel
multiple times in December or January staying several days in
each location. Our fans do not have the time, and most do not
have the financial resources to do so. Moreover, I am not aware
of any football playoff in this country at any level in which
all games are played at predetermined neutral sites that may be
thousands of miles from the homes of the participating teams.
College football is different than professional. There are
120 bowl subdivision college football teams, and our preference
is that a system provide a large number of those teams with a
post-season opportunity. Professional football, with only 32
teams, can make a 12-team playoff work nicely within its
structure.
Like all other football playoffs in the NCAA and the
professional leagues, early round games of any bowl subdivision
playoff would almost certainly be played at campus sites, with
only the final contest at a neutral site. As the playoff grows,
sponsorship and television revenues that historically have
flowed into bowl games and their host cities will inevitably
follow, meaning that it will be very difficult for any bowl,
including the current BCS bowls, which are the oldest and most
established in the game's history, to survive.
The current system also keeps football a one-semester
sport, maintains the integrity of the regular season, preserves
the overall bowl system, does not conflict with fall semester
exams in most instances, and adds only one additional game.
One of the reasons we are where we are in post-season
college football is because of the fact that the BCS is a
system that the conferences have individually and collectively
been able to agree on. Decisions concerning the BCS arrangement
are made by a Presidential oversight committee, which is a
group of university presidents and chancellors with advice from
conference commissioners, athletic directors, and coaches. The
BCS arrangement is reviewed annually by all 11 conference
commissioners and an athletic director advisory panel. We also
seek the advice of representatives of the American Football
Coaches Association on certain matters.
Ultimately, our presidents and chancellors remain strongly
committed to the balance of academic and athletic excellence.
Their first priority is their students and preparing them for
their futures. The BCS, we find, is fully consistent with the
educational mission of our colleges and universities and
maximizes the number of post-season opportunities for our
student athletes, coaches, and fans.
Now each year one or more of the conferences submits ideas
for change in the current system. All of them receive careful
and deliberate consideration. Last year, for example, the
Atlantic Coast Conference and the Southeastern Conference
proposed a format adjustment. This year, the Mountain West has
suggested a different adjustment in the format, and the
conferences will consider that proposal during their various
upcoming spring meetings.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Swofford, you're almost 4 minutes over, but I
have been pretty lenient, so please close your comments,
please.
Mr. Swofford. Thank you, sir.
We are aware that no mechanism for determining a college
football national champion will ever be perfect, without
controversy or without ambiguity. We are always open to
suggestions to improve BCS or the game of college football as a
whole.
In closing, college football continues to be managed within
the context of higher education. University presidents and
chancellors seek a balance between the academic missions of
their institutions and the desire of fans for a system to crown
the national champion. We want to maintain the significance of
the regular season and support a vibrant post-season bowl
structure that provides a maximum number of opportunities for
student athletes.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from a number of conferences,
presidents, and the University of Notre Dame that I would like
to submit for the record please.
Mr. Rush. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Swofford. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be
with you today and to address these matters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swofford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thompson for 5
minutes or thereabouts.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG THOMPSON
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Barton, and members of the subcommittee for holding this
important hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today.
The presidents of our nine member institutions believe
there are five fundamental flaws with the current BCS system.
They also feel criticism without a solution solves nothing.
Therefore, the Mountain West Conference has submitted a
proposal known as the BCS reform proposal which addresses each
of those flaws.
First, BCS revenue distribution is grossly inequitable.
There are six automatic qualifying conferences, known as AQ
Conferences, whose champions are guaranteed access to lucrative
BCS bowl games each year regardless of how they perform on the
field. These conferences receive more than 87 percent of the
revenue from the BCS, whereas the other five conferences,
called Nonautomatic Qualifying Conferences, collectively
receive under 13 percent.
Under the current system, conferences that perform in a
similar manner are not treated the same. The Mountain West has
performed well against the six Automatic Qualifying Conferences
and interconference games over the past 4 years. Yet during
that same span the BCS has paid each of these six conferences
an average of $78 million in revenue, while we received just
$18 million.
To illustrate the point, in 2008, the Mountain West and an
AQ Conference each at had one team playing the BCS bowl. We had
three teams ranked in the top 16, all of whom finished above
that conference's champion. Yet the AQ Conference still
received almost 9 million more than the BCS for that year.
If the revenue were more fairly distributed, nonautomatic
qualifying universities could use the additional funds to
improve academic programs, increase scholarships, increase
medical support for student athletes, and pursue a host of
other beneficial purposes. The reform proposal would also
result in considerable new revenue for all conferences so that
all universities would benefit financially. In this economic
climate, that is extremely important.
Second, the BCS relies on non-performance based standards
to determine which conferences are guaranteed access.
Specifically, the BCS uses bowl tie-ins and agreements to
determine which conferences automatically qualify. Prearranged
agreements trump results on the field. The reform proposal
ensures that performance is the primary factor in determining
which conference champions automatically qualify for the high-
profile BCS bowls. Under the proposal, a conference has to win
at least 40 percent of its interconference games against AQ
Conferences over a 2-year period to earn an automatic bid.
Third, none of the 51 teams that play in non-AQ Conferences
can realistically ever have the opportunity to win a BCS
national championship, given how the current system is
constituted. Such a result is patently unfair.
Again, in 2008, the Mountain West had the best
interconference record against AQ Conference teams; and Utah
had the best record in major college football. However, those
student athletes did not have an opportunity to compete for the
national championship. Utah was eliminated this past season not
by a team but by the BCS system.
The BCS incorrectly presumes that computers and pollsters
can look at several outstanding teams and somehow determine
which two deserve to play in a national championship game. To
remedy this flaw, the reform proposal creates an 18 playoff.
This will not only produce substantial new revenue, but it will
also make the regular season and post season much more
exciting.
Minimal regular season games will impact the national
championship race under this proposal, and the number of post-
season games with title implications will also increase
exponentially. The playoff would only add about 1.5 weeks to
the season during winter break and then only for two teams.
Fourth, the BCS relies on confusing computer formulas and
pollsters to decide the BCS rankings. The reform proposal would
use a well-informed committee like the committee in college
basketball to make these important determinations.
Fifth, the BCS dictates unbalanced representation on its
governing body. The reform propose would permit each conference
and Notre Dame to have exactly one vote. Our presidents believe
that, by remedying these five flaws, the BCS reform proposal
helps to ensure higher education is sending the appropriate
messages to students and is acting above reproach.
One of the primary objectives of universities is to ensure
students graduate with a firm understanding of the principles
of fundamental fairness and equitable treatment. Yet support of
the current BCS system is not consistent with those principles.
It is inconsistent with the message that if you work hard you
have a chance to reach any goal. That is simply not true under
the current BCS format.
Given the system's fundamental flaws, it is time for the
BCS to act. It should join President Obama, Vice President
Biden, and Members of Congress from both parties in
acknowledging the need for change and take the appropriate
steps now to develop a more equitable system.
Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to
answering questions.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fox for 5 minutes or
thereabouts for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK FOX
Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and Ranking
Member Barton, my name is Derrick Fox. I am the former chairman
and currently at-large member of the Football Bowl Association.
I am also president and CEO of the Valero Alamo Bowl in San
Antonio, Texas.
I am here today representing the members of the Football
Bowl Association, a group that includes all 34 post-season bowl
games, from the members of the BCS to the smallest of the post-
season events. These games are played in 29 different
communities. Our association has been in existence for more
than a quarter century, and we have grown as the number of bowl
games has grown.
