U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–795 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–462

BCS OR BUST: COMPETITIVE AND ECONOMIC

EFFECTS OF THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES

ON AND OFF THE FIELD

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 29, 2003

Serial No. J–108–50

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............. 6

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................ 8

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 10

WITNESSES 

Bennett, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 3

Brand, Myles, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association, Indianapolis, Indiana .......................................................................................................... 12

Cowen, Scott S., President, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana .......... 15

Edwards, LaVell, former Head Football Coach, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah ........................................................................................................... 19

Perlman, Harvey S., Chancellor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, 

Nebraska ............................................................................................................... 14

Tribble, Keith R., Chairman, Football Bowl Association, Miami, Florida .......... 17

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Brand, Myles, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association, Indianapolis, Indiana, prepared statement ....................................................................... 41

Cowen, Scott S., President, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 50

Edwards, LaVell, former Head Football Coach, Brigham Young University, 

Provo, Utah, prepared statement ....................................................................... 58

Perlman, Harvey S., Chancellor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, 

Nebraska, prepared statement ............................................................................ 65

Tribble, Keith R., Chairman, Football Bowl Association, Miami, Florida, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 89

(1)

BCS OR BUST: COMPETITIVE AND ECONOMIC 

EFFECTS OF THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES ON AND OFF THE FIELD 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, DeWine, Biden, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Chairman HATCH. Welcome to today’s Judiciary Committee hearing on competitive and economic effects of the Bowl Championship 

Series. 

Many of you may not be aware that when I was in high school, 

I had a promising future in football, but things didn’t work out. 

BYU already had a halfback and I was too slow and I couldn’t 

seem to go to my left, so it was a big problem for me. Well, some 

things never change. I still don’t go to the left. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. But on a serious note, I am pleased that the 

Judiciary Committee is examining the competitive effects of the 

BCS because of the notion of basic fairness that has been called 

into question by the current BCS system. I believe there is value 

to ensuring fairness in our society whenever we can. And while life 

may not be fair, the moment that we stop caring that it isn’t, we 

chip away at the American dream. 

Let me just say that many sports fans in Utah and all across the 

Nation have strong feelings about the BCS. Almost without exception, these fans make the same two points. First, the current system is unfair. Second, they care deeply that it isn’t. And I think 

it is worth a couple of hours of this Committee’s time to consider 

the matter. 

In my opinion, the current manner in which teams are chosen to 

play in the four major bowl games and the way in which a national 

champion is determined are fundamentally unfair to non-BCS 

teams. The first problem is one of access. There are only four BCS 

bowls, limiting participation to eight teams. Six of the available 

slots are guaranteed to the champions of the BCS conferences, 

leaving only two slots for the remaining 11 teams in both the BCS 

2

and non-BCS conferences, and these two slots are filled using a 

ranking system that many claim is biased against non-BCS teams. 

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that not a single 

non-BCS football team has played in a BCS bowl since its inception 

in 1997. 

The second problem is that the non-BCS teams are placed at a 

financial and competitive disadvantage because the BCS conferences retain most of the tens of millions of dollars of bowl revenue. The financial disparities that result from the current system 

translate into a competitive disadvantage for non-BCS teams. Combined, the revenues of the four major bowls in the upcoming year 

are projected to be $89.9 million. According to the revenue distribution information on the BCS web page, the BCS will quote ‘‘contribute $6 million to other Division I–A and I–AA conferences to be 

used in support of the overall health of college football.’’ 

Under this system, the minimum payout for the BCS conferences 

will be $13.9 million, and if, as will probably be the case, no nonBCS team plays in a major bowl, approximately $17 million will be 

paid to each BCS conference that has one member team invited to 

a BCS bowl, and $21.5 million to the BCS conferences lucky 

enough to have two member teams invited. This is compared to the 

$1 million that most of the non-BCS conferences will receive. 

Where BCS conferences stand to receive more than 20 times what 

the non-BCS conferences get, the resulting competitive disadvantages are unmistakable. 

A third conclusion is that the combination of extremely limited 

access and enormous financial disparities may severely damage or 

disadvantage non-BCS teams in the area of recruiting. As I believe 

Coach LaVell Edwards will emphasize in a few minutes, one of the 

biggest recruiting hurdles for non-BCS teams is that coaches from 

the BCS conferences are able to tell potential recruits that if they 

attend a non-BCS school, they will never play in a national championship game or probably even in a major bowl. The financial disparities that I have mentioned also affect recruiting, for obvious 

reasons. 

