HogManInLA Reader Appreciation Article

My readers have asked and I have delivered. I was sent an email by a reader asking my opinions regarding the federal BCS antitrust lawsuit with hopes that I would write an article for you, his fellow readers. After a great amount of research and internal debate over the subject, I’ve written the following article. I hope you enjoy it.

In April the Attorney General for the state of Utah, Republican Mark Shurtleff, garnered and rallied enough support from the University of Utah administrators and professors to file an antitrust lawsuit against NCAA’s division 1 college football Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Shurtleff’s lawsuit will attempt to disband the current BCS format and force the BCS to pay restitution to smaller division 1 football programs (like Utah and Boise State) that have been hurt by the unfair competitive practices and illegal monopoly the BCS is alleged to have committed and/or operate. This call to action would also, in theory, force the NCAA and BCS to adopt a playoff system for division 1 college football.

In response to Shurtleff’s complaint, a letter was sent to new NCAA President, Mark Emmert, PhD (former University of Washington president), from Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General, on May 3^rd, posed three questions regarding the antitrust suit; the first steps towards a Sherman Act lawsuit.

1) Why does the Football Bowl Subdivision not have a playoff, when so many other NCAA sports have NCAA-run playoffs or championships?

2) What steps, if any, has the NCAA taken to create a playoff among Football Subdivision teams before or during your tenure? To the extent any steps were taken, why where they not successful? What steps does the NCAA plan to take to create a playoff at this time?

3) Have you determined that there are aspects of the BCS system that do not serve the interests of fans, colleges, universities, and players? To what extent could an alternative system better serve those interests?

First a little BCS history:

The BCS was put into place starting the 1998 season by former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer. Before the BCS came into existence, the #1 and #2 Associated Press ranked teams had only played each other 8 times in a post season bowl game over the previous 56 years. Fans, teams, players, and universities alike wanted a true national champions decided on the field not one that was voted upon by football writers and coaches. The BCS was formed to remedy this problem. The BCS replaced the Bowl Alliance format which replaced the previous Bowl Coalition format. The previously flawed format forced conference winners into predetermined bowl games due to conference tie-ins and contracts. For example, the winner of the Big 10 has a tie-in to the Rose Bowl, winner of the SEC has a tie-in to the Sugar Bowl, the winner of the PAC 10 has a tie-in to the Rose Bowl, the ACC winner ties to the Orange Bowl, and the Big 12 winner ties to the Fiesta Bowl. The Big East does not have a BCS bowl tie-in.

Six conferences, “power conferences” and one independent (Notre Dame), comprise the current BCS (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 12, and the SEC). The current system takes 10 teams and matches those teams into 5 bowl games: the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, the Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Arizona, the Orange Bowl in Miami, Florida, and the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, Louisiana. The National Championship Game, pairing the top 2 rated teams, is rotated amongst the four bowl sites every four years. The conference winner from each league (total of 6) is given an automatic bowl berth. The 4 remaining spots are awarded to teams based off polls and computer rankings (a confusing and debatable approach). With the Championship game site and top teams determined by rules, BCS administrators then choose which teams will play each other within the 4 predetermined bowl sites; a subject of much controversy. Notre Dame has to finish in the top 8 to receive a BCS bowl berth.

Just to clarify, this seems like a political move on Shurtleff’s part to help promote his own political future not something to benefit college football. Smart move on Shurtleff’s part, but disgusting at the same time. Even if he loses, he tried and his name is circulating. Why does this seem like a pure political move and not something that will benefit the University of Utah and non-power conferences like Conference USA, the Sun Belt, Mid-American, Mountain West, and Mountain West moving forward? Conference realignment, University of Utah will be joining the PAC 12, a BCS league; in July thus they will no longer be one of the “little guys”. So why the big fuss? Political gain and name recognition.

Why and when did the debate for a playoff system become a national interest story?

The flaws in the system were really exposed in the 2003-2004 season; USC was wrongly voted #1 in the final AP Poll by sports writers. USC was ranked #3 going into their Rose Bowl matchup verses #4 Michigan. #1 Oklahoma played #2 ranked LSU in the Sugar Bowl. USC beat Michigan 28-14 and LSU beat OU 21-14. USC somehow was voted/awarded a part of the NCAA National Championship because the AP voted them #1 even though #2 LSU beat previously ranked #1 OU. This would eventually allow people like Mark May (ESPN) to say USC has won two national titles in a row… no they did not (and now for multiple reasons they have not won 1 BCS Championship game). USC was a one-loss team, 11-1. USC had the benefit of not playing in a conference championship like LSU had to play, thus USC played in one less game during the season. LSU ended their season 12-1. The controversy begins because of a lack of common sense on the writer’s votes.