My purpose in appearing here today is to tell you the
current bowl system, for whatever flaws it may have, is more
than just alive and kicking but also it is to say that if the
net result of your efforts is to create a playoff, we will
believe you will, by substituting games for events, cause the
demise of the bowl system.
My prepared statement details the current post-season
structure, the benefits to the institutions, and the benefits
to the players and their fans. But I would like to stress to
you the benefits enjoyed by the communities where these games
are played.
What does it mean to the 29 communities where the games are
held? For one thing, since almost all the post-season bowl
games are put on by charitable groups, with up to one-quarter
of the proceeds from the games dedicated to the community,
local charities receive tens of millions of dollars every year.
Excluding television and print exposure these communities
receive, it has been estimated the bowl games will generate in
excess of $1 billion in annual economic impact.
As I said before, we don't put on games; we put on events.
Fans make the bowl experience a holiday experience, spending up
to 1 week in the community, supporting pre- and post-Christmas
businesses and hotels, restaurants, businesses, and visitor
attractions.
Moreover, the title sponsor or presenting sponsors of bowl
games frequently is a commercial institution headquartered in
the host city whose integration in the community and vice versa
is enhanced by the bowl game itself.
It is our firm belief that if a playoff is created the
television dollars in the post season will flow to that
playoff. Likewise, the sponsorship dollars. And when that
happens, the mid-tier bowls and most assuredly the smaller
bowls will simply go out of business.
Those who don't like the current system will say, well,
that is the way of the world. But we don't believe that
government should have any role in promoting the demise of the
bowl games.
Let me address a situation I am quite familiar with, being
the president and CEO of the Valero Alamo Bowl in San Antonio.
Periodically, we have conducted an economic and fiscal impact
analysis for our event. The most recent study was done 14
months ago between Penn State and Texas A&M. This was not some
back-of-the-envelope estimate but, rather, a 30-page, intensive
analysis performed by the combined efforts of two respected
sets of economists, Sports Strategic Marketing Services of
Memphis, Tennessee, and Sports Economics of Oakland,
California.
They concluded that there were more than 55,000 incremental
visitors coming to San Antonio for the game who spent an
average of just over $740 during their stay. They stayed on
average for 3.8 days, spending $195 a day, plus an additional
$142 in tickets and other costs in the Dome. These visitors
included not only the fans of the competing schools but the
teams themselves and a full contingent of media covering the
event. Their expenditures included lodging, food and beverage,
transportation, rental cars, retail, and entertainment.
According to the study, the direct economic impact to the
City of San Antonio was $42.6 million. The total economic
impact on the City of San Antonio, including the recognized
multiplier, was $73.7 million. And the incremental tax impact
to the City of San Antonio, i.e., taxes collected as a result
of the events, operations, and nonlocal visitors traveling to
that city, would not have accrued to the region if it were not
for the presence of the event being measured, was $2.7 million.
Why do I cite all this? The reason is simple. We don't
simply put on a game. We put on an event that runs the better
part of a week. It involves not only the game itself but a
kickoff function, a team fiesta, a pep rally, a great party,
golf tournament, FCA breakfast, team days at Sea World, Alamo
visit, hospital visits, you name it. It is an entire week's
package for the student athletes and their fans.
Create a playoff and if the post-season games do not
involve the home games on college campuses, you will create a 1
day in-and-out experience, if that, to replace the current bowl
system.
The proponents of a playoff system simply do not understand
the economics of the current system as one of events, not just
games. No system is perfect. The bowls are not perfect, and the
bowl championship series is not perfect. But certainly the
concept of a playoff, as attractive as it may sound from
experts on sports-talk radio, is rife with dangers for a system
that has served collegiate athletics pretty well for 100 years.
It is easy to express the support of a playoff concept
which has never been tested. All of your assumptions and
theories work out perfectly. But the current structure of the
bowl games, you protect the importance of the college football
regular season and, as importantly, you have 29 communities
committed to providing not just the financial support but a
quality experience to the thousands of players and fans who
attend each bowl game.
The current bowl system does reward over 6,800 student
athletes, creates more than $1 billion in annual combined
economic impact to the host cities, donates one-quarter of a
billion dollars annually to higher education, and gives
millions to charitable endeavors in their own communities.
Quite simply, it is a system that works well, benefits many,
and ought not to be under attack.
Mr. Chairman, I would like as well to submit a copy of a
letter from the Association to Members of Congress dealing with
the subject.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, the letter will be entered
into the record. I want to thank you, Mr. Fox.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. Our next witness is Mr. Bleymaier.
Mr. Bleymaier, you're recognized for 5 minutes for the
purposes of opening statements. Take as much time as you may
consume.
STATEMENT OF GENE BLEYMAIER
Mr. Bleymaier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rush and members of the subcommittee and Ranking
Member Barton, my name is Gene Bleymaier. I am the Athletic
Director at Boise State University; and I also founded the
Humanitarian Bowl in Boise, Idaho, 12 years ago and am
currently on the board of directors of the bowl game.
The issues I would like to address with you today are the
following: First, competitiveness. And I would refer you to the
handout that you received in your information packet.
Boise State's football team is the winningest program in
the country over the past 10 years, with a winning percentage
of 84.3 percent and an overall record of 108 wins against 20
losses. In the past 10 years, Boise State football has the
Nation's best conference winning percentage at over 93 percent,
70 wins and 5 losses, and also the Nation's best home winning
percentage at 97 percent, 64 wins and 2 losses. In the past 5
years, Boise State has finished the regular season undefeated
three times: in 2004, '06 and '08.
Boise State's football record ranks number eight overall
all time in the country. The team has won over 70 percent of
its games. Our success is not recent but spans nearly 80 years.
Boise State is also one of the most nationally televised
teams in the country, with no fewer than four games televised
nationally each of the past 6 years. Thirty-three times in
those years Boise State has been on national television; and we
are scheduled to be on national television seven times again
this fall, nearly six national telecasts per year.
In 2004, Boise State went undefeated and finished the
season ranked ninth in the BCS rankings. Boise State did not
get invited to the BCS. However Michigan, ranked 13th, and
Pittsburgh, ranked 21st, did get invited.
In 2006, Boise State again went undefeated and finished the
season ranked eighth in the BCS rankings and was invited to the
Fiesta Bowl to play the University of Oklahoma. Boise State
defeated Oklahoma in one of the greatest games ever played.
In 2008, Boise State again went undefeated and finished the
season ranked ninth in the BCS rankings. While Boise State did
not get invited to the BCS again, Ohio State, ranked 10th,
Cincinnati, ranked 12th, and Virginia Tech, ranked 19th, did.
Three times in the past 5 years, Boise State has won all of
its games in the current BCS system, never came close to
playing in the national championship game. The BCS system not
only restricts access but essentially precludes schools from
playing in the national championship. How many more years do we
need to go undefeated before we get a chance?
We believe the BCS system is exclusionary and limits access
to BCS bowls to the benefit of Automatic Qualifying Conferences
and to the detriment of Nonautomatic Qualifying Conferences.
The automatic qualifying criteria bestowed on the six Automatic
Qualifying Conferences, in our opinion, should be adjusted,
altered or eliminated.
Third is revenue distribution. The BCS revenue distribution
formula and automatic qualifying criteria is heavily weighted
toward rewarding the AQ Conferences and not rewarding the Non-
AQ Conferences. The Automatic Qualifying Conferences receive
approximately 90 percent of the BCS revenues unless a non-AQ
Conference school, which encompasses 51 schools, qualifies for
a BCS game.