According to the title, today’s hearing will examine the effects of 

the BCS both on and off the field. I have outlined my principal concerns about how non-BCS teams may be disadvantaged on the 

field, but what about off the football field? I would like to briefly 

highlight three areas of particular concern. 

First, because football revenues are often used to fund other college sports, I am concerned about the impact that the financial disparities caused by the BCS may have on these other sports. 

Second, I am concerned that the financial disparities resulting 

from the BCS may make it more difficult for non-BCS schools to 

provide fair and equal opportunities for female athletes as required 

by Title IX. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, I and many others are concerned that all this college football money is turning college sports 

into nothing more than a minor league for pro football rather than 

a legitimate educational opportunity for student athletes. 

Unfortunately, Chancellor Gordon Gee of Vanderbilt University 

could not be here with us today. Vanderbilt recently took steps to 

3

deemphasize its athletic program and I really would have enjoyed 

hearing his perspective on all these issues. 

Of course, just because something is unfair doesn’t make it unlawful. However, the principle of fairness and, in particular, fair 

competition is to a certain extent reflected in our antitrust laws. 

For example, it is generally unlawful for two competitors in any 

particular market to agree to exclude a third. Some would argue 

that this is effectively what the BCS does. But while the antitrust 

implications in the BCS will be part of what we discuss here today, 

I think it is unclear how a court would rule on an antitrust challenge to the BCS. 

I, for one, hope that we don’t find out. It is my sincere hope that 

the BCS system will be improved through a negotiation rather 

than litigation. I note that representatives of BCS and non-BCS 

schools met in September and will meet again on November 16 to 

discuss how the current system might be changed to be more inclusive. 

So in closing, I urge the participants in these meetings to work 

toward a mutually acceptable solution that will answer the criticisms of the BCS that we discuss today. If nothing else, I would 

admonish the participants simply to do what is fair. 

I look forward to hearing testimony from our witnesses, but before I introduce them, whenever the Ranking Member comes in, we 

will turn to him or his representative to make a statement, whenever they come in. 

We are delighted to have Senator Bennett, my colleague from 

Utah, here today. He is doing a great job in the Senate and naturally he is concerned about these issues, as am I. Senator Bennett 

is a graduate of the University of Utah. Senator Bennett, we look 

forward to your comments at this time and any suggestions you 

can make for us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you. I appreciate your opening 

statement in which you outlined all of the primary arguments with 

respect to this issue. Rather than repeat those arguments, even 

though I have learned since coming to the Senate there is no such 

thing as repetition— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNETT. —I would like to put a slightly different face 

on this issue that I hope will send a message of reality to the BCS 

schools and those who are supporting the present situation. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am the Chairman of the Joint 

Economic Committee and I have spent a lot of time in my Senate 

service focusing on economic issues. One of the things that has 

come out of that experience is a recognition of the ultimate fate of 

monopolies. Monopolies seem really wonderful at the beginning. If 

you have a monopoly on something, you can set the price virtually 

wherever you want it. You can charge whatever the traffic will 

bear. There are no penalties. You can do whatever you want because you have no price to pay down the line. People have to buy 

your product because you are the only one who has it. 

4

The history of monopolies throughout history is that they don’t 

last. Monopolies become bloated, they become inefficient, and eventually they die. And people who participate in monopolies look back 

on that history and say, you know, we would have been better off 

if we had had vigorous competition right from the beginning, if we 

had been forced to improve our product in order to continue to sell 

it for fear that somebody else might take it away. 

The BCS is setting themselves up, if they succeed in maintaining 

their present cartel, for ultimate extinction. They should understand what will happen to their product, in monopoly terms, if they 

do not move away from the clever structure that they have created 

for themselves. 

They exist to take advantage of television money. The BCS system was created to make sure that 96 percent of all bowl revenue 

went to BCS conferences. That is a tremendous incentive to keep 

the present situation. Ninety-six percent of the TV revenues that 

come from covering the New Year’s Day bowls go to BCS conferences. Why would somebody in a BCS conference want to upset 

that? The reason they might want to upset that would be to look 

into the future and discover what could very easily happen, indeed, 

what is very likely to happen. People will get tired of seeing Miami 

play Ohio State one New Year’s after another. They want some excitement. They want some diversity in college. They want the opportunity for a Cinderella story. 