Due to this erroneous decision and the AP Poll not wanting to be part of the BCS formula, the AP Poll is no longer part of the BCS equation for determining bowl berths or NCAA Champions. The AP Poll has been replaced by the Harris Interactive College Football Poll for determining BCS rankings.

The argument grew into a fervor during the 2004-2005 season. This season’s events would begin the argument for the non-power conference teams. At the end of the regular season there were 4 undefeated teams with legitimate hopes of playing in the National Championship game; Utah 11-0, Auburn 12-0, USC 12-0, and Oklahoma 12-0). Undefeated University of Utah (11-0 and a Mountain West Conference team, non-BCS) won an at-large BCS berth verses a weak Big East opponent in #21 University of Pittsburgh (8-3). Auburn beat Virginia Tech 16-13 to remain undefeated and USC beat OU 55-19. The BCS system that was supposed to solve our bowl problems now had 3 schools with a legitimate gripe about being the NCAA National Champion as all 3 were undefeated. USC would be crowned the BCS and NCAA Champion only to have to vacate that win and title due to Reggie Bush’s violations of NCAA rules. Leaving USC without a championship in the BCS era! Utah felt that they were slighted and because they played in a smaller conference they were bypassed for the National Championship game vs. USC.

The 2006-2007 season ended with yet another controversy as WAC champion, Boise State, finished their season undefeated and upset one of college football’s elite teams, Oklahoma. Boise State was not selected to play in the national championship game thus they were not given an opportunity to play for the national championship. One-loss Florida won the championship by beating Ohio State 41-14. This furthers Shurtleff’s argument.

2007-2008 season had undefeated WAC champion, Hawaii, in a lesser bowl even though they were the only undefeated team going into the BCS. Hawaii would end up losing in a lopsided beating by Georgia (at-large berth) 41-10. A two-loss LSU team was picked to play in the national championship game, even though they had loss their last regular season game to University of Arkansas before the SEC Championship game.

At the end of the 2008-2009 season, Utah was once again undefeated and whipped Alabama (at-large berth) in the Sugar Bowl. Florida 12-1 beat Oklahoma 12-1 in the BCS National Championship game.

In the 2009-2010 season 5 teams finished the regular season undefeated (TCU, Boise State, Cincinnati, Alabama, and Texas). TCU and Boise State were matched up in the Fiesta Bowl with Boise State winning 14-10. Alabama cruised to a 37-21 victory over Texas in the BCS Championship game. Again, there’s another undefeated team from a non-traditional power conference at season’s end. The other outcry over the BCS pairings was that the non-power teams were matched up against each other instead of playing a power conference team. Boise State and TCU would’ve been in a win-win situation as most people would not expect them to win, so if they did beat a power team they have defied the odds.

2010-2011 season had 3 undefeated teams at regular season’s end, TCU, Auburn, and Oregon. Auburn and Oregon would battle in the BCS Championship game with Auburn winning. TCU would get their chance to shine by beating Big 10 Champion Wisconsin. Two undefeated teams left at season’s end; is their a legitimate national champion?

There are several sides to this debate and I understand each perspective. As this is a complicated issue, I will make this simple for everyone out there. If you play in a non-power conference and want to be taken serious year after year, schedule 2 non-conference games every year against teams that are from power conferences. As most people, teams included, will try to take a loop hole out of this. Teams like Duke, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Indiana, etc… do not count as power conference teams. Play the big boys and you will be treated like a big boy.

What people like Shurtleff do not understand is not all conferences are equal, teams are not equal, and schedules are not equal. Because all teams are different each team should be treated differently. Not all power conferences are equal. The Big East is known more for their basketball contributions than their football prowess. A SEC schedule is more demanding and tougher than a MWC schedule or a WAC schedule. The overall talent level in the SEC or Big 12 will wear any team down. Typically there are no “easy” games during conference play in the SEC, Big 12, or ACC. In the MWC, WAC, or Sun Belt said team may have one tough conference game during the season. What this means is less players injured, fresher legs, and an easier path to an undefeated season.