Annually, Non-AQ Conferences are only guaranteed a little
over 9 percent of the total revenue to split among 51
institutions.
The last point is governance. The BCS does not afford
conferences equitable representation on the BCS Presidential
Oversight Committee, which is the body that governs the BCS.
The Automatic Qualifying Conferences, the six, receive six
votes. Notre Dame receives one vote. The nonqualifying
conferences, 5 conferences, 51 schools, receive a total of one
vote. Sixty-five schools get 6 votes, 51 schools get one vote,
and one school gets one vote. This voting distribution is
unfair, inequitable and totally unmanageable. One president
cannot adequately represent 51 institutions in five different
conferences.
The NCAA sponsors 88 championships in almost every sport,
but they do not sponsor the biggest one, the championship of
the Football Bowl Subdivision, formerly Division 1-A. We
believe there is a lot of revenue being left on the table
without having the NCAA run this championship.
The six Automatic Qualifying Conference commissioners and
the athletic director at Notre Dame control the BCS and the
national championship for major college football. This group
has devised a system that gives them approximately 90 percent
of the proceeds and essentially excludes over 50 institutions
from playing for the national championship.
The BCS system, in our opinion, needs to be more equitable
financially, more accessible, and provide more institutions
with fair representation.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with
you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bleymaier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman and thanks all of
the witnesses.
Now the Chair recognizes himself for as much as time as he
may consume for the purpose of asking questions of these
witnesses.
Let me begin by stating I really want to spend some time on
this matter of revenue and revenue distributions. According to
the BCS media guide, in the year 2008, $18 million
automatically went to each of the six automatic conferences. I
think this has been stated earlier. In one of these
conferences, they had two teams in a BCS bowl, and the next
conference received an additional $4.5 million.
By contrast, the five other nonautomatic conferences
automatically received in the aggregate a total of $9.5
million, plus an extra $9.5 million because the Mountain West,
for example, was in the Sugar Bowl. As such, each nonautomatic
conference received approximately $3.8 million in BCS revenue
for their member schools. Notre Dame, as was stated earlier,
which is an independent school, automatically received $1.3
million and qualifies for another $4.5 million all by itself if
it is in a BCS game.
The question that I would like to ask these members of the
panel--and you can be very brief in the answers. I want to ask
each and every one the members, can you comment on the fairness
of the revenue distribution other than the scenario that I just
outlined? How is that fair? Starting with Mr. Swofford.
Mr. Swofford. Mr. Chairman, I think one has to go back to
the beginnings of the BCS to understand the financial
distribution. The BCS is totally voluntary. If any conferences
don't want to be a part of it, they can opt out at any time.
In order to come to a conclusion and a system that the
conferences could agree upon and move forward with, we had to
take into account what the various conferences were making in
their current contractual agreements at the time the BCS was
started. And at that point in time you had the Rose Bowl with
the Big 10 and PAC 10, the Fiesta Bowl with the Big 12, the
Sugar Bowl with the Southeastern Conference, and an offer on
the table with the Blockbuster Bowl for the Atlantic Coast
Conference in the Big East to receive equivalent dollars to any
of those aforementioned bowls.
Then the Orange Bowl wanted to connect with the Atlantic
Coast Conference and the Big East as host institutions.
So, at the beginning, you had the six conferences that
currently have automatic qualification receiving significant
dollars because of their ability, marketplace, and the history
of the competitiveness within those leagues and the performance
of those leagues that tied in to the major bowls. So I think
that is what set the bar in terms of where we were.
It also set the bar in a sense in terms of the other
conferences that are a part of the BCS. In the 11 conferences--
and all of the conferences talked through this and agreed upon
it and any changes that had been made in it since that point in
time, the same thing has been true, the conferences have agreed
upon it. It has been thoroughly discussed in terms of what the
distribution would be, in terms of what the--what you would
need to do as a conference to be an automatic qualifier in the
BCS and agreed upon.
Mr. Rush. I certainly appreciate the history, but it didn't
answer the question. The way these revenues are distributed,
where is the fairness? Is this a fair way?
Mr. Swofford. I think, you know, a fairness a lot of times
is from where you sit. I understand that. But I think it is
fair because it represents the marketplace, and the BCS and
bowls and post-season football are related to the marketplace.
And I think you have to look at if the conferences did away
with the BCS--and that could happen if the appropriate and
right conferences, so to speak----
Mr. Rush. I don't want to dominate the time. Thank you so
much. I want to move to the next witness.
Mr. Thompson, is this a fair way to distribute the
revenues?
Mr. Thompson. I would agree with Commissioner Swofford that
basically these tie-ins are based on marketplace past history
and contractual arrangements. Our position is they should be
based more on performance-based basis, and that perhaps each
conference receives a particular base level and then every
first placement by each conference receives an equal
distribution. And if you have a second team, certainly that
warrants an additional stipend. But the fairness would be that
if you play in a game, that each of those first participants
have equal distributions.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Fox, would you care to answer this? I
recognize Mr. Fox right now. Would you please answer the
question?
Mr. Fox. Sure. Obviously, from our perspective, we are not
a member, we are not part of the system itself but obviously
part of the bowl system. And that, too, is predicated on the
marketplace drives the dynamics. We have conference agreements
with the Big 10 and Big 12 respectively, and we come to a
market-based decision as to what our team payout will be. So,
again, it goes to the entire system, not just at the BCS level.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Bleymaier, would you take a shot at that
question, please?
Mr. Bleymaier. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that at the
origin these were bold-based contracts with conferences. But
now that the system has changed, now that we have the BCS
rankings and the formula and 10 slots, it is a whole different
market, it is a whole different model. And I think it would not
hurt the bowls at all financially and help the schools if this
was more performance-based. And you take the top 10 based on
the BCS rankings and reward them with opportunities to play in
those BCS games, and then distribute the revenues accordingly.
Mr. Rush. Let me just remind all the witnesses, I
understand that when you have market-based considerations that
you should take into account when you are making, say,
decisions. But you can't forget that the basic foundations for
all of these universities, all these participating programs are
the Federal and State tax dollars that go into these schools.
And right now all of these schools are experiencing financial
crises simply because of the fact that they have to cut back on
their budgets. And so marketplace considerations are one thing,
but you can't obviate or just can't deny and erase the fact
that there is a determinant for equitable treatment simply
because you are using Federal tax dollars for your basic
existence. All of these universities are.
And given that the States are imposing steep educational
cuts to public universities funded by taxpayer dollars, is
there a role for this Congress? Should Congress intervene? I
will ask you, Mr. Swofford, and you can start. Should Congress
intervene in this matter?
Mr. Swofford. Well, I think all of us involved with this
welcome input from Congress or anywhere else that can help us
improve the system. It is not a perfect system, we understand
that. It is a system that has been able to bring the
conferences together. And if the conferences determine that it
is a system they don't want to be a part of, then the BCS
structure unravels at that point and the conferences that would
be--I don't think the major conferences are going to be a part
of a system that brings their market value down rather than
where they know it could be on an individual basis.
So the beauty of what we have and the necessity of what we
have is that it has been something that can bring the
conferences together. I think the conferences without automatic
qualification have been enhanced with the BCS during this 11-
year period both financially as well as with the opportunities
to play in the various BCS bowls that have been mentioned.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Simply, certainly our university presidents,
myself, we work for and with the representatives of the people,
the fans. Every poll that I have seen indicates a strong desire
for a different playoff format, a playoff format. And simply
looking at the whole process, I feel part of our fundamental
flaw issue is the representation. With one president
representing 51 institutions, it is very difficult to filter
that message down or to have a very loud voice. It might be
outvoted. There might be a unanimous opposition.