We have just seen what a Cinderella story can do to revive a 

dying sport in the last World Series. I remember when baseball 

went through its strike and people were staying away from baseball stadiums in droves. There were even suggestions that baseball 

as a sport was finished because everybody was tired of the greedy 

owners and the greedy players and why should they watch that 

sport. TV ratings for baseball went down. 

Well, they went through the roof this year because we had the 

Cubs and the Marlins. We thought the Red Sox might someday finally overcome their curse and beat the Yankees. We had excitement, and the Marlins, whose payroll is one-third of the Yankees’, 

came through and won the World Series and all the Yankee haters 

all over the country rejoiced. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNETT. They followed baseball in a way that baseball 

has not been followed for a long, long time. 

If we prevent a college football version of the Florida Marlins 

from ever coming forward, playing in the Rose Bowl or the Cotton 

Bowl or whatever it might be, and attracting national attention, we 

run the risk of having the TV promoters say, you know, we can sell 

something else on New Year’s Day that can get higher ratings than 

a rerun of the Big Ten and the SEC playing one more time with 

their top teams. 

The TV revenues, of which the BCS get 96 percent, can go down 

if the product gets tainted by public boredom. Oh, that will never 

happen, say the chancellors of the BCS schools. They should understand that TV producers do not go on sentiment. TV producers go 

on ratings, and if the ratings start to fall for college football because people get bored with the same old match-ups, there will be 

5

no sentiment in the board rooms of the TV executives. They will 

look to the ratings and they will find something else to put on. 

You mentioned that I was a graduate of the University of Utah. 

That is true. I grew up in Salt Lake City and I remember as a 

young man the most exciting college sports experience that I could 

ever have experienced, and it still stays in my memory and those 

who are of my generation still talk about it. It was basketball, not 

football, but it illustrates the point I am trying to make here. 

The University of Utah basketball team in the 1940s—sorry, I 

can’t put the exact year on it, my memory is not that good—went 

to the NCAA finals, and in those days, the NCAA finals were the 

second tier. The real national championship was determined by the 

National Invitational Tournament, the NIT. The University of 

Utah team did well, but not well enough. They lost out. 

They were on their way home when a team that was scheduled 

for the NIT was involved in an accident and unable to participate, 

and the NIT reached out to fill out their schedule and said to the 

University of Utah, will you come compete in the NIT? So here was 

a team that was not good enough by its records to get invited to 

the big games, but by virtue of a tragic accident that had eliminated one of the teams, got an opportunity to go. 

It still fills me with goosebumps and chills to think of what happened. They went to the NIT and they won the NIT, two points, 

as I recall. I can still name some of the players on that team—

Arnie Faron, Watt Masaka. All Utahans can remember that, and 

the Nation at the time was transfixed by this Cinderella team from 

out of the West, last-minute substitute that went on to win the 

NIT, last basket, buzzer-blowing, all of the things. It may not have 

been as exciting as I remember it now, but it certainly was exciting 

at the time. 

BCS is structured to make sure that that kind of thrill, that kind 

of opportunity, will never, ever come to college football. No matter 

how good a team might be from a non-BCS school, the way the 

thing is structured now, will not have an opportunity to thrill the 

Nation and keep alive television interest in college football. 

Oh, the BCS people say, well, there are two slots available and 

those two slots, you might have the college football version of the 

Florida Marlins show up and take one of those slots and win the 

national championship. It is possible. No, it is not, not because 

there isn’t a team out there that could do it now, but because, as 

you, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out, the recruiting will make it 

clear that the good players won’t run—good high school players 

won’t run the risk of being on one of those Cinderella teams that 

could come out from nowhere and win it. 

They will go to a BCS school and then the BCS monopoly will 

say, see, we are the best teams, so naturally we should get 96 percent of the money and it is all being decided on the playing field. 

No, it is being decided by virtute of the structure, and long-term, 

if they are allowed to continue that kind of monopoly practice, they 

will suffer the same fate as every other monopoly in history. 

They will become bloated, complacent, inefficient, and eventually 

kill the golden goose from which they are now taking the eggs because national television will say, people don’t care about college 

football anymore. There is no excitement. There is no opportunity 

6

for a newcomer to come in. It is a closed corporation. We will find 

something else to broadcast on New Year’s Day. And the successors 

of today’s chancellors of the BCS schools will wonder what happened to the great opportunity we had to maintain excitement for 

college football. 

