Simple.  The big economic picture.

There is no chance you could get 70,000 people to pack a stadium and watch a student take a test for four hours.  What you would find are 80,000 people willing to pay $12 dollars towards an I Love My Ducks shirt that would otherwise never give that same $12 dollars philanthropically to the university.

As much as we’d all like to pretend that college football is an unassumingly fun and exhilarating Saturday afternoon where we can root for our favorite teams, it’s not.  At the end of the day, college football is an entertainment business that a university owns the rights to and one that academia has discovered pays the bills in recent years.  It’s revenue that pays for new academic buildings, technology and more support staff.

Moving past the academic integrity debate whether institutions should use entertainment to fund the academic enterprise of a university, pragmatically it’s not going to change.  If we can all accept it’s not going to change, only then we can fully embrace why the BCS is so important to academic institutions.

The BCS is a business model that has proven thus far to be successful if you’re in one of the “big boy” conferences such as the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and the SEC.  You get the majority of revenue which has increased tenfold since the pre-BCS days.  The revenue typically goes to fund the rest of your athletic department on intramurals that lose money, or in some cases, entire academic buildings.  Frankly, as much as the smaller conferences complain, they’ve received more money and exposure than they would have pre-BCS days.  Overall, the BCS system is very lucrative to anyone involved in it, large or small.  Could it be even more lucrative?  No question.

The NCAA men’s basketball playoff of 64 teams makes around $545 million dollars a year while the BCS only makes around $150 million per year.  Although there are a little less than half of Division I (FBS) football teams than Division I  basketball teams, one can only surmise with college football’s resoundingly popularity over college basketball, it could easily make at least $100 million more per year if not match the amount entirely.  But then again, these figures are all theory.

Can fans or politicians convince college presidents and athletic directors to change their business plan?  Probably not, and that’s the problem.  Talking heads can’t effect change, only real money, not theoretical money.  The powers that be in college football have found a business model that is extremely successful and rocking the boat with the elusive unicorn playoff money isn’t going to happen until the need for more arrives or there is proven business model on the table.  Unless universities are actually forced into a playoff by lawmakers or are forced into a more equitable BCS business model for the smaller conferences is here to stay.  Presidents can use the academic argument to skirt the issue, but we all know it’s code for, “they’re comfortable with the business model the BCS offers so stop asking us.”  If it was all about academics, college presidents would have never allowed the 12th game to be added to the regular season back in 2005.

It makes sense for lawmakers to want to take on the BCS.  Going beyond basic pandering to your constituency, the system is truly inequitable economically.  Smaller conferences make less money than the bigger “brand name” conferences which try to keep the little guy down.  Politicians want to stick up for the little guy.  That said, isn’t that capitalism?  Don’t already established, popular brands like Pizza Hut, Domino’s and Papa John’s Pizza want to keep the smaller pizza companies from getting large enough to compete with them?  Of course they do.  If you want to call the BCS antitrust, then call capitalism antitrust.

If smaller conferences were smart, they’d squash this whole playoff notion anyway.  Frankly, we all love seeing the Cinderella story of many teams going up against the juggernaut-powerhouse teams and winning.  In a one game scenario like the current bowl game system, the small guy winning can be done as it has already been proven time and again.  You put an underdog team against three of the big boy teams in a row and soon we can see how the depth of recruiting four star players against the depth of five star players has for the Cinderella story in a multi-game playoff system.

College football is a great sport and without question, a better one than the pre-BCS days.  Would it be a better sport with a playoff?  Moving beyond the economics and politics, it probably would.  If fans of college football truly want to see a change to a playoff, essentially they will have to lobby the media outlets and have those entities formulate credible business plans that college presidents and athletic directors can sink their teeth into.  There has to be tangible evidence and guaranteed contracts on the table for the collegiate brass to want to change their minds.  So the real question becomes, “Can we lobby ESPN to be the savior of college football?”

Many FBS programs like the University of Oregon use sell-out crowds during regular season football games to pay for all sports within an athletic department.

Before the inception of the Bowl Championship Series in 1998, the sport of college football was marred in controversy for the way it determined its national champion.  For nearly 60 years prior, college football had crowned its champion with arbitrary voting by sports writers in Associated Press polls.  Trivial “true champion” arguments that had fueled the sport for decades finally prompted the BCS organization to become a “savior” and assist college football in settling these disputes.

Fast forward 12 years later, the once savior BCS has become the bane of college football fans, drawing the ire of the president, senators, and is on the verge of being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for potential antitrust violations.  Many would consider determining a true champion in college football to be silly, but with the threat of government oversight, college football isn’t so trivial now, is it?

To make matters worse for the BCS, in early January 2009, Joe Barton (R-Texas) introduced H.R. 390 (College Football Playoff Act of 2009); written to ban any NCAA Division I football game calling itself a “national championship” unless it is part of a fair and equitable playoff system.

The BCS has become the punching bag of modern American sports, but why so much hostility over Saturday afternoon entertainment?  The viewpoints for anti-BCS sentiment begin to differ.

At the bottom of the anti-BCS food chain it’s the average fan and college football coaches.  Many fans and coaches oppose the BCS and support a playoff for one simple reason:  The competitive spirit, or so eloquently put by many fans, “my school is better than your school.”  During the BCS era, there has been much controversy on exactly which two teams should be paired in the title game.

