Alex's+Page

The argument over the BCS system and its way of doing things is a truly unique conflict in American politics. It is the only issue which boasts true bipartisan support for one side, this side being in favor of a switch from the traditional bowl system to a playoff format. However despite this bipartisan support the argument continues to rage between congress and and the major BCS conferences and bowls games. media type="youtube" key="3WDuQe89kJM" height="344" width="425" || [|NewsOK :] WASHINGTON — A [|Texas] congressman compared the [|Bowl Championship Series] to communism on Friday, saying it wasn’t a system that would benefit from more tinkering. "Sooner or later, you’re going to have to try to find a new way,” [|Rep. Joe Barton], a Republican, said at a House hearing on the controversial system of crowning a national champion in big-college football. Barton and [|Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.] , accused the BCS system of unfairly allocating millions of dollars and stacking the deck against conferences whose teams might have a legitimate shot at the title. The BCS coordinator defended the system, saying it had preserved the traditional bowl system and increased interest in the regular college football season. But the chairman of the [|Mountain West Conference] said the BCS system is seriously flawed and needs to be overhauled; that conference has submitted a reform proposal that would include a playoff system. The hearing, before an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, was the third House hearing since 2003 on the BCS system. At previous hearings, lawmakers unhappy with the system called top conference officials on the carpet and made noise about anti-trust implications, but they didn’t push legislative changes. Now, however, Barton and Rush have a bill that would prohibit the BCS from calling the winner of its ultimate game the national champion in any kind of marketing or advertising, unless it was the result of a playoff. Rush questioned how the BCS system could be fair when only six of the 11 conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision get most of the money and most of the BCS bowl berths. "Let me be clear that we are not examining a trivial matter,” Rush said. "Colleges and universities are funded by taxpayer money, 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.” [|Glen Bleymaier], athletic director of [|Boise State University] , said his school’s football team has finished undefeated three times in the past five years, but has only been invited to one BCS bowl, after the 2006 season, when it beat the [|Oklahoma Sooners]. Boise State is in the [|Western Athletic Conference], which is not one of the six [|Automatic-Qualifying Conferences] in the BCS system. [|John D. Swofford], commissioner of the [|Atlantic Coast Conference] and BCS coordinator, said the current agreement is one that all of the conferences agreed to and that any conference unhappy with it could opt out. He said every conference has more access to money and big bowls than ever. It is a fair system, he said, because it represents the marketplace. "College football has the best regular season in all of sports,” Swofford said. "And the reason that is — that’s our playoff.” But [|Craig Thompson], commissioner of the Mountain West Conference, said the system is based on historical relationships between bowls and conferences and marketplace history. "It should be based on performance,” he said. || media type="custom" key="3833635"
 * = = __The [|BCS] Controversy__ = ||
 * = ==__Brief Overview and Summary__==
 * = ==__Brief Overview and Summary__==
 * = ==__Mainstream Media Coverage__==
 * = ==//BCS controversy heats up on Capitol Hill //==
 * Report illustrates the interstate commerce issues with the BCS system
 * Representatives Barton and Rush accuse system of favoritism towards big conferences
 * Report focuses on the recent third hearing before the Energy and Commerce subcommittee
 * Highlights the new bill which Rep. Barton plans to introduce
 * Would establish playoff as the only fair way to decide on a national champion ||
 * = ==__Citizen Media Coverage__==