I urge the Committee to continue to probe this issue. I will do 

what I can to continue to probe the issue. I think it is a very significant one that is worthy of your attention. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your excellent statement. 

I have to remember, I didn’t have the privilege of living in Utah 

at the time, but I was a basketball player in high school in Pittsburgh— 

Senator BIDEN. And a union member, as well. 

Chairman HATCH. That is right, and a union member, as well. 

Senator BENNETT. I want that for the record, Mr. Chairman, that 

you were a union member. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. No, I am still a union member, but you guys 

have just gone too far off the reservation, that is all. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. But in any event, I remember Arnie Faron 

and Watt Masaka and Vern Garner and two All-Americans on that 

team. And one of the thrills of my life was after, of course, moving 

my family to Utah, becoming a very good friend of Arnie Faron’s. 

He is a great friend to this day, because he was a hero of mine, 

I will tell you. I followed that team and I remember that very, very 

well. So bringing that to all of our recollection, I think under these 

circumstances is a very, very good thing and you have done a very 

good job. 

But we know how busy you are. We will let you go. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. We know you have a full plate. Thank you for 

being here. 

We will turn to Senator Biden at this time and then we will go 

to our witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator BIDEN. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank your colleague from Utah, who I always enjoy listening to 

and, I might say for the record, is one of the fairest people in the 

United States Senate and I hope everyone listened to him. 

Let me apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and the witnesses. I am 

shuttling between the Foreign Relations Committee hearings on 

the new ambassador for Afghanistan here, like I know you have 

similar conflicting responsibilities. But the bad news is when you 

are Chairman, you have to be here, and I get to do it between two 

places. 

Let me begin by commending you and the Ranking Member for 

deciding to hold this hearing. Although this Committee held hearings on this subject back in 1997, I requested this hearing because 

recent events have convinced me that further examination and discussion of the Bowl Championship Series system is warranted. 

7

Let me say at the outset that mine is not a parochial interest. 

My alma mater, the University of Delaware, plays Division I–AA 

football and so is not eligible for any of the bowls we will discuss 

today, although I might note for the record we are ranked number 

two in the Nation, beat Navy, a Division I team, in their homecoming at Navy last week and I predict will end up number one 

in the Nation, but that is a different issue. [Laughter.] 

Having played at Delaware, I am incredibly proud of my alma 

mater, but rather, I am concerned about the allegation that BCS 

has created a system of haves and have-nots when it comes to Division I–A football. Since its inception, to state what I am sure has 

already been stated, in 1998, no non-BCS member school has 

played in a BCS bowl game. That means that 52 major universities’ 

Division I–A football programs have not had the opportunity to 

compete for a national championship in the foremost prestigious 

and lucrative college football bowls. As a result, during the 2001–

2002 season, BCS member schools enjoyed $101 million in revenues while their non-member counterparts received only $5 million. 

According to a recent New York Times article, over the 8 years 

of the BCS contract, the BCS, quote, ‘‘while the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big East, the Pacific 

Ten, the PAC-Ten, the Big 12, the Big Ten, and Notre Dame will 

split $900 million over 8 years of the Bowl Championship Series 

contract, which runs through 2005, the schools that have been left 

out will split just $42 million over that period.’’ 

It is not difficult to imagine what impact this revenue imbalance 

can have and does have on Division I–A intercollegiate athletics. 

BCS member universities have substantially greater budgets for 

athletic programs than non-members. These larger budgets accord 

BCS members the advantage in recruiting student athletes, retaining coaching staff, and maintaining a strong student fan base. 

In contrast, the non-BCS members with lower athletic budgets 

suffer from inferior athletic facilities and rising deficits. I am 

aware, for example, that Tulane’s athletic program is running a 

significant budget deficit and I would appreciate hearing more 

about Tulane’s situation from President Cowen this morning. I 

should, in full disclosure, acknowledge that my daughter recently 

graduated from Tulane. I like Tulane very much, but she did not 

play football at Tulane. [Laughter.] 