Stewart Mandel, senior writer for Sports Illustrated.com said, “As much as people criticize it (BCS), they forget for 60-something years there was no championship game in football.  It was completely arbitrary in terms of which teams met each other in the bowl games.”

Although the BCS gives fans the chance to see the top two ranked teams square-off when the previous system did not, fans claim it’s only slightly less arbitrary than it was before because it’s still based on a popularity contest.

In pre-BCS days, the college football national champion itself was decided by sports writers voting in the Associated Press poll.  In college football the top ranked teams did not play each other because of regional tie-ins that required conference champions to play in specific bowls.

For example, in 1991 the undefeated Washington Huskies of the Pacific 10 conference did not have an opportunity to play the undefeated Miami Hurricanes of the Big East conference because of these regional bowl tie-ins.  The Pac 10 champion was required to play in the Rose Bowl and the Big East champion was required to play in the Orange Bowl.  In the current BCS system, the top two ranked teams now play each other.

Senators Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) much higher on the anti-BCS food chain, differ dramatically in their disdain for the Bowl Championship Series.  The discourse shifts from entertainment to economic.

College football has grown steadily in popularity since its inception in the late 1800′s reaching an all-time high with the advent of the BCS.  The unprecedented popularity has garnered a much higher revenue stream than ever before.  However, the crusading senators take issue with is the caste system the BCS created.  The BCS business model has six automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences and five non-automatic qualifying (non-AQ) conferences for the bowl system.  The AQ’s receive a higher percentage of the BCS revenue pie than the non-AQ’s.

Barton doesn’t shy away from critics that say college football is too trivial for government oversight.  First, he believes that because college football is a multibillion-dollar industry, it qualifies as interstate commerce and thus, a legitimate candidate for congressional oversight.  Second, he feels that non-AQ conferences are victims of an inequitable revenue sharing business model.

In a letter to President Obama on Oct. 21, 2009, Hatch wrote, “During the past four seasons, privileged conferences (AQ’s) received more than $492 million, or 87.4 percent, of the total BCS revenue, whereas the non-privileged conferences (non-AQ’s), whose collective membership consists of nearly half of all the schools in the FBS, received less than $62 million or 12.6 percent. These are hardly trivial sums…”

With all the malcontent and damning evidence, do BCS proponents feel they have a leg to stand on?  You bet.

Although the percentage of revenue may be skewed in favor of AQ conferences, the fact remains that non-AQ conferences have tremendously benefitted from the BCS and have made more money than they would have in pre-BCS days.  Dave Frohnmayer, former chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee called the changing of the revenue sharing model “preposterous.”  He made the analogy that a more equitable revenue sharing model for lesser-invested athletic programs is as ludicrous as the idea that schools that charge more in tuition should have a tuition sharing model for the lesser-invested schools.  “The bigger conferences are the ones that brought the money to the table in the first instance; they are called the equity conferences for a reason.”

Proponents further defend the BCS business model because they say the system is a proven, positive and an integral method for the economic and philanthropic vitality of a university.  Many institutions in the equity conferences have invested in high profile athletic departments with an emphasis on football to fund entire athletic departments as well as garner philanthropic funds that go to the academic enterprise of a university.

Academics play a big part in keeping the BCS system intact, as least from college presidents, trumping both the economic and entertainment sides of the BCS debate. Frohnmayer who was also the former president of the University of Oregon feels that a playoff would disrespect academic calendars and would be an “academic disaster.”

No matter where one falls in the debate, whether it is for economic, academic or entertainment reasons; there is no question that the Bowl Championship Series has made college football a truly national, far more popular and ostensibly lucrative sport than it was 12 years ago.  The problem is that by doing so, the curtain to the economic Wizard of Oz for college football has been revealed.  The reality is that for many, the sport will never go back to being unassumingly trivial.

Stewart Mandel, senior writer for SI.com gave his insight into the complex world of the BCS in a telephone interview on Feb. 12, 2010. (SI.com logo complies under fair use within United States copyright laws.)

There is a lot of noise surrounding the Bowl Championship Series these days and Stewart Mandel, a senior writer for Sports Illustrated (SI.com) who has covered college football since 1999, brings clarity and pragmatism to an otherwise convoluted debate.

The way college football determines a champion has been under fire from fans, as well as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who has written letters to President Obama and the US Justice Department citing anti-trust issues against the BCS.  Senator Joe Barton (R-Texas) is trying to legislate a playoff with the HR 390 bill that he sponsored.

The BCS came into existence in 1998 when controversy after controversy around determining a true champion in college football had finally reached a boiling point.  Critics say that the current BCS is nothing more than a “popularity contest,” picking who voters believe to be the two best teams in America.  Mandel defended, “As much as people criticize it, they forget for 60-something years there was no championship game in football.  It was completely arbitrary in terms of which teams met each other in the bowl games.”

No sport, collegiate or professional, has increased in popularity more than college football has in the past 10 years.  “There is no question in my mind that the sport has increased tremendously in popularity since the BCS… more than any other sport in the last 10 years,” Mandel said.  It has graduated from a faction of regional competitions, to a more unified national competition with a system pairing a nationally ranked number one team versus a number two team title game matchup.  “If you were an LSU fan before, you didn’t have much incentive to care about an Ohio State game because they were going to the Rose Bowl regardless.  Now, there is always a chance your team will meet them in the title game or big bowl game.”