I’ve always been a big proponent that all power conferences must have a championship game to be in the BCS. The 2011-2012 season will be the first time the PAC 12, formerly PAC 10, and Big 10 will have a championship game. Playing in a championship game against the other division conference winner is a tough game. It is unfair that the SEC or Big 12 winner had one more tough game to play, which could add to a team’s injury list or cause them a shot at the national championship, while another power conference team has an easier ride to the BCS Championship game.

As for Varney’s questions to Emmert:

Question 1: Yes, there needs to be a playoff system. Outwardly a division 1 playoff system is not in place is due to fear of losing advertising revenue and lack of fan attendance for a possible 2 extra games per team in route to the championship game. The possibility of teams like Texas (see their strangle hold on the Big 12) wanting a larger percentage of playoff money than other universities is a major problem as well. Is Texas’ or any other team’s appearance in the playoffs worth more than the other? No, but try telling that to University of Texas. Another contributing factor is the BCS is in control of all the TV deals for the bowl games, not the NCAA. College football bowl games are not controlled by the NCAA. Emmert will change the swing of power at some point back to the NCAA.

Arguments against federal intervention cite that this lawsuit will push college football back to the old bowl format with tie-ins and previous conference alignments. If this theory would come to fruition, this would make it more difficult for teams like Boise State to ever make a top tier bowl, thus hurting their own cause by filing the lawsuit.

There’s too much money at stake to go back to the old format. TV bowl ratings are up. Fans do not want to go back to watching a poor PAC 12 vs. Big 10 matchup on New Year’s Day if the game has no bearing on the national championship. As a fan, if I know that a team will be crowned champion when all the bowl games are finished by the play on the field not by a writer’s vote, I am more apt to watch the other bowl games with enthusiasm and lend my time watching those games. I like watching the other games as it builds up to the championship game. If Texas wants to try and flex their muscle against the rest of the college football world they are in for a rude awakening. College football will go on without them. We did this past season.

Other reports suggest that capitalism and free market demands should shape the future of college football. I don’t see that being a positive outcome either. The NCAA and BCS have to be pushed into a playoff system. If federal intervention is what is needed then let it happen; but the lawsuit or investigation is a joke. If the playoff system does not work after 4 years, then the NCAA can always revert back to the current BCS configuration or a form close to it. What is there to lose by trying? So some fans may not be financially able to make 2 extra games, in an 8 team playoff system. The bowl games and colleges are primarily funded and paid by bowl advertisements, not ticket sales. The other bowl games would still be relevant, and the 7 games played in the playoffs would be a cash cow for all involved. The “trickle down” cash theory would still be in place plus the addition of meaningful games (see NCAA division 1 basketball) and the programs like Texas and Alabama will still get paid… well, I might add.

Question 2: No new steps have been taken because they already have the model in place for their subdivision football teams. The blueprint is being used by the NCAA. Slicing the financial pie and saying goodbye to BCS control is the only holdup on a playoff system.

Question 3: No system is perfect and there is no way to make everyone happy. So yes, there are certain aspects (how vague of a question was that?) of the BCS that do not serve the fans, universities, or players interest. If the NCAA was to agree on an 8 team playoff, people like Shurtleff would then argue for a 16 game playoff citing unfair practices. There’s no way to make everyone happy!

Just to clarify, this is not an antitrust matter as I understand the law. The BCS has actually allowed smaller schools like Boise State and Utah an opportunity to compete in major bowls, something that was not common place in years past. Granted they were not given a chance to compete for a national championship, and with the current system they never will. If said school(s) were to have a tough non-conference schedule then they may be taken serious during the BCS bowl selection process.

If a playoff system is put into place something else must change.

College football teams now play 12 regular season games with the possibility of playing 13 or 14 games per season due to their conference championship game and bowl game. The addition of 2 extra playoff games may not seem like much on paper, but this puts two college teams on a NFL type schedule. My suggestion is to eliminate one non-conference game during the regular season. Who needs to see Florida State play Cream Puff University? If the season is to be lengthened, will they extend the total number of recruits and scholarships a team can have? If you’re playing more games, you’re going to have more injuries; you’re going to need more players. Fair is fair. The argument against this is the “stockpiling” of talent power conference teams will have over others. Again, there’s no way to make everyone happy. If this happens, Boise State better stop Shurtleff in his tracks.

True our federal system and tax payer dollars could be put towards better matters than an investigation into the fairness of the BCS format vs. a NCAA division 1 playoff system. Let’s be honest though, would our government really be getting anything else productive done during the time wasted on getting the fans what they want? I didn’t think so either. Might as well put them to work to help us get a true NCAA football champion?