Mr. Rush. Does the Congress, the U.S. Congress, have a role
in this matter?
Mr. Thompson. Does U.S. Congress have a role? I think the
U.S. Congress again represents fans, constituencies, and our
university presidents work with that same group of
constituency.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Fox.
Mr. Fox. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I think one of the things
that is important to stress here is taking a look at the entire
system and how it has evolved over the 90 years. And there has
always been communication, there has been dialogue, things have
transpired and evolved. We had the alliance, the coalition of
BCS. You can see over time how things have evolved. And it has
been a constant work in progress to try to take care of all the
constituents that are a part of this. At the end of the day, it
is a system that has worked for 90 years. And, as I said, $250
million going back to higher education each year, that is a
pretty successful benchmark and each year it goes up.
In this current BCS system, we were here 4 years ago, there
were 28 bowl games; there is now 34. So it has also allowed
additional opportunities for teams in the marketplace as well,
and those dollars are going back to higher education too.
Mr. Rush. So your answer to the question is, does
Congress--yes or no? Does Congress have a role or Congress
doesn't have a role?
Mr. Fox. I think the people who have a vested interest in
the business are the people within the system, and they
probably are best issued to deal with the system.
Mr. Rush. So the answer is no, Congress, doesn't have a
role?
Mr. Fox. It is your choice, sir.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Bleymaier.
Mr. Bleymaier. Chairman Rush, I would think if you look at
the history of the development of the BCS and where we have got
to today, it has evolved over time. It has never been a perfect
system and it has changed. But if you look, a lot of times
historically that change has only come with hearings like we
are having today. And, unfortunately, with the threat of
lawsuits, it would be better for all served if the conferences
could agree on a plan and a formula and approve it themselves.
But because of the representation disparity that we have, that
is virtually impossible, in our opinion. The only way this is
going to change is with help from the outside.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. The Chair has exhausted his
time right now, and the Chair now recognizes the ranking member
for such time as he may consume.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
First, I want to compliment you gentlemen for your
refreshing candor. We do have a new tradition here that we ask
you to testify under oath, which has not normally been the case
for an authorization subcommittee. But having said that, the
testimony today is much more cogent than it was 4 years ago and
it is much more open about what the real reason the current
bowl system exists, and it is money. When you are talking about
market share and market dominance and all that, you know--and
when Mr. Fox is talking about it is a week of events and how
much money it brings to San Antonio, at least we are putting on
the table why the current system is so entrenched.
I do think that after today's hearing we need to have a
piece of advice for the BCS coordinating board. You should
either change your name to BES for Bowl Exhibition System, or
just drop the C and call it the BS system, because it is not
about determining the championship on the field.
I am going to read some of Mr. Thompson's testimony
because, to the average fan, this is the reason that people are
so upset. His reason--Mr. Thompson's reason number three that
the current system is flawed is that: The BCS is based on a
flawed premise. Nearly half of the FBS teams are eliminated
from the national championship before the season even begins.
The current BCS system is based on a fundamentally flawed
premise that computers and pollsters can look at six or seven
outstanding teams, all of whom have lost no more than one game
and few, if any, have ever played each other in that year, and
decide which are the two best and should play in the national
championship game. It is impossible to know which of those
great teams are actually the best unless they play each other.
Computers don't know, pollsters don't know, and the BCS surely
doesn't know. Nearly half of the FBS teams are eliminated from
the national championship even before the season begins. None
of the 51 teams that play in the non-AQ conferences can, for
all practical purposes, ever win a BCS national championship
given how the current system is constituted. These teams are,
in effect, done before day one. A system that produces this
result is patently unfair.
I don't think that is a debatable proposition. Mr.
Swofford, you are the head of the BCS. You are the point
person. How do you answer that, that from day--from before the
first game is even played, half the football teams in the
country that play college football at Division 1-A don't have a
prayer to win in the national championship?
Mr. Swofford. Well, I think the answer to that, Congressman
Barton, is that the polls--and I know a lot of people question
the polls, they have been questioned forever and ever in
college football. But the polls reflect what has happened on
the field, and it reflects a mix of people's view from a
national perspective. Each of the 11 conferences nominate
potential pollsters for the Harris Poll, which is our newest
poll.
Mr. Barton. But how do you answer Mr. Bleymaier and his
testimony? In 2004, Boise State Broncos were undefeated and
ranked ninth in the BCS. They were excluded. But Michigan at
13th and Pittsburgh at 21st got into a BCS game. In 2008 they
were undefeated again, and they ended up ranked ninth in the
BCS. Again, they were excluded. Ohio State, Cincinnati, and
Virginia Tech, all ranked lower than Boise State, were in the
BCS. The one year, 2006, they were undefeated, they did get
invited to the BCS, and son of a gun, they beat Oklahoma in one
of the most exciting college football games that I have ever
watched.
I mean, again, half the teams that start out don't have a
prayer that they are going to get to play in that championship
game. And even the best of the best--and I didn't realize how
good Boise State was, but their record compares with any team
in the country. They just happen to be in a small population
State, in a weak media market and, with all due respect, have
the ugliest football field I have ever seen. I try to watch
them, and it just hurts my eyes to watch that blue field. I
mean.
Mr. Swofford. Congressman, as I said, the polls and how
this is determined has been agreed upon by all 11 conferences.
That is where we are today.
Mr. Barton. But you yourself said in response to Mr. Rush's
question that these conference agreements are about money. It
is about market share. It is not about athleticism on the
field. Mr. Bleymaier pointed out that there are 88 NCAA
schools--88 NCAA championships. Those are determined on the
field. The Division 1-A college football isn't. And the
difference is, with possibly the exception of basketball, none
of the NCAA sports make any money. Football does. Division 1-A
football does. And I understand that a conference affiliation
at a Big 12 where my school is, Texas A&M has got an athletic
budget. I don't know what it is but I bet it is $30 million,
$40 million a year. You know? So I am glad that they have it
and I am glad that they do it and I am glad they are part of
the Big 12. But even in Division 1-A, you could have a playoff
system make just as much money, but you would have the added
benefit that the championship would be determined on the field.
Mr. Swofford. I have a little differing view of whether it
is determined on the field. In my earlier remarks, I talked
about the regular season and the importance of the regular
season, and the fact that I don't think anybody would argue
this point: That college football has the best regular season
in all of sports. And the reason that is, is because that is
our playoff. Every day----
Mr. Barton. Why do you think every game of the regular
season?
Mr. Swofford. Every day of the regular season is a part of
that playoff. Every game matters. We have got a situation now
where, if you are in Texas you are probably concerned about
what is going on on the West Coast or in the Southeastern
Conference or the Atlantic Coast Conference, because what
happens in those games may well impact what happens in the Big
12, for instance. So every game is basically a playoff during
the regular season in college football.
Mr. Barton. If that is your argument, then you shouldn't
have but one or two nonconference games and you shouldn't be
adding regular season games. You should also have the
championship game between the South and the North or the East
and the West Divisions of your power conferences. That game
ought to mean something. It doesn't.
I think one of you testified, or at least we read some
testimony, that attendance is down at these championship--these
so-called conference championship games because they don't mean
anything.