[|Huffington Post] WASHINGTON — Tackling an issue sure to rouse sports fans, lawmakers pressed college football officials Friday to switch the Bowl Championship Series to a playoff, with one Texas Republican likening the current system to communism and joking it should be labeled "BS," not "BCS."John Swofford, the coordinator of the BCS, rejected the idea of switching to a playoff, telling a House panel that it would threaten the existence of celebrated bowl games. Sponsorships and TV revenue that now go to bowl games would instead be spent on playoff games, "meaning that it will be very difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are among the oldest and most established in the game's history, to survive," Swofford said.Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who has introduced legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a game a national championship unless it's the outcome of a playoff, bluntly warned Swofford: "If we don't see some action in the next two months, on a voluntary switch to a playoff system, then you will see this bill move."After the hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee commerce, trade and consumer protection subcommittee, Swofford told reporters: "Any time Congress speaks, you take it seriously."Yet it is unclear whether lawmakers will try to legislate how college football picks its No. 1 before the first kickoff of the fall season. Congress is grappling with a crowded agenda of budgets, health care overhaul and climate change, and though President Barack Obama favors a playoff, he hasn't made it a legislative priority.College football's multimillion-dollar television contract also could be an obstacle. The BCS's new four-year deal with ESPN, worth $125 million per year, begins with the 2011 bowl games. That deal was negotiated using the current BCS format. While ESPN has said it would not stand in the way if the BCS wanted to change, the new deal allows the BCS to put off making major changes until the 2014 season. ||
 * = ==//Game-changing call to college football: Playoff //==
 * Huffington Post: article touches on many of the same points as the NewsOK article
 * More detail
 * Highlights Barton's threat: "If we don't see some action in the next two months, on a voluntary switch to a playoff system, then you will see this bill move."
 * Touches on Obama's involvement, favoring of the playoff system
 * Identifies two root causes of the problem:ESPN's deal with the BCS and money created by the current bowl system
 * Role of John Swofford as coordinator of the BCS
 * Establishes opposition to movement: "meaning that it will be very difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are among the oldest and most established in the game's history, to survive," ||
 * = ==__Mainstream Media Coverage__==

[|ESPN]  Already fighting off demands for a playoff system from President Barack Obama and leaders of the U.S. Congress, the Bowl Championship Series will soon face a more serious threat: an antitrust lawsuit from the attorney general of Utah that could dismantle its postseason championship scheme. Mark Shurtleff, the Utah attorney general, is gathering contracts, statistics, economic data and experts, and expects to be able to file suit against the BCS in June. "From the very first kickoff of the college football season, the BCS uses its monopoly powers to put more than half of the schools at a disadvantage," Shurtleff said. His investigation comes after an undefeated University of Utah team was relegated to the Sugar Bowl in January with no chance to play for a national championship. The BCS was formed in 1998 in an attempt to ensure that the two top-ranked teams in college football would meet in a bowl game. It has produced controversy almost every year. Six preferred conferences -- the ACC, the Big East, the Big 12, the Big Ten, the Pac-10 and the SEC -- are guaranteed automatic berths in the BCS bowls and at least $18 million in revenue each season. Other conferences -- including the Mountain West, where Utah plays -- are not guaranteed a berth in a BCS bowl and receive significantly lower shares of BCS revenue.

To win the lawsuit, Shurtleff must be able to prove that the BCS has total control of the postseason bowl market for its games, that it uses its control to help some conferences and schools at the expense of others, and that the BCS system has damaged the University of Utah as well as the state of Utah. It's a quest that could succeed, according to antitrust experts and scholars contacted by ESPN.com. If the lawsuit is successful, the BCS could face court orders requiring it to mend its ways and pay triple damages to states and universities harmed by the BCS, as well as their legal fees.  "There is no doubt that the BCS is a near monopoly," said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College who has focused his research on sports monopolies. "There is no doubt that it uses its power to make unequal payoffs to conferences and schools. And there is no doubt that its opportunities for rewards are not equal. There is a good case to be made." .... To read the rest of the article follow the ESPN link at the top of the page