My concerns aren’t just about money. It is not just the perceived 

unfairness to excluding non-BCS member schools from playing in 

the national championship, but I am also concerned about the multiplier effect caused by the BCS. As the Washington Post recently 

noted, and I quote, ‘‘The cost of NCAA Division I–A membership 

has become exorbitant. The latest rules require colleges to support 

16 sports in order to participate. Without the funds provided by lucrative bowls, non-BCS universities are increasingly facing a very 

real Hobson’s choice. Academics must often take a back seat to provide the funds needed to support college athletics, or just as bad, 

these same schools are finding it increasingly difficult to provide 

sports teams for their female athletes as required by Title IX.’’ 

And I must tell you, that is one of the overwhelming reasons why 

I became interested in this item. Not only is there a bit of an onslaught on Title IX to begin with from other quarters, I think this 

8

is a very high price that would be paid if something isn’t changed, 

because I think it has been the single most significant thing that 

has happened to women, collegiate women in America, is the increase in since Title IX and the participation of competitive women’s sports, and it goes far beyond their sports capability. It goes 

to their image of who they are. It goes to the possibilities they 

think are available, and I don’t think it can be underestimated. So 

I want to be straight about that. 

Such a robbing of Peter to pay Paul approach—that was the end 

of the quote, by the way, but since the robbing of Peter to pay Paul 

approach totally undermines the original goal of the NCAA-sponsored sports to produce scholar athletes, I think we have to look 

very hard at this. The professed goal of the BCS system is to provide a championship game between the two best Division I–A intercollegiate college football teams selected on the basis of fair and objective criteria. 

It is clear to me that BCS members and non-members are not 

competing on a fair and balanced playing field. It is sort of like college basketball telling Gonzaga at the beginning of the season that 

they most likely won’t make it to March Madness no matter how 

well they do this season. I call that unfair. In lawyers’ terms, it 

also appears to raise a significant antitrust concern to me. 

I know that the various sides of this dispute have begun to get 

together and negotiate a solution. I view today’s hearing as another 

step in the process of attempting to resolve this problem. However, 

if the sides cannot come to an agreement that eliminates the clear 

problems that the current BCS system demonstrates and evidences, it may well be the case that this Committee and this Congress will have to revisit the issue, and this Senator may decide to 

do what I think we should avoid doing, and that is at all costs, we 

should try not to legislate an outcome here. But that depends upon, 

in my view, how sincere and legitimate the negotiations are. 

In closing, let me welcome our esteemed panel of witnesses, and 

I applaud both sides of this debate for expressing what seems to 

be an absolutely sincere desire to negotiate. I applaud their desire 

to find a solution to this problem that will benefit the 5,000 talented young athletes involved in Division I–A football, and I applaud their desire to design a system that millions of college football fans across the country will truly embrace, a system that allows any one of the 117 Division I–A college football teams the 

right to a shot at the title, and I hope these proceedings will help 

promote that end, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I thank you for holding these hearings and I apologize for 

being late. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. Thanks so much. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HATCH. Senator DeWine? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement I 

would like to give. 

Chairman HATCH. That would be fine. 

9

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding today’s hearing on the Bowl Championship Series, the 

BCS. This hearing will highlight issues both on the field and off 

the field surrounding the college football bowl system. As Chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee and as certainly a college football fan, I was particularly interested in seeing—I am interested in 

seeing that the bowl system is both competitive and fair. 

Many of the issues that the bowl system faces today are the 

same ones that we faced 6 years ago when our Subcommittee held 

a hearing examining the Bowl Alliance, the predecessor to the 

BCS. First, the BCS, like the Bowl Alliance before it, does, in fact, 

exclude several conferences, such as the Western Athletic Conference, Conference USA, and the MAC. 

Second, the BCS raises the same antitrust and competition concerns that I noted with the Bowl Alliance 6 years ago, namely that 

potential antitrust problems may arise any time competitors, like 

the BCS conferences, agree among themselves instead of competing. 

I want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to talk about the antitrust analysis that I think applies to the BCS. The first step in the 

analysis is in examining the agreement between the BCS conferences, the Big Ten, Pac Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC, and the Big 

East, and the BCS bowls, the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and the Rose 

Bowls. We have to look, I believe, Mr. Chairman, at both the purpose of the agreement and whether the agreement has had any 

harmful effects on competition. BCS proponents claim that the purpose of the BCS is to ensure a number one versus number two bowl 

game. 