Mr. Swofford. Actually, they do. Because if you win those
games, that is the automatic qualifier from that conference
into the BCS game.
Mr. Barton. So why was attendance down in the ACC
championship game last year if it means so much?
Mr. Swofford. That is a good question. We'd like to get it
back up, and I think we will. It may have been the matchup in
the State of Florida, it might have been geographic. It might
have been related to the conference.
Mr. Barton. Let me ask a few more questions about the BCS.
It is a voluntary organization. I would as soon assume it is
chartered as a corporation. Is that right or wrong?
Mr. Swofford. No.
Mr. Barton. It is not chartered? It has a governing board,
and there are eight votes on the governing board. Is that
right?
Mr. Swofford. At the presidential level, yes, sir. There
are 11 at the commissioners level.
Mr. Barton. And Mr. Bleymaier pointed out that the six
power conferences each have one vote. I understand that. The
other 51 schools, unfortunately, combined get one vote. I don't
understand that. And Notre Dame gets a vote. Why does Notre
Dame get a vote?
Mr. Swofford. Well, because of their history and tradition
and the role they have in college football historically and
presently.
Mr. Barton. OK. Why wouldn't USC get their own vote?
Mr. Swofford. They are a conference member. They have a
vote through----
Mr. Barton. Or Oklahoma or Alabama or Ohio State or Penn
State? They have got storied college programs.
Mr. Swofford. Notre Dame is an independent.
Mr. Barton. Is it because Notre Dame has its own national
contract for televising college football?
Mr. Swofford. I don't think it is because of that. I think
it is because of the place that they have in the tradition in
history of college football. And if they weren't involved in
the BCS, and qualified, for instance, for the national
championship game, that would certainly undermine the current
system.
Mr. Barton. Using that logic, Delaware, which is the first
State in the Nation, ought to have 50 votes in the House
because of their tradition and they were the first one to
ratify the Constitution and the first State. I mean, that
doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
The money that the BCS gets for their football television
contract, where does that actually go? I mean, do you have a
bank account in New York, Chicago? Does it go to each of the
conferences directly, or does it go to a central repository
financial institution and then it is distributed?
Mr. Swofford. It goes to a central escrow account, which is
then distributed back out through the various conferences.
Mr. Barton. Who controls that?
Mr. Swofford. The conference that is the coordinating
conference.
Mr. Barton. So that rotates?
Mr. Swofford. Yes.
Mr. Barton. Is there an audit committee?
Mr. Swofford. Yes?
Mr. Barton. Are those audits publicly available?
Mr. Swofford. Yes.
Mr. Barton. They are publicly available. Does the BCS as a
legal entity make a profit?
Mr. Swofford. No. It goes to the institutions and
conferences.
Mr. Barton. So the BCS as a repository is purely a
contractual legal entity; and the money flows through that to
the member conferences, and then the member conference
distributes it to the members of their conference. And if you
are an independent, depending on where you rank in the
hierarchy, you would get directly from the central repository.
Is that right?
Mr. Swofford. It is a pass-through. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. Does Notre Dame get a disproportionate share
because they have one vote? Or, do they get more than Boise
State or they get more than Ohio State because they seem to be
in and of themselves----
Mr. Swofford. Notre Dame receives, if they do not play in a
BCS game, a 1/66th share, which is basically the equivalent of
what they might receive if they were a member of one of the
six.
Mr. Barton. If they do play, then they get the $18 million?
Is that right?
Mr. Swofford. No. They get the $4.5 million if they do
participate in the game. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. OK.
Mr. Swofford. One thing, sir. Could I clarify one point?
Mr. Barton. Sure.
Mr. Swofford. In terms of looking at the revenue
distribution, the other way to look at it is the 10 teams that
play in the five BCS games, each receive the same amount of
money regardless of which conference you are coming from.
Mr. Barton. That is another point. Each member conference
gets its $18 million, which they distribute as they see fit
within their conference?
Mr. Swofford. Correct.
Mr. Barton. Now, the team that actually plays in the BCS
game, the Orange Bowl or the Sugar Bowl or whatever, do they
get--in addition to their share of the $18 million, do they get
10 to $15 million for actually playing in the game?
Mr. Swofford. No, sir. It is up to the conferences how--
each conference is probably a little different. But each
conference distributes its money to its membership in the way
it chooses.
Mr. Barton. The Alamo payoff to each team is how much?
Mr. Fox. $2.25 million.
Mr. Barton. Each team gets $2.25 million. The Fort Worth
Bowl, each team gets $525,000. But like the big BCS bowls, each
team gets like 15 or $16 million. Isn't that right?
Mr. Swofford. 18.
Mr. Barton. Now, that 18 million, in addition to the other
18 million, the second 18 million, the participating team also
has to share that with its conference members.
Mr. Swofford. There are not two 18 millions. There is one
18 million.
Mr. Barton. I am confused.
Mr. Swofford. I am sorry.
Mr. Barton. But to go back to my Alamo Bowl friend. You
give to each participating team $2.25 million. Right?
Mr. Fox. Yes.
Mr. Barton. To the team. That goes to the team. That
doesn't go to the BCS, that goes to the team?
Mr. Fox. It goes to the conferences, and then they have a
revenue distribution.
Mr. Barton. But the Orange Bowl gives each participating
team $18 million? Is that right?
Mr. Swofford. They give each conference $18 million.
Mr. Barton. So when Mr. Rush was talking about the 18, that
money comes from the bowl to the conference. And there is not
an additional amount of money that goes to the team that
actually plays in that game?
Mr. Swofford. That is correct.
Mr. Barton. So it is technically possible that, at the bowl
level, that Mr. Fox's--a team could actually lose money going
to his bowl because he doesn't get $2.25 million; he gets his
share of that. And if he takes 100 football players and 20
cheerleaders and 200 band members and the athletic department
and whoever else gets to tag along, it could actually cost the
school money to go play in his bowl. Is that fair?
Mr. Fox. That is a fair assessment. And I think that is
incumbent upon the current system that we need to make those
business decisions to see if it makes sense. I know in our case
I don't think any of the teams ever lost money.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I have got a lot more questions.
But Mr. Green has been very patient. I am going to suspend and
let Mr. Green ask some questions, and then I would ask
unanimous consent that you could come back to me.
Mr. Rush. There will be a second round.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, we all represent as alumni from our individual
schools, and I will remind my colleague at Texas A&M that it
took years for the University of Houston, which is a very urban
university, to get into the Southwest Conference. And after we
were winning it enough, the Southwest Conference was destroyed.
And which impact----
Mr. Barton. That was the problem. We just wanted you in the
conference. We didn't want you to win any games.
Mr. Green. That's right. I understand that. But when we
were winning, then all of a sudden the Southwest Conference
became no more and that impacted a number of schools, including
large urban universities. You are not in a big conference, you
are recruiting. Obviously, the invitation is the bowl game. And
it comes down to money.
Mr. Swofford, you are the Commissioner of the Atlantic
Conference, the ACC, which in recent years hasn't been
powerhouse football, college football. Last year, the ACC's
conference champion was Virginia Tech, which was ranked 19 in
BCS standings. Two conferences, these champions do not
automatically qualify for BCS bowl games, have much better
records than AC teams last year, the Mountain West Conference
that had three teams that finished in front of Virginia Tech,
University of Utah, Texas Christian University, and Brigham
Young University, while the Western Atlantic Conference, the
WAC, had one team, Boise State University. Despite the
disparity in team records, the ACC received 18 million in
guaranteed BCS money for its schools, while the Mountain West
and the WAC each received 3.8 million.