 It's the one Utah coach Kyle Wittingham and quarterback Brian Johnson got to hold for winning the Sugar Bowl last season. But it isn't the one they really wanted.** ||
 * [+] Enlarge[[image:http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0331/ncf_a_wittingham-johnson01_200.jpg height="300" align="left" caption="Kyle Wittingham, Brian Johnson"]]AP Photo/Dave MartinNice trophy, eh?
 * = ==Utah has BCS lawsuit in mind ==
 * Most detailed article
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">Outlines history of controversy
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">Outlines Anti-trust aspects of BCS
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">Andrew Zimbalist, economics professor, Smith College: "There is no doubt that the BCS is a near monopoly,"
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;"> Zimbalist and Indiana University professor of Law Roberts: problems with suit, complications of anti-trust law
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">Hancock, BCS Administrator: "We have been subject of antitrust inquiries in the past and nothing has come of them."
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">Frohnmayer, Chair, BCS Presidential Oversight Committee: "Frankly, we're not concerned about it,"
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;"> Mentions ESPN deal
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">President Barack Obama: "We should be creating a playoff system. If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season and many of them have one loss or two losses, there is no clear, decisive winner."
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;">Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: added the BCS to the agenda of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy
 * <span style="font-size: 12px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;"> Bipartisan support: Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii: "is a racket, it is white-collar crime. It's clearly, clearly antitrust." ||
 * = ==__Citizen Media Coverage__==

[|The Plank] <span style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;"> It's probably not an issue front and center on many football fans' minds this NFL-laden weekend, but Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is drawing attention with his [|threat] to challenge the legality of college football's BCS [Bowl Championship Series*] under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On Friday the//Salt Lake Tribune// editorial page [|criticized]Shurtleff's efforts as a waste of taxpayer dollars, to which Shurtleff [|responded]yesterday on his blog (yes, the attorney general of Utah has a blog). Shurtleff isn't the first politician to take aim at the BCS, of course, and suspicion is warranted when it comes to elected officials' efforts to shape college sports through litigation. For one thing, as often as not, groups that claim they will suffer as a result of the structure of college sports end up benefiting, and vice versa. You may recall that back in 2003, when Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College left the Big East conference to join the ACC, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal [|spearheaded] a lawsuit accusing the three schools of conspiring to weaken the Big East. It's true, the conference was weakened (well, [|in football, anyway])--but, paradoxically, the ultimate effect has been to [|benefit the Big East immensely]. The remaining schools are guaranteed one BCS berth among them, giving formerly mediocre teams like Cincinnati the chance to increase their visibility, boost recruiting, and score a major payday simply by having a halfway decent season. And it puts Big East schools in position to play for a national championship if they can make it through the conference undefeated--like West Virginia would have done in 2007 had it not pulled one of the biggest [|choke jobs] in recent memory. That said, it's pretty clear that (this year, at least) Utah got shafted. And Shurtleff's case doesn't seem to be facially frivolous. In 1984, the Supreme Court [|ruled] in //NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma// that the Sherman Act applies to the NCAA. The BCS, like the TV agreement at issue in that case, uses anti-competitive practices to benefit its members. As sports law expert Martin Edel [|explains] to the //Wall Street Journal//'s Dan Slater, to prevail in a lawsuit Utah (or any other plaintiff) would have to win a balancing test--that is, by showing that the anti-competitive effects of the BCS outweigh its pro-competitive effects. (So, luckily for sports talk radio, on this question, any college football fan is essentially qualified to offer relevant legal analysis.) There //is// an argument that can be made in this vein against the BCS--but the problem for Utah is that it doesn't happen to correspond to their particular grievance this year. Utah's current beef is that it was excluded from the national championship game despite its undefeated record. But, critically, in the context of the national championship game, the BCS doesn't discriminate against Utah or other members of non-BCS conferences. The national championship game matches the top two teams in the country, regardless of what conference they come from. (Granted, because of the objectively weaker schedules they play, it's practically impossible for non-BCS schools to make the national championship game--but that's not because the BCS discriminates against non-BCS schools as such.) Consequently, as SMU law professor C. Paul Rogers III noted in a 2008 article in the //Marquette Sports Law Review// (not available on the web, as far as I can tell), it's unlikely a plaintiff could demonstrate that the BCS's conduct (as opposed to the conference structure of college football more generally) serves to exclude non-BCS schools from the championship game, which would be required under the Sherman Act. Where the BCS might have an antitrust problem is when it comes to the four non-championship BCS games (the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange Bowls). It's in that context that the BCS is discriminatory: non-BCS schools must be ranked in the top twelve in order to earn a bid to one of those bowls, while the champion of each BCS conference gets a bid automatically, regardless of how bad they are. In 2004, for instance, an undeserving Pitt team [|received] a bid to the Fiesta Bowl despite being ranked 21st in the nation. This arrangement would presumably violate the Sherman Act if a court were to deem its anti-competitive effects to outweigh its pro-competitive effects. There's a strong case to be made that the BCS as originally conceived in 1998 had such strong anti-competitive effects as to run afoul of the Sherman Act. But when the BCS was modified in 2005 (in large part, as a response to the threat of an antitrust suit on the part of non-BCS schools), it made it much easier for non-BCS schools to qualify for BCS games, evidenced by the appearance of Boise State in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, Hawaii in the 2008 Sugar Bowl, and Utah in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. Is it really //that// much harder for an outstanding team from a non-BCS conference to earn a trip to a BCS bowl, compared to an equally good team from a BCS conference? Probably not. So it would seemingly still be difficult to demonstrate that the BCS, as currently constituted, violates the Sherman Act. That's not to say it can't be done. Over the long haul, the BCS [|certainly disadvantages]members of non-BCS conferences by denying them access to BCS revenue year in and year out, which flows to all members of BCS conferences, even bad teams. Whether that's sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the BCS--and precisely what those benefits are--is open to debate. But it's very hard to see how Utah's (entirely valid) grievance//this year//, concerning the national championship game, could possibly be remedied by antitrust law. If the federal government is going to use its leverage to force college football to adopt a playoff system, it's going to have to be through [|new legislation], not an existing statute. --//Josh Patashnik// ||
 * = = The Problem With Utah's BCS Antitrust Claim =