It’s easy to see why the entertainment aspect attracts fans and the competitive nature of sports attracts coaches who yearn for a playoff.  However, the plot thickens when the discussion moves beyond the superficial and towards the financial.

College football has become the trump card of college sports.  Much or all of the revenue generated by an athletic department in the modern era is generated more often by regular season football home games than any postseason matchup, “that is especially true, the larger you get,” Mandel said.  He believes that the Texas and Ohio States of the world, packing 100,000 people into their stadiums every other week, need those meaningful regular season games to fund entire athletic departments that may have 20-22 other teams losing money or breaking even at best.

For BCS proponents like university presidents and athletic directors, the notion of a playoff could be a financial doomsday recipe.  However, Mandel contends, “I don’t necessarily believe that a playoff would have these drastic consequences for the regular season…  but that IS why they are so concerned.  So much is riding on the college football regular season.”

Although the business model that the BCS provides has become more ostensible for the universities in major conferences as time has progressed, Senators Hatch and Barton do not agree with that business model.  Hatch said at a BCS hearing, “Put simply, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies to limit competition. I’ve said before that I don’t believe a plainer description of the BCS exists.”  Essentially, Hatch feels the system is rigged in a guile way by the major conferences because they let the smaller conferences feel part of the process by giving them the smaller leftover scraps from the monetary feeding frenzy known as the BCS.  Hatch thinks that smaller conferences do not get an equitable share and cannot compete to their market value because of the powers that control the system, thus violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Whether the BCS is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act or not, Mandel doesn’t give much credence to the current legislative push as he says many have come before it over the decades.  “To say they’re going to make it a legislative priority of the federal government to make sure college football has a playoff, is all just a lot of big talk as far as I’m concerned.”

The debate surrounding the college football postseason has many angles and no easy answers; but is a playoff the best solution? Mandel feels that a playoff in any sport is the best way to determine a true champion, but with the caveat, “College football would be a much different sport than it is now and I don’t believe people have truly thought about the consequences.”

Leaving economics aside, fans take for granted the dramatic regular season: a week-in and week-out slugfest where every game matters until the very end.

President Frohnmayer stands in the Knight Law School's conference room to discuss recently proposed legislation regarding a college football playoff; discourse he knows too well with his affiliation as former chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee.

Dave Frohnmayer has held many titles in his lifetime: Oregon gubernatorial candidate, Attorney General of Oregon, President of the University of Oregon, President Emeritus, and chair of the Bowl Championship Series Presidential Oversight Committee.  The latter probably being the most controversial of his tenure.

Frohnmayer goes beyond taking the controversy head-on, he owns it.

The former chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee is unapologetic when describing a university’s position as to why the BCS bowl system, a lightning rod of controversy, is beneficial to schools like the University of Oregon.

Frohnmayer anecdotally remembers his 1995 Rose Bowl experience and the overall impact it had financially for the university.  “It’s an unparalleled opportunity to raise philanthropic funds, which by the way, go to far more than athletic endeavors…. I can count tens of millions of dollars that came to the academic enterprise of the university.”  He is convinced that the amount of money the academic department received wouldn’t have been raised without the intensity and enthusiasm of a community event like the Rose Bowl.

However unpopular the BCS may be with fans, television commentators, President Obama, Senators Joe Barton and Orrin Hatch; a change from the current system is met with staunch resistance from many college presidents and athletic directors nationwide.

Many proponents of the BCS share Frohnmayer’s view that the current bowl system is a proven, positive and an integral method for the economic and philanthropic vitality of a university.  Frohnmayer forcefully answers BCS critics, “I don’t think they’ve done the math, I don’t think they’ve done the economics and I don’t think they remotely understand the importance of the regular season.”  Many Division-I programs use sell-out crowds during regular season football games to pay for all sports within an athletic department.  “If you care about equity in women’s sports or Olympic sports… then the best way to pay for them is to have a successful football regular season.  Which is again, something the critics of the BCS and the advocates of a national playoff utterly forget,” Frohnmayer said.

Senator Orrin Hatch has a different angle to his criticism of the BCS.  He feels it breaks the Sherman Antitrust Act with the non-automatically qualifying conferences receiving a smaller piece of the monetary pie that the BCS provides.  According to Frohnmayer, “The bigger conferences are the ones that brought the money to the table in the first instance; they are called the equity conferences for a reason.”

It’s a philosophical debate within the academic community, but many institutions in the equity conferences have made judgments and invested in intercollegiate athletics.  The belief is that high profile athletic departments with an emphasis on football is in the overall academic and institutional interests of that particular college or university.  “They’ve made that investment over many years and they’ve joined in conferences of people and institutions that have similar beliefs,” Frohnmayer concluded.  He made the analogy that a more equitable revenue sharing model for lesser-invested athletic programs is as preposterous as the idea that schools that charge more in tuition should have a tuition sharing model for the lesser-invested schools.