Why should the ACC conference be guaranteed so much as
compared to the Mountain West and the WAC? And again, the
University of Houston is not a member of either of those
conferences.
Mr. Swofford. Congressman, I think it goes back to what I
said earlier in terms of the marketplace and how the BCS came
together and the ACC's market value at the time, which has
probably only been enhanced with the addition of Miami and
Virginia Tech and Boston College. And I think you would say the
same thing about the other conferences that are automatic
qualifiers.
You can always take one year in the standings and say this,
that, or the other. The previous year the ACC champion again
was Virginia Tech, and then they were ranked number three in
the BCS standings. So there are three schools in our league
that have played in the national championship games, some on
multiple occasions. So you can take any one year, and it looks
good or it doesn't look as good in terms of various
conferences' champions.
Mr. Green. I know that inter-conference records, Mountain
West actually had a better percentage in college football in
2007-2008 with a 55 percent win rate against teams in the
automatic conferences, while the Southeastern Conference, the
SEC, had only a 45 percent winning percentage.
Does the BCS have some type of leveling that looks at not 1
year or 2 years, but looks at over a period of time at the
winningness of different conferences? Is that part of the BCS
standards?
Mr. Swofford. Yes, sir. The automatic qualifying standards
are based on 4-year cycles.
Mr. Green. Another question. During the regular season,
your key argument for the BCS is it makes college football
regular season exciting and relevant, and you cite college
basketball and note that fans don't pay attention to the
regular season until March Madness and the NCA tournament. Do
television networks have a broadcast--that broadcast the
regular season games have a vested interested in the BCS in
order to keep the ratings for their regular season games high?
In your contract negotiations, does Fox and ESPN retain--did
Fox and the ESPN retain the BCS? In other words, is that one of
the reasons why the season record is important, that they keep
the ratings up during your regular season?
Mr. Swofford. Well, you know, I don't think Fox or ESPN
when we have television negotiations with those entities, which
we had last fall, they did not try to be a player in the
structure of the post season. I think obviously they are
interested in the regular season being as strong as it can be,
but they have not had a role in determining what the post
season would be at all.
Mr. Green. I would just give the contracts, the NFL which
has a playoff program, it doesn't seem like their regular
season suffers because they have a playoff system. Why is
football different, college football different?
Mr. Swofford. Well, I think it relates to the fact that
since we don't have a playoff, every game in the regular season
is critically important in terms of the post season and whether
you will qualify for the national championship game or a BCS
game. Or, as you move into the later stages of a season, sir, a
team might know it is not going to be in the BCS game or the
national championship games, but those last games they have
something to play for if there is a bowl and an opportunity to
compete in a bowl. So I think the bowl system as a whole, not
just the BCS system, contributes to how valuable the regular
season is and how interesting and fun that it is for the
players and fans.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, you have been real gracious. I
have one more question of Mr. Fox. And coming from Houston with
which you would call one of the smaller bowls, and I know
although ours is smaller that the Alamo, you claim that smaller
bowls, the bowl association itself for college football adopts
a playoff system. And I appreciate the economic impact for
those games on the host communities; and, however, I don't see
why a seven-game playoff system with eight teams is any more
detrimental than the bowl association, than the BCS which is a
five-game with 10 teams. Either way, the vast majority of the
bowl games are basically exhibition and they always have been.
Mr. Fox. To address that, obviously, there are a number of
different models being put forward as far as a playoff is
concerned. But any time you go to a playoff format, you are
automatically distinguishing basically the NCAA tournament
versus an NIT tournament, if they exist at all. Right now, the
NIT is subsidized by the NCAA to provide those opportunities.
In the bowl system, it is the communities that are stepping
forward to underwrite those opportunities.
And if you look at--I think a point to go back to on the
conference championship games is a good point. Why are they
down? Obviously, somewhat economically related in this recent
state of the economy. But also you have a one-week turnaround
under most situations where teams don't know they have
qualified for a championship game until one week out. Well,
their fans with a one-week turnaround and a tough challenging
economy are going to have a tougher decision whether to go to
that destination. I know we hosted a championship game in San
Antonio 2 years ago. We had number one Missouri versus number
eight Oklahoma. Arguably, both teams in a footprint. Should be
an easy sellout. Correct? We didn't. We sold 60- to 65,000.
Missouri is number one. If they win that championship game,
they are going on to the national championship game. So there
is always that next game. The fans have a chance to wait and
hold off for the next game. The same could be said with the
playoff. Are they going to travel 15,000 strong on four
successive weeks? I doubt it.
Mr. Green. The last thing. What if we had a rotating? For
example, the Alamo Bowl would rotate into the playoff system,
where you would have a rotating bowl system? I don't know if
that has even ever been considered by BCS.
Mr. Fox. That is effectively what the BCS is now, is you
have five games all rotating the championship game.
Mr. Green. But it is not, there are a lot of bowl games but
there is only a certain number that are allowed to be there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair
recognizes himself for some additional questions.
Mr. Bleymaier, it has been stated earlier that one of the
most exciting games in recent years was the 2007 Fiesta Bowl,
and your school Boise State's dramatic defeat over the
University of Oklahoma. A fine game, well coached, well played.
The game has become an instant classic and replays were on
sports highlights all over the place repeatedly. So can you
comment on how big bowl games affect your school from an
economic standpoint and also from a recruiting standpoint?
Mr. Bleymaier. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That game was obviously
one for the ages and put Boise State on a national stage equal
to the long-time college football powers. You can't buy that
kind of exposure, you can't buy that kind of prestige. Our
enrollment applications at the university skyrocketed within a
week of the Fiesta Bowl victory. So that exposure, like I said,
is priceless.
In addition, with our revenue split through the five
conferences, the nonqualifying conferences, Boise State
received $6 million that year. And--well, the conference
received $6 million; Boise State received 70 percent of that,
which is approximately $4.2 million. We have been to nine bowl
games in the last 10 years. That is the only year that we
netted any revenue. It has been talked about that these bowls
make money. And some bowls do. But there are also probably
around a dozen or so more that don't make any money at the end
of the day, as Mr. Barton was talking about, when you factor in
the expenses that the teams have and the requirements that the
schools have to buy tickets.
I am involved in our bowl in Boise, and I can tell you it
may on paper look like there is money being made, but in
reality money is not being made. The conferences are
subsidizing those bowl games.
So the bowl system is great and I support it, and we are
glad we have one in Boise. I don't see how adding two more
games in any way is going to negatively impact the bowl system.
In fact, the bowl system continues to grow. When we created the
Humanitarian Bowl in Boise, Idaho 12 years ago, I believe there
are 20 bowl games and we went to the committee and added
another one, and there was talk at that time: There are too
many bowls; we don't need any more bowls. Well, we were
approved. I think there was 21 or 22. That continued, and now
there is 34. And there is talk of creating more bowl games.
So even if a playoff is not in the offing here, I predict
there is going to be more bowl games in the future. Do I think
that is necessary? No. Personally? Six-and-six teams do not
warrant going to a bowl game. As an athletic director at a
school, I don't think we need to be rewarding student athletes
for winning six games and losing six games, or, for that
matter, winning seven games and losing five games. To me, a
post-season experience, you ought to earn it on the playing
field and it ought to mean something. It ought to be special. I
don't think having six-and-six teams in bowl games are special,
and I don't think a playoff in any way will lessen the regular
season. In fact, I think it will enhance regular season games.