= = The BCS controversy is perhaps one of the most overlooked issues in the political world today. Though insignificant next to major issues like healthcare, what makes the BCS controversy of such interest is the almost totally unified support for a switch to the playoff system.
 * Highlights history of issue
 * Touches on problems with Antitrust case
 * <span style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;">SMU law professor C. Paul Rogers III: it's unlikely a plaintiff could demonstrate that the BCS's conduct (as opposed to the conference structure of college football more generally) serves to exclude non-BCS schools from the championship game, which would be required under the Sherman Act.
 * Highlights problem with non-championship BCS games
 * Demonstrates case that could be pursued
 * Not too much detail ||
 * = =Comparative Analysis=

I was extremely impressed with almost all of the media coverage I encountered while searching this issue online. Almost all citizen and mainstream media alike remained unbiased towards either side despite the obviously overwhelming support for a playoff. To my surprise the article with which I was most impressed was ESPN's. The ESPN article provided an unprecedented amount of detail and really delved into the origins of the issue as well as its current impact. I was particularly impressed that ESPN did not focus imply on the sports aspects of the issue but also devoted time to the major anti-trust issue that the BCS controversy entails.

Like the ESPN article, the article by NewsOK was equally impressive. It provided a great amount of detail and featured a very interesting report on Rep. Joe Barton. This article did not demonstrate the same level of sports knowledge as ESPN's article but was still extremely informative.

In comparison with the mainstream media articles, the citizen media articles tended to be significantly shorter but often just as interesting. The Plank article in particular did a phenomenal job of covering the history of the issue and also it's current impact in a very short space of time. One may notices that the citizen media articles tended to cover a specific side of the issue whether that be the problems with the anti-trust case (The Plank) or how the case may be successful (The Huffington Post), however, the articles were still not biased despite this style of coverage.

All in all I was extremely impressed with both the mainstream and citizen coverage of the BCS issue. Though the mainstream media articles tended to be longer the were not always better. However, if one article had to stand out the most it was clearly the ESPN article which provided a fantastic example of unbiased and very informative reporting. ||