The issue that Frohnmayer believes politicians and fans ignore, which trumps even the business side of collegiate athletics, is the strain on the academic calendar.  “They disrespect and ignore our academic calendars.”  According to Frohnmayer, having a playoff start in the first few weeks of December interferes with academics on all levels.  Even if you send a handful of student athletes, many playoff advocates do not take into account the band, cheer squads, along with the student and faculty interest in attending the game.  The amount of fervor and distraction entering dead week and finals is, “an academic disaster.”

Should the U.S. government mandate a college football playoff to determine a true champion?  Frohnmayer leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind. “The notion that the Congress of the United States ought to be designing football playoff systems is a preposterous misuse of the political process.”

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: H.R. 390: College Football Playoff Act of 2009

Civic Impulse, LLC , Feb. 5, 2010

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-390

Accessed: Feb. 11, 2010

Category: Institutional; a website to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress.

Summary: The bill known as H.R. 390 wants to prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, the promotion, marketing, and advertising of any post-season NCAA Division I football game as a national championship game unless such game is the culmination of a fair and equitable playoff system. In its first step in the legislative process, a subcommittee forwarded the bill to a full committee by a voice vote.

Summary of sources:

Joe Barton [R-TX6]

John Carter [R-TX31]

Cynthia Lummis [R-WY]

Michael McCaul [R-TX10]

Gary Miller [R-CA42]

Bobby Rush [D-IL1]

The Library of Congress – Thomas

These sources represent the co-sponsors of the bill H.R. 390 who will deliberate, investigate, and revise the bill before it goes to a general debate as well the official link to the government website showing the details of the bill.

Source Analysis

Civic Impulse LLC claims to be an independent, non-partisan, and open-source website that was launched in September 2004. GovTrack.us provides a comprehensive legislative tracking tool for everyday citizens to track the activities in the U.S. Congress. The information shown on this site is assembled in an automated way from official websites (primarily from the website THOMAS, the official website for the status of legislation run by the Library of Congress, but a full list of sources is on the credits page).

Usefulness

The legislation H.R. 390 is currently in deliberation and was forwarded to a full committee as of Feb 5, 2010. The tracking tool has up to date information on H.R. 390 and its progress with Congress within 24 hours. GovTrack.us is a reliable source that uses the Library of Congress – THOMAS website as its official and verifiable source.

Works Cited

“College Football Playoff Act of 2009.” THOMAS (Library of Congress). 9 Jan. 2009. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h390:>.

“GovTrack Credits.” GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress. 2009. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.govtrack.us/credits.xpd>.

“H.R. 390: College Football Playoff Act of 2009.” GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress. 5 Feb. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-390>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: News Room – The Senator’s Press Releases

Hatch.Senate.gov; Jan. 29, 2010

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=7c6d164a-1b78-be3e-e012-d3c7b78ddb2a

Accessed: Feb. 11, 2010

Category: Institutional; a press release from Senator Orrin Hatch, also a PDF letter to Hatch from the Department of Justice.

Summary: Senator Orrin Hatch summarizes a letter he received from the U.S. Department of Justice about his concerns regarding the fairness and legality of the BCS as well as his characterization of the Obama Administration’s willingness to work toward a solution. Hatch believes the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) violates anti-trust laws and is pleased that the Obama administration is looking into alternative ways to confront what he believes as “tremendous inequities.”

Summary of sources:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch

Department Of Justice

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich

President Barack Obama

These sources represent the official information from the Senator proposing change, the Department of Justice’s official response to the proposal and the President’s official stance on the issue of a college football playoff.

Source Analysis

The officially sponsored government site of Orrin Hatch has the background information of the senator and serves as his outlet for press releases regarding his agenda. Hatch is a Republican and has served the state of Utah since 1977.

Usefulness

The summary by Hatch clearly defines his position against the BCS in a transparent way. The linked PDF document from the Justice Department responds directly to Hatch and officially defines the government’s position regarding this public policy issue. The document does not fully give the opposition side of the BCS debate.

Works Cited

“Fast Facts About Sen. Orrin Hatch.” US Senator Orrin Hatch. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.FastFacts>.

“Obama Administration Mulling Action Against BCS.” US Senator Orrin Hatch. 29 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=7c6d164a-1b78-be3e-e012-d3c7b78ddb2a>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: Rose Bowl as a playoff quarterfinal? Not!

Los Angeles Times; June 25, 2009

Mike Hiserman

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/06/rose-bowl-as-a-playoff-quarterfinal-not.html

Accessed: Feb. 11, 2010

Category: Mainstream Journalistic; a blog entry from the Los Angeles Times online.

Summary: The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) isn’t going to disappear without a fight. The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee responded to its critics and laid-out its position in regards to a post-season playoff in college football. The current chair and former University of Oregon president Dave Frohnmayer said that an NFL-style playoff system would not work. He stated that, “…they disrespect our academic calendars and they utterly lack a business plan.” Frohnmayer believes that the current bowl system has too much tradition and that turning the current bowl system into a quarterfinal would be “ridiculous.”

Summary of sources:

Mike Hiserman, LA Times reporter

Dave Frohnmayer, former Chair of BCS Oversight Committee

BCS Oversight Committee

Los Angeles Times

These sources represent the official response from the BCS Oversight Committee to BCS pundits, the blogger quoting the chair of the BCS Oversight Committee and the LA Times publishing the information to the public.