Right now, because there is only two teams that are going to
play in that national championship, I think it hurts the
regular season.
Last year, when USC lost to Oregon State in September,
basically they were out of it. So for USC, their season is
over. That doesn't help with their remaining games on their
schedule to bring interest or excitement into their
communities. But by expanding this to more teams, that is going
to enable more programs to remain involved and remain in the
hunt for the gold ring at the end of the season. And that, in
my opinion, is going to heighten interest in the regular
season, totally contrary to what has been mentioned earlier.
Mr. Rush. Can you address how this affects your recruiting,
knowing that under the current system it is almost impossible
to participate in a championship game.
Mr. Bleymaier. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, high school
student athletes, they want to play on national television.
They want to play for a national championship. And when you are
going into homes and you are trying to woo a student to your
university, if you don't have the opportunity, as good an
opportunity or a fair and equitable opportunity at the start of
the season as a number of other schools, those schools are
going to use that against you in the recruiting process and
say, why would you consider Boise State? They are never going
to play for a national championship. They were lucky to get
into the Fiesta Bowl in 2006, and they probably won't qualify
in the future. But if you come to our school, you are
guaranteed as an automatic qualifying institution, regardless
of what your record is, an opportunity to play in a BCS game.
That is prestige, that is exposure, that is national
television. It definitely hurts us in recruiting if we are not
able to offer that same opportunity from day one that other
schools do.
Mr. Rush. Thanks. The Chair has exhausted his time. The
Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Barton.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous
consent request to put in the record two statements by
Congressman Simpson of Idaho and Congressman Miller of
California.
[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.]
Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Barton. Thank you. You will be happy to know, Mr.
Chairman, and our panel, I have a plane to catch so I am not
going to be quite as loquacious this round.
I am going to start off with Mr. Fox at the Alamo Bowl. And
I am not picking on you, Mr. Fox. You just happen to be
representing the bowls that are not the major big bowls and you
are here. So this is not a knock on the Alamo Bowl. I love the
Alamo Bowl. I like going to the Alamo Bowl. I have got
relatives in San Antonio and I really enjoy your city.
The Alamo Bowl, like all these other bowls, is a nonprofit
entity. Is that correct?
Mr. Fox. Correct.
Mr. Barton. And I would think most of the people that
participate are volunteers?
Mr. Fox. Very much so.
Mr. Barton. Probably some paid people, just an executive
director or somebody to manage it on a day-to-day basis and
organize all these activities. But the majority of your folks
are community citizens who just volunteer because it is fun and
they like to help?
Mr. Fox. Absolutely. We have got a full-time staff of six
and probably 500 volunteers.
Mr. Barton. Now, you say that your money that you raise,
your revenue source is the ticket sales. You don't get--do you
also get some of the television money?
Mr. Fox. The primary funding streams for a ball game really
are ticket sales, TV revenue, and sponsorships in general.
Mr. Barton. General sponsorships. OK. How much of that
money percentagewise actually flows through to the charity that
you choose to raise money for?
Mr. Fox. Really, if you look at it, the biggest charity
that we have are the two participating institutions. They are
getting over 75 percent of that $2.25 million that I was
talking about. That is the primary charity. After that, now we
do some things in our local marketplace, scholarship programs
to local high schools, seniors going to higher education, those
type of things. But right off the top, you are at least 75
percent.
Mr. Barton. But that is going to the schools. I would
quibble that a contribution or an allocation to the team that
is participating is not a charity, but I am not going to argue.
If that is the way college football defines itself, then I am
not going to argue that point today.
How much of the money goes to classic charities, boys and
girls clubs, scholarships, underprivileged children? I don't
know what else in San Antonio, or at least do you give not to
the schools?
Mr. Fox. Several hundred thousand dollars will go out to
local organizations, whether it is boys and girls clubs,
whether it is the Kids Sports Network. You name it, there are a
number of different organizations who benefit from the bowl as
well, besides the institutions. Obviously that is the primary
donor, if you will.
Mr. Barton. But the primary reason that your bowl and all
the other bowls exist is to generate money for the local
community. And you do pay expenses or pay a contribution to the
schools that actually play the game, which is a good thing. But
you are pretty up front that it was an event, it was a series
of activities. You are trying to get people to come to San
Antonio to have a good time and spend money.
Mr. Fox. Absolutely. When you look at it----
Mr. Barton. I am good with that. I have gone to San Antonio
and had a good time and spent money, so I am OK with that.
Now, why couldn't you do the same thing and be a part--the
Alamo Bowl be a quarter final game or something like that? Why
would that not--why would fewer people come, spend less money,
and you not be able to do all the good deeds that you do with
the money you generate if it were a part of a playoff system?
Mr. Fox. One of the challenges with the playoff system,
quite honestly, is the fact you are having--it doesn't matter
what format. Let's say you are a 16-game format. You have got
15 games, you have got four successive weeks. If in your
original statement when you talked about A&M and Texas Tech and
San Antonio were to sell out, absolutely. But in a quarter
final matchup, we might have the University of Washington----
Mr. Barton. And the Red Raiders would spend lots of money.
Now, the Aggies are frugal. We probably wouldn't. But the
Raiders, they will spend money.
Mr. Fox. All teams are very generous in that perspective.
But when you look at teams that are not in the geographic
footprint, you come into a situation where you have a challenge
of people traveling across the country. I brought up the issue,
I think when you stepped out, about the Big 12 championship
game. You brought up the question, why championship game
attendance is down. Obviously, the economy is one of the issues
right now, but also a one-week turnaround. When you have a
championship game, teams often don't know where they are going
until one week out. Those fans have to make the decision, do I
commit to the championship game now, in a week, or am I going
to roll the dice; do we win the championship game to go on to
the BCS game or another bowl game, which is 3 or 4 weeks down
the road.
Mr. Barton. But with your current system, and I don't know
exactly, but the Alamo Bowl gets like the number six team in
the Big 12 and the number six team in the Big 10 or something?
Mr. Fox. Somewhere between four and six, depending on how
many teams are in. Yes.
Mr. Barton. So there have been some years that you were
getting teams that were 7-5, 6-6. But if you are part of a
playoff system, you are probably going to get teams that are 9-
2, 8-3, hot team on a roll. You may be getting Boise State, who
is coming in undefeated but not from a power conference. You
know, it would seem to me that your actual product on the field
in a playoff system is going to be a little bit--and my Aggies
have been in your Alamo Bowl, so I am not going to say the
current product is bad. But Penn State was a lot better the
year they played A&M in the Alamo Bowl. You probably would be
better off. Wouldn't you? Revenuewise. I don't see how you
would----
Mr. Fox. Well, not necessarily, because you also could not
be in that system. Keep in mind, if you go to a playoff there
is no question that the bowl would be jeopardized.
Mr. Barton. It depends on how many, and it depends on what
the BCS and the NCAA decide to do. You could have a playoff
system with 64 teams and use every bowl that is currently in
there. You could do that. You could have a playoff system where
you had home field advantage to the higher ranked team. You
could have a playoff system where you took the--I don't want to
say the better bowls, but the more established bowls--and
certainly the Alamo Bowl would be one--and then have the other
bowls, which tend to be the smaller, newer bowls, could still
do their bowl games. And, you know, since most of the teams
aren't going to get to play for the national championship
anyway, those bowls would still do all the events you are
talking about. But if you are one of the playoff bowls, you are
going to be a part of a system that your bowl may have the
national championship team. It just has to win your game in the
next tour, whatever, to make it.