Assuming this purpose, we still need to look at whether the BCS 

has harmed competition. To do this, I think we need to look at the 

bowl situation prior to the BCS. For example, let us look at the 

teams that played in the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose Bowls 

since 1971. In that time frame, only three teams currently in nonBCS conferences played in any of those four bowl games. So looking 

at it that way, at least, the BCS has not had much direct effect on 

the schools. 

Of course, we need to examine the effect on consumers, in this 

instance, the fans. So we need to examine if the BCS has deprived 

these consumers of higher quality bowls than they may have otherwise seen without the BCS. Of course, this is hard to evaluate, and 

this will be depending on who you ask, I guess. For example, would 

there have been higher quality bowl games after the 1998 season 

if undefeated Tulane had played in one of the BCS bowls, or after 

the 2001 season if 12 and one BYU had played in a BCS bowl 

game? 

In any event, Mr. Chairman, if we assume the BCS actually does 

cause harmful effects on competition, we need to balance those 

harmful effects against the benefits that the BCS brings. To me, 

we only have to look back to last January’s Fiesta Bowl game between number two-ranked Ohio State and number one-ranked University of Miami to see the benefits of BCS. Obviously, I am a little 

prejudiced. That unbelievably tense game ended, happily, in my 

view, with Ohio State winning the national championship. 

10

Now, Mr. Chairman, prior to the BCS, that game simply would 

not have taken place. Ohio State would have played in the Rose 

Bowl, as we always did, against the PAC Ten champion, or as the 

Big Ten champion always did, while Miami likely would have 

played in the Sugar or the Orange or the Fiesta Bowl. So for the 

Ohio State-Miami game, the system worked. In fact, the BCS has 

resulted in match-ups between the top two teams in each year of 

its existence. 

Contrast that with what happened after the 1997 football season, 

when both Michigan and Nebraska went undefeated but played in 

separate bowl games. That year, there were two disputed national 

champions instead of one undisputed national champion. 

Just, Mr. Chairman, to finish the antitrust analysis, if we assume the benefits of the BCS outweigh the harmful effects of the 

BCS, then we need to consider whether our so-called less-restrictive alternatives, in other words, ways in which we can achieve the 

benefits of the BCS with fewer of the harmful effects. For example, 

would a playoff provide the same benefits of the BCS without the 

harmful effects? I am interested in hearing from the panel members on all of these issues. What are the goals, potential harms, 

and benefits of the BCS system, and how else could we operate the 

bowl system. 

Mr. Chairman, our scrutiny should not end with the antitrust 

analysis. As I mentioned, the bowl system needs to do more than 

survive legal scrutiny. It also must be fair. 

I worry particularly about the agreements between the BCS conferences and the non-BCS bowl games. The Cotton Bowl, for example, automatically matches a Big 12 team against a team from the 

SEC. The Peach Bowl automatically matches an ACC team against 

an SEC team. Arrangements such as these are common and they 

completely foreclose any chance for worthy teams outside of the 

BCS conferences to earn spots in many non-BCS bowls. Many of 

these bowls might act as catalysts for non-BCS programs to improve their national visibility, to become more attractive for potential recruits, and to compete more effectively against the BCS conference programs, but under our current system, non-BCS teams 

are almost totally shut out of this system. I think, Mr. Chairman, 

we must examine why non-BCS bowls select teams in the manner 

that they do. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we have a lot to discuss today in looking 

at the competition and fairness issues that the bowl systems raise 

and I thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your 

Chairmanship of the Antitrust Subcommittee and your interest in 

being here today. 

Senator Sessions, we will turn to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a 

healthy thing to discuss these issues. I do hope that this Federal 

Government does not find itself in a position of passing laws, trying 

to decide who goes to the bowl championship and who ought to be 

number one. Alabama claims, I think, 12 national championships. 

11

Several of those are disputed, but we believe they won it every 

time. Others claim they won it some of those years. I mean, my 

heart is not broken that somebody else claimed the national championship in one of those years. 

I really don’t want to see us go to a playoff game. I think we are 

getting close enough to picking the national champion now. I noticed just a few weeks ago, by chance, that now teams are playing 

12 football games a year, regular season. Just a few years ago, it 

was ten. Then you have got an SEC championship game on top of 

that, and then a bowl game on top of that. So I am a little dubious 

about us trying to micromanage college football and directing that 

we ought to have a playoff system that I am not sure would be 

good for the players or for the system. As a matter of fact, I would 

like to see us drop one of those games, it seems to me. 