Source Analysis

The Los Angeles Times claims more than 18 million readers. Although it started as a newspaper for residents of Los Angeles in the 1800s, it has grown to be a newspaper of record for the nation, and estimates its growth to be 23 million readers by 2030. Mike Hiserman moved from senior sports editor to deputy editor of the LA Times in December 2008. Dave Frohnmayer was the chair of the BCS Oversight Committee and is the former University of Oregon president.

Usefulness

The LA Times blog reported a BCS proponent’s view of a post-season playoff in college football. The story is similar to one that appeared on ESPN.com. The articles had quotes from the chair of the BCS Oversight Committee endorsing the current BCS system, but did not articulate specifics as to why current playoff proposals were not in the best interest of academics or revenue earning potential.

Works Cited

“Dave Frohnmayer | Robert D. Clark Honors College.” Home | Robert D. Clark Honors College. Winter 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://honors.uoregon.edu/faculty/dave-frohnmayer>.

Harvey, Randy. “New duties for Sports editors Mike Hiserman, Debbie Goffa.” Top of the Ticket | Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Edward Kennedy’s son, opts to retire at 42. 4 Dec. 2008. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2008/12/mike-hiserman-n.html>.

Hiserman, Mike. “Rose Bowl as a playoff quarterfinal? Not!” Latimesblogs.latimes.com. 25 June 2009. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2009/06/rose-bowl-as-a-playoff-quarterfinal-not.html>.

“Los Angeles Times/MEDIA GROUP: SPEAK L.A.” LA Times Media Kit. 2008. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://webapp1.latimes.com/mediakit/the_market.html>.

Watson, Graham. “BCS Presidential Oversight Committee denies MWC’s proposal.” ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. 25 June 2009. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/4762/bcs-presidential-oversight-committee-denies-mwc-s-proposal>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: Obama Calls For NCAA Playoffs

YouTube; Nov 17, 2008

Steve Kroft; Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WDuQe89kJM

Accessed: Feb. 11, 2010

Category: Mainstream Journalistic; a video clip of a broadcast interview from the CBS network show 60 Minutes.

Summary: Then President-Elect Barack Obama responds to a question from reporter Steve Kroft about his plan for a post-season college football playoff to determine a national champion. Obama intimates that since there is no clear, decisive winner; there should be an eight-team playoff, with three rounds to determine a national champion. He feels that it would only add three extra weeks to the season and that the solution is that the regular season could be trimmed back to accommodate this change. Obama said about playoffs, “I’m going to throw my weight around a little bit, I think it’s the right thing to do.”

Summary of sources:

President Barack Obama

Steve Kroft, reporter for 60 Minutes

CBS, network television broadcaster

YouTube.com

These sources represent the official stance on the topic of a college football playoff by the President of the United States, the news reporter eliciting the president’s response to questions about college football, the network broadcasting the original report and the online site YouTube.com rebroadcasting the original interview.

Source Analysis

Barack Obama was at the time of the video, the President-Elect, and gave his opinion when asked about a college football playoff. Steve Kroft was named a “60 Minutes” correspondent in May 1989 and has been in broadcasting for 21 years. Kroft was chosen for the 2010 Paul White Award in 2010. The CBS network is a mass media company that dates back to the beginnings of the broadcasting industry. CBS broadcasts in all 50 states and key international markets as well as owning many subsidiaries nationally and globally. YouTube.com was founded February 2005 and quickly became the leader in online video viewing. Google Inc. purchased the company in November 2006.

Usefulness

The interview depicts a tongue-in-cheek conversation with the president regarding his opinion on a post-season college football playoff. Obama advocates that change is needed in all areas of America, including entertainment. The president feels confident in his conviction because he describes that he has not met a serious college football fan that has disagreed with him. Obama gives one-sided ideas for a plan of action, but does not talk specifics about academics or financial distribution that BCS proponents say have not been properly addressed.

Works Cited

“Company History.” YouTube – Broadcast Yourself. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/t/company_history>.

“Obama Calls For NCAA Playoffs.” YouTube – Broadcast Yourself. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WDuQe89kJM>.

“Overview.” CBS Corporation | Home. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.cbscorporation.com/ourcompany.php?id=11>.

“President Barack Obama.” The White House. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama>.

“Steve Kroft.” CBSNews.com. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/60minutes/main13544.shtml>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: BCS chief: System is in school’s best interest

The San Jose Mercury News, Jan 7, 2010

Ralph D. Russo

http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14141956?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com;

Accessed: Feb. 11, 2010

Category: Mainstream Journalistic; news report from the web version of the Mercury News.

Summary: The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) executive director Bill Hancock says that the 120 schools that play in the Football Bowl Subdivision are at a consensus with the way the post-season is played. Hancock articulated that a playoff would lead to more injures, conflict with academic exams, make the current bowl system defunct all while minimizing the importance of the regular season. Hancock concedes that the BCS’ position is not a popular one, but that he feels it is in the best interests of the universities. He also argues that the popularity of college football has never been higher and that is all in part to the BCS. The BCS director says that making the selection process for the BCS bowls more transparent is on the list of for changes.