Mr. Fox. That is certainly part of a system that could be
in place and could be discussed. Now, when you talk about a 64-
team playoff is, what, 63 games? You could still be playing.
Mr. Barton. I am not advocating that.
Mr. Swofford, I have been real nice to you. I haven't asked
a question this round. I can't let it go. You know, you are the
guy that is representing the BCS. What is the wisdom behind the
original BCS to the four existing bowls? Well, way back when it
took--there were more bowls than that because the Cotton Bowl
was part of the original BCS. But the last, until 3 years ago
you had the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the
Fiesta Bowl, and the championship game rotated each year. Then,
3 years ago, all of a sudden you had a BCS championship game in
addition to those bowls. Why didn't you--if you are going to go
to an extra game, why didn't you make that the plus-one game
and take the winner of the two highest ranked BCS bowls and put
them in a real championship game? Why did you just create
another game that is just another bowl game?
Mr. Swofford. Well, first of all, the idea you just
expressed was discussed at that time. It was also discussed a
year ago on behalf of the ACC and the SEC, and there was not
enough support within the group to move that forward. I think,
really, when you go back to the origin of what is now the four
games plus the national championship game which was added, as
you said, for the past 3 years, and the double hosting model
where that rotates to one of the four BCS bowls each year and
they host both their bowl game and then the national
championship game, what that did was actually open up access.
Mr. Barton. Open up access?
Mr. Swofford. Yes. Because it gives two more teams the
opportunity to play.
Mr. Barton. In a nonchampionship game.
Mr. Swofford. In the BCS games. And it did not add a game
for the two teams that are playing in the championship game.
And that was important to some people.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bleymaier, does that make
sense to you, what he just said?
Mr. Bleymaier. Mr. Chairman, yes, it does. It did provide
more access, because remember there are six automatic
qualifying conferences. With four games, there is only eight
slots. So they are guaranteed six of the eight. So we only had
two chances to get in.
Mr. Barton. But it didn't give you a much better chance to
get into the game.
Mr. Bleymaier. Absolutely. This isn't really in reference
to the national championship.
Mr. Barton. But the whole point of the BCS, theoretically,
although we now know it is money, but at least to the fans it
is to pick the championship, which you so eloquently pointed
out.
Mr. Bleymaier. Right. And it was interesting, as
Commissioner Swofford has mentioned, that this was discussed
last year. It was discussed by the commissioners. It was never
discussed with the athletic directors, who are part of the BCS
committee, which I found very curious. But to your point, it
didn't do anything more for the national championship, but it
did provide more access.
Mr. Barton. And it provides more money. It is one more
game.
Mr. Bleymaier. Right.
Mr. Barton. Another week out of the classroom.
Mr. Bleymaier. It didn't, because there is not a playoff.
So it just basically added another bowl game.
Mr. Barton. It is the week after all the other bowl games.
Mr. Swofford. If I may, sir. Most of the second semesters
have not started at the majority, large majority of the
schools.
Mr. Barton. I am just being sarcastic. That is one of the
reasons that we don't have a playoff system theoretically. But
we keep showing that that is really not the reason, because we
keep adding regular season games, we keep playing Tuesdays,
Wednesdays, and Thursdays. And now, the BCS has added another
game in addition to the big four daddy bowl games.
Mr. Thompson, if you had a vote, would you add--I think you
have--your have put forward an actual playoff proposal which
they are going to review. But if your vote was the current
system or the four BCS bowls plus a playoff, the plus one, how
would you vote on that?
Mr. Thompson. I would prefer our proposal with a playoff
rather than a plus one.
Mr. Barton. I am with you. But if you weren't given that
vote--I mean, we have got them at least talking about a plus-
one system. I would hope you would prefer that over the current
system.
Mr. Thompson. I agree with Commissioner Swofford and Mr.
Bleymaier, that certainly the BCS format now has increased
access. It in essence has created two additional spots. Not for
the national championship, but it has created two additional
spots.
So to answer your question directly: Playoff. But if that
is not an option, would you prefer the plus one? Certainly that
is something that should get strong consideration, continued
consideration, as all proposals.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, this is my last question and I
have to run to the airport.
If we move our bill and the President signs it, and I feel
very confident that if Chairman Rush and Chairman Waxman want
to move the bill that they are going to be successful, and I
think Senator Hatch and other Senators are going to be
successful in the Senate if they choose to move forward. So
let's say that our bill that is currently before this
subcommittee becomes law, that you can't advertise the BCS as a
national championship game because it would be a violation of
the Federal Trade Act, would you still do the BCS? Or would you
actually change and go to a playoff?
Mr. Swofford. Because you don't have to change. Our bill
doesn't say you have to change the BCS. It just says you can't
advertise it as a national championship series.
Mr. Swofford. Congressman, I don't know the answer to that.
It hasn't been discussed at any level in direct reference to
the bill. And I am not a lawyer. I can't really speak in that
sense. So I think that is something that would have to be
discussed. I would think the--well.
Mr. Barton. I would encourage you to start discussing it,
because I think there is better than a 50 percent chance that
if we don't see some action in the next 2 months on a voluntary
switch to a playoff system, that you will see this bill move.
So it needs to be something that you need to start discussing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen. I have
appreciated your testimony. It is enlightening. And while I
don't agree with all of it, it is certainly honest and sincere
and I appreciate you being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And the Chair
wants to just commend the gentleman as he leaves for his
extraordinary work.
I just have one question. It seems to me the issue right
here is the fact that we have a national championship series
that is not really a national championship series, and that the
reason why the legislation, the reason why the involvement of
Congress is that it is being advertised as a national
championship series. And we think that, although this has a
title, it is really a misnomer; the title is a very empty title
because of the process and the procedure of selecting the
national championship. And it seems to me that there might be--
under the current law that there might be some fraudulent
practices here, and that is the reason why we are there.
Is this a meaningful title, the national championship
title? Is this a meaningful title, in your opinion, Mr.
Swofford?
Mr. Swofford. Yes, I think it is. If you look at the level
to which college football teams aspire to being the BCS
national champion, yes, I think it is.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Based on the ranking system, which I feel are
confusing the computers and polls, yes, because, as Mr.
Swofford said previously, it has in their opinion, the polls
and the BCS rankings, said these are the one and two ranked
teams.
Mr. Rush. OK. But now is there any other way of looking
at--is there any other bona fide or better way of selecting the
national championship?
Mr. Thompson. I feel there is.
Mr. Rush. OK. Mr. Fox.
Mr. Fox. I think the numbers speak for themselves. If the
BCS has been in existence for 11 years and had a one versus two
matchup and only nine times before that was able to happen, I
think it has allowed that system to take place.
Mr. Rush. And Mr. Bleymaier?
Mr. Bleymaier. I think that the national championship ought
to be decided on the field like the other 88 NCA championships
are.
Mr. Rush. The Chair certainly thanks all the witnesses for
your time and also for your forthrightness, for your
participation. Let the record reflect that there will be an
additional 7 days for any additional questions that might be
presented to the witnesses via writing, in writing. And we
would ask that you respond within another 7 days if there are
in effect any additional questions.
And, lastly, the Chair entertains a unanimous consent
request to enter into the record the statement of Mr. Neil
Abercrombie of Hawaii. And hearing no objection, it is so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abercrombie follows:]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now concludes this hearing. The hearing
today is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]