[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 185 (Wednesday, December 10, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 7330 THE ``COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF ACT OF 2008''

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOE BARTON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 10, 2008

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee 
is vested with the responsibility for overseeing sports, and that 
includes the current process for determining a national college 
football champion: the BCS system. College football is more than an 
exhilarating sport, it's a billion-dollar business. I'm introducing 
legislation today because despite every effort to fix the problems of 
BCS, college seasons still end in sniping and controversy, rather than 
clear winners and losers determined on the field.
  The BCS system was created to identify a broadly accepted national 
champion, but 50 percent of the time it has failed to do so. Most 
coaches who lose half their games would also lose their jobs. Yet 
that's what we settle for in determining a champion today.
  The BCS system of determining America's top collegiate team was 
established in 1998 and has been plagued by controversy almost ever 
since. In some years the sport's national championship winner was left 
unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of 
dollars in revenue that accompany the title. Despite repeated efforts 
to improve the system, the controversy rages on.
  In the 2003 season, the University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State 
University were selected to play in the title game, even though the 
University of Southern California arguably had an equal claim. LSU beat 
Oklahoma and USC also won its bowl game, leaving both schools claiming 
to be national champions and further chafing millions of college 
football fans, especially USC alumni. As a direct result of LSU's 
selection by BCS, the school's merchandise sales in both 2003 and 2004 
were more than double previous levels, producing millions of dollars in 
additional revenue for the school.
  In the 2004 season, again three equally qualified and, in this case, 
undefeated teams--Auburn, Oklahoma and USC--fought for the two slots in 
the title game, which once again produced an uneven outcome as USC 
defeated Oklahoma handily. Auburn won its game, but had no opportunity 
to play for a national championship and the millions of dollars that 
accompany it.
  This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the 
``championship'' while two undefeated teams and four additional teams 
with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become 
``champion.''
  The distinction of being the best brings millions of dollars in 
revenue, but the BCS method of determining who is number one 
consistently misfires. When we held our first hearing on BCS in 2005, I 
didn't have legislation in mind, and I hoped none would be necessary. 
Simply exposing the flaws and subjecting them to discussion, however, 
hasn't led to improvement by those who run the system.
  The legislation I am introducing along with Congressmen Bobby Rush 
and Michael McCaul recognizes the flaws of this system. Consumers, 
whether the millions who watch the game on TV or the lucky few who pay 
for a ticket to the computer-designated ``championship'' game, are 
being deceived. The BCS championship game is not a championship game 
under any sensible interpretation of the manner in which sports 
champions are determined.
  The legislation we are introducing today will prohibit the marketing, 
promotion, and advertising of a post-season game as a ``national 
championship'' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff 
system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of 
the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice, and provides the FTC with civil penalty authority.
  The legislation does not specify the details of the playoff system; 
rather, it ensures that that all Division I, Football Bowl Subdivision, 
teams should be initially eligible at the start of every season. The 
existing bowl structure could easily be incorporated into or as the 
basis for such a playoff system.
  We're never going to abolish all controversy, and who'd really want 
to be rid of it, anyway? People will argue about who should be in and 
out of playoffs, too, but I am confident when more of the most 
deserving teams can compete, a true national champion is much likelier 
to emerge.




                          ____________________