Summary of sources:

Bill Hancock, BCS Executive Director

Ralph D. Russo, AP College Football Writer

The San Jose Mercury News

These sources represent the official stance on the topic of a college football playoff by the BCS Executive Director, the news reporter writing the story, and the newspaper company that published the story online.

Source Analysis

Bill Hancock is the BCS Executive Director who is also the main spokesperson for the group. Hancock also assisted the US Olympic Committee media officers during the 2004 Summer Olympics during his career. Ralph D. Russo is a regular writer for the San Jose Mercury News sports section. The San Jose Mercury News is a subsidiary of MediaNews Group, which claims to have a combined daily, and Sunday circulation of approximately 2.4 million and 2.7 million throughout the U.S.

Usefulness

The report records Hancock’s rebuttal to pundits of the BCS. The story chronicles Hancock’s rise to new position of BCS executive director, which details his proposed agenda to serve the interests of universities. The story gives background information about the television contract change with Disney-owned ESPN starting the 2010 season. The story does not interview critics but references oppositional standpoints within the article in relation to Hancock’s quotes. The article fails to report about the disparity of dollars the automatic qualifying conferences receive versus the non-automatic conferences.

Works Cited

“About NewsMedia Group.” Media News Group. 2007. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.medianewsgroup.com/about/>.

Gregory, Sean. “Can a Good Guy Like Bill Hancock Fix the BCS?” TIME.com. 26 Nov. 2009. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1941662,00.html>.

Russo, Ralph D. “BCS chief: System is in schools’ best interest.” San Jose Mercury News. 7 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14141956?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: An interview with Stewart Mandel

Interview Feb. 12, 2010

Bob Rodgers, interviewer. Stewart Mandel, Senior writer for SI.com, interviewee.

Accessed: Feb. 12, 2010

Category: Citizen; expert, non-stakeholder.

Summary: Mandel believes that although people criticize the BCS, it’s still better than the old system without a championship game. He feels that because of the BCS, college football has increased in popularity more than any other sport since its inception in 1998. Mandel also says that money is the main motivating factor as to why there isn’t a playoff. He says that many universities use the business model of having the college football regular season pay for most or all of the other athletic programs of the school and that a playoff realistically could devalue the current regular season business model. Mandel also thought that politicians supported a BCS change to appease their constituents. Current BCS conferences would stand to lose the most if a playoff was implemented because they control the flow of money and it would have to be opened up to the other non-BCS conferences. Mandel also said that the major bowl games have been around for 70-100 years and have been doing business with the higher-ups at universities to keep current system intact. Mandel provided history stating that an anti-trust law is what opened up conferences to gain more power than the NCAA itself when governing its own marketability and now the BCS.

Summary of sources:

Stewart Mandel

This source represents a non-stakeholder expert of the college football industry.

Source Analysis

Stewart Mandel is a senior writer at SI.com covering college football and basketball. Mandel has worked with Sports Illustrated since 1999. Mandel is also the author of the book Bowls, Polls & Tattered Souls: Tackling the Chaos and Controversy That Reign Over College Football. In 2008, he took first place (enterprise category) and second place (game story) in the Football Writers Association of America’s annual writing contest. He also placed first in the 2005 contest (columns).

Usefulness

The interview provided a less reported angle regarding the awareness that college presidents have in the business model that surrounds college football. Mandel also gives an insightful history of how the BCS eventually formed and why the system is governed in its current form. The interview gives the perspective of a journalist that covers the sport for a living. While Mandel makes a living writing about college football, he is not a stakeholder like a university president or athletic director.

Works Cited

“An Interview With Stewart Mandel.” Telephone interview. 12 Feb. 2010.

Mandel, Stewart. “Bowls, polls & tattered souls…” Google Books. 2007. Web. 13 Feb. 2010. <http://books.google.com/books?id=yM7kIhmEIvUC&lpg=PP1&ots=VWBp2HUc4K&dq=bowls%20polls%20and%20tattered%20souls&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false>.

Mandel, Stewart. “Stewart Mandel – Writer Archive.” SI.com. 2010. Web. 13 Feb. 2010. <http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/stewart_mandel/archive/index.html>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls: Tackling the Chaos and Controversy that Reign Over College Football, August 31, 2007

Mandel, Stewart

Accessed: Feb. 12, 2010

Category: Academic; book describing the intricacies of college football.

Summary: Mandel covers the biggest controversies and pressing questions in the sport of college football. In the first chapter, he explains the complexity of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), how it came to be, who would be the winners and losers of the system if changed and his expertise on why the system will not be changed easily.  Mandel also explains how rankings work within college football and how it is applicable to the popularity contest of the BCS.

Summary of sources:

Stewart Mandel

BCS

NCAA

football conferences

This sources represent a writer who has researched many topics that encompass college football. These topics include the system that determines a championship, the association that governs college athletics and their relationship to the conferences that align universities regionally.

Source Analysis

Stewart Mandel is a senior writer at SI.com covering college football and basketball. Mandel has worked with Sports Illustrated since 1999. In 2008, he took first place (enterprise category) and second place (game story) in the Football Writers Association of America’s annual writing contest. He also placed first in the 2005 contest (columns). The writer has done research and provides facts to persuade readers to his see his point of view.

Usefulness

The book provides many facts that back up his opinion that he is in favor of a post-season playoff. Mandel also gives an insightful history of how the BCS eventually formed and why the system is governed in its current form. The book gives the perspective of a journalist that covers and researches the sport for a living. While Mandel makes a living writing about college football, he is not a stakeholder like a university president or athletic director.

Works Cited

Mandel, Stewart. Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls Tackling the Chaos and Controversy that Reign Over College Football. New York: Wiley, 2007. Print.

Mandel, Stewart. “Stewart Mandel – Writer Archive.” SI.com. 2010. Web. 13 Feb. 2010. <http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/stewart_mandel/archive/index.html>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: BCS governance

Jan. 21, 2010

Bowl Championship Series

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809846

Accessed: Feb. 12, 2010

Category: Institutional; report from the official website of the BCS stating its governance.

Summary: A public record from the BCS about how decisions are made within the group and who specifically governs it, which includes biographies of each individual. The conference commissioners and the Notre Dame athletic director make decisions regarding all BCS issues, in consultation with an athletic director advisory group and subject to the approval of a presidential oversight committee, whose members represent all 120 Football Bowl Subdivision programs.

Summary of sources:

Presidential Oversight Committee

Conference Commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director

Athletic Director Advisory Group

BCS executive director

These sources represent the current and official leaders of the BCS organization that governs college football’s national championship and four other marquee post-season bowl games.

Source Analysis

The Bowl Championship Series is an organization comprised of representatives from 11 NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision conferences (formerly Division 1-A) and independent school, the University of Notre Dame, to administer five marquee post-season bowl games. One of the five post-season bowl games determines the current national championship by matching the two top teams by BCS metrics. The BCS provides transparent information as to its governance.

Usefulness

The site provides transparent information as to how governance is comprised and who currently resides as administrators in the BCS organization complete with biographies. The report does not provide transparent information on how much power each committee has in the decision making process or what directives the organization uses to make decisions.

Works Cited

“BCS governance.” BCS: News, highlights and insights into the Bowl Championship Series. 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809846>.

“The BCS is …” BCS: News, highlights and insights into the Bowl Championship Series. 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809716>.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: Government To Look at B.C.S.

New York Times, Jan. 30, 2010

Associated Press

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/sports/ncaafootball/30sportsbriefs-bcs.html

Accessed: Feb. 12, 2010

Category: Mainstream Journalistic; news report found in the Academic Search Premier Database from the New York Times.

Summary: Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote a letter to Senator Orrin Hatch saying that the Obama Administration was looking into the legality of the Bowl Championship Series. Possible actions against the BCS would be the Justice Department looking into antitrust law violations and the Federal Trade Commission reviewing the legality under consumer protection laws.

Summary of sources:

Bowl Championship Series

Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney General

Orrin Hatch, Utah Senator

US Department of Justice

US Federal Trade Commission

Associated Press

These sources represent an organization under scrutiny by the Senator from Utah, the Assistant Attorney General responding to the request from the senator and the possible government agencies looking into the legalities of the public policy issue.

Source Analysis

The New York Times claims more than 14 million online readers and is widely considered a reliable source for national news.

Usefulness

The report told of the Obama administration giving the go-ahead to the DOJ and the FTC to investigate the legality of the BCS. Hatch asked for an investigation and Weich responded in a letter confirming the US government would look into the organization. The article follows similar types of stories written by other national and regional newspapers about the government investigating post-season college football issues. [Sports Illustrated, Wall Street Journal] The report does not give any comment from BCS officials.

Works Cited

Everson, Darren. “U.S. May Examine College Bowl System.” The Wall Street Journal. 31 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Feb. 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704491604575035493947416852.html>.

“Online Audience Profile.” NYTimes.com. Mar. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/mediakit/online/audience/audience_profile.php>.

Staples, Andy. “Barack Obama, Justice Department could turn BCS into playoff.” SI.com. 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2010. <http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/02/01/bcs-justice/index.html>.

THE ASSOCIATED, PRESS. “Government To Look at B.C.S.” New York Times 30 Jan. 2010: 5. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 14 Feb. 2010.

Topic: Should the US government mandate a post-season college football playoff to decide a true national champion?

Title: Non-BCS conferences get record payout

ESPN, Jan. 27, 2010

ESPN.com news services

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=4856300

Accessed: Feb. 12, 2010

Category: Mainstream Journalistic; news report explaining the breakdown of BCS payouts

Summary: The six automatic qualifying Bowl Championship Series conferences earned a combined $115.2 million in BCS payouts while the five non-automatic qualifying conferences earned only $24 million. The disparity between money distribution has come under fire from congress but is defended by BCS executive director Bill Hancock as “fair and appropriate.” Senator Orrin Hatch described the BCS as an economic cartel.

Summary of sources:

Bill Hancock, BCS executive director

Orrin Hatch, Utah Senator

Bowl Championship Series

ESPN.com news services

Associated Press

These sources represent the facts regarding payouts to various football conferences and the BCS executive director justifying his organization’s money distribution system. A senator responds to the numbers reported.

Source Analysis

ESPN television programming is received by more than 97 million households and has 30 years of experience reporting sports news. In 1995, the Walt Disney Company bought ESPN and combined it with ABC Sports into one entity.

Usefulness

The report lists the money disparity between automatic qualifying conferences and non-automatic qualifying. The report gives traction to critics of the BCS with quantifiable numbers that the revenue distribution is skewed towards automatic qualifying conferences. The article gives voice to the BCS with his rebuttal to critics. Hancock says that the non-automatic conferences earned more money than ever before while Senator Orrin Hatch stated that the BCS divides the money to “the privileged conferences at the expense of the nonprivileged conferences.” The article gives a voice to all sides of the debate.

Works Cited

“2009-10 revenue distribution data.” BCSFootball.org. 29 Jan. 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2010. <http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4856975>.

“ESPN’s corporate history.” Marketplace from American Public Media. 4 Sept. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2010. <http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/04/pm-corner-office-bodenheimer-espn/>.

“TCU, Boise State drive non-BCS record cash haul of $24 million – ESPN Dallas.” ESPN.com. 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Feb. 2010. <http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=4856300>.

Possible scenarios stated that the Federal Trade Commission might look into the legality from the point of view of consumer protection laws as well as the possibility that universities may lose tax exemption status if they do not switch to a post-season playoff.

BCS executive director Bill Hancock told the AP the new numbers show the distribution is “fair and appropriate.”

Clearly, President Obama, Senator Hatch and Congressman Barton do not agree with Hancock, as they are vocal supporters of a college football playoff citing anti-trust issues.  When we also include the Florida State, Georgia and Florida college presidents supporting a playoff for other reasons, a college football playoff is a mainstream issue to the public.

The high-level support is undeniable, but there needs to be more support from non-sports fans in order to promote actual change.  Playoff supporters will need to worry more about its toughest opponent, the apathetic, than the BCS.

The following day, Senator Joe Barton wrote that college football is a multi-billion dollar industry making it an interstate commerce and a legitimate candidate for congressional oversight.   Barton also states that many schools, which are taxpayer-funded institutions, are ‘being shut out of the bowl cash bonanza’.

In other words, Hancock says that the current system is fine the way it is because it has never been more popular or profitable while Barton claims that the current system keeps the balance of power shifted to the entities with the most money.

1869 – Rutgers and Princeton played a rugby-soccer-football hybrid game, considered to be the inaugural college football season.  Modern football began to develop from rugby.

1880 – Walter Camp is widely considered the father of modern American football. He was instrumental in changing the rules that resemble modern football regulations.

1902 – Championship college football first began when the first bowl game played was called the Tournament East-West football game, which was later was renamed the Rose Bowl.

1935 – The popularity of college football grows and an award is created for most the outstanding player called the Downtown Athletic Club trophy, later renamed the Heisman Trophy.

1936 – The AP creates its first poll and chooses its first national champion.  Controversy surrounds Minnesota’s title with Northwestern ending the season with identical records.

1940 – College football popularity reaches an all-time high with five bowl games in existence: the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Sun and Cotton Bowl.  Specific conferences are tied to specific bowl games.

1958 – The United Press International creates its own voting poll to choose a national champion with controversy surrounding the Associated Press polls.

1997 - The AP poll crowns Michigan national champion while the USA Today/Coaches poll crowns Nebraska.  The 18th time in history there are split national champions.

1998 – Fans demand a ‘true’ national champion.  The Bowl Championship Series is formed; mandating the #1 team and the #2 team according to blended polls to play each other.

2009 - College Football Playoff Act of 2009 is introduced to the House of Energy and Commerce.

College Football Playoff Discourse

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/12/07/universities-and-conferences-cash-bowl-game-bids

College football bowl games are big business with 68 teams participating in 2009′s bowl lineup.  The Big 10 conference stands to earn $37 million in revenue from the seven bowl games to which it is affiliated.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061220/ai_n17079678/?tag=content;col1

There is contention that the bowl system would be devalued or made to be defunct by a playoff.  This is an article explaining why there are too many bowl games and that a college playoff would not hurt a system that is already devalued.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncf&id=4779214

A Quinnipiac University survey shows 63 percent favor getting rid of the current BCS system in favor of a playoff, while 26 percent want to keep the BCS.  The poll also shows 48 percent believe it is a bad idea if federal lawmakers force college football to start a playoff system.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4725887

This ESPN.com article explains that legislation is pending to prohibit any bowl game from calling itself a “national championship” unless the game is “the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff system.”

http://www.playoffpac.com/blog/Read.aspx?ID=146

This is a FAQ written by the Playoff Political Action Committee on the legislation proposed by Congressman Joe Barton’s College Football Playoff Act.  The page also includes a link to the bill in its entirety.

Summary

With its inception nearly 150 years ago, college football has gradually become one of America’s favorite pastimes.  As the sport grew, colleges around the nation created their own football teams prompting the Associated Press to devise a poll to settle national disputes and determine a national champion.  The very first national champion crowned by the AP in 1936 came with much controversy.

Regional bowl tie-ins as well as human polls repeatedly accused of bias have prevented the top teams in the nation from deciding a ‘true’ champion.  With a profitable and tradition rich bowl system in place, the Bowl Championship Series was created in lieu of a playoff to match the top two teams in a single game and is still arbitrarily decided by voting.

In 2009, Representative Joe Barton introduces legislation to ban any post-season game calling itself a ‘national championship’ unless it is part of a fair and equitable playoff system.