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of ways to do this. I know in the 

Tulane situation, they weren’t ranked in the top. I think they were 

ranked tenth, and maybe that was unfair, but how do you rank a 

team? One thing I do believe is you have got to have a strength 

of schedule. That has got to be a part of it. Alabama started off 

with Oklahoma the last 2 years and didn’t come away with a win. 

Auburn lost to Southern Cal 2 years in a row; lost one, won one 

with Syracuse. Would those teams take those games if they knew 

that strength of schedule had no impact on their chance to be a national champion? They would take the easier games. 

So it is a difficult, difficult situation. I think the BCS was designed to sort of break up these contracts between conferences and 

bowls and to provide at least a chance of having one good national 

championship game, and pretty much, it has worked. Mr. Cramer 

at the BCS came up with this convoluted system, but it seems to 

be working. I think the public would pretty much agree that the 

top two teams are ending up in the championship series. 

I guess we could discuss, and I would like to hear, whether people believe a playoff is necessary. I am dubious myself. It is easy 

to say a playoff is the answer, but a football game is a week’s preparation. It is a big deal. Unlike basketball, when you can play 

games back to back, you just can’t do that in football. It is stressful 

on the players and injuries are a problem. It just can’t be done. I 

think these are youngsters and there is a limit to how much we 

ought to ask of them—we may be asking them too much already. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today. I would 

like to thank each of them for testifying at this hearing today. 

First, we are going to hear from Dr. Myles Brand, President of 

the NCAA. Dr. Brand, I want to thank you for the effort you made 

to get here today. I think it is important that we have you. I know 

that you need to leave by around noon, but I don’t think that is 

going to be a problem. 

Next, we have Chancellor Harvey Perlman of the University of 

Nebraska at Lincoln. Mr. Perlman will be speaking on behalf of the 

BCS schools. 

After Mr. Perlman, we will hear from Dr. Scott S. Cowen, President of Tulane University. Dr. Cowen is the President of the Presidential Coalition for Athletics Reform, which consists of more than 

12

50 non-BCS universities that have concerns about the current bowl 

system. 

After Dr. Cowen, we are happy to have Mr. Keith Tribble here, 

who is here in his capacity as Chairman of the Football Bowl Association. 

And saving the best for last, we will be pleased to hear from 

Coach LaVell Edwards, former head football coach at Brigham 

Young University. LaVell Edwards is truly one of the most talented, respected, and beloved coaches in the history of college football. Under the tutelage of Coach Edwards, the BYU Cougars accumulated 257 victories in 29 years and Coach Edwards led BYU to 

20 conference championships, took his team to 22 bowl games, and 

won a national championship in 1984. He was named National 

Coach of the Year twice, in 1979 and 1984. So, Coach, we are 

happy to have you here. We know it has been an inconvenience for 

you to come, but we are happy to have you and Patty with us 

today. 

We will start with you, Dr. Brand, and go right across the table. 

STATEMENT OF MYLES BRAND, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 

Mr. BRAND. Thank you, Chairman Hatch. I appreciate the opportunity on behalf of the NCAA for the invitation to be here today. 

It has become surprisingly apparent to me since assuming the 

position of NCAA President last January that there is a confusion 

in the public and media with regard to what the NCAA is, where 

its role as national office ends, and where the role of the NCAA as 

a membership association begins. With every new issue that 

emerges in the media, there is the expectation that the national office and I, as President, should exert authority to set things right. 

In fact, the national office and the NCAA President have no authority other than that explicitly granted by the more than 1,000 

member colleges and universities. This is a critical point. The 

NCAA is not an all-powerful presence and the NCAA President is 

not the omnipotent czar of college sports. Rather, the NCAA is an 

association made up of universities and colleges that acts only after 

considerable deliberation, reflects the majority will of the membership, and authorizes the national office to execute its decisions. The 

member institutions retain far more autonomy over their athletics 

programs than they cede to the NCAA. 

The association’s three membership divisions each have their 

own governance structure. In Division I–A, decision making is in 

the hands of 18 university presidents appointed by the conferences 

to a board of directors. Division I is further subdivided in the sport 

of football into three parts, I–A, consisting of 117 schools with the 

broadest financial investment; I–AA, which offers fewer football 

scholarships; and I–AAA, which does not sponsor football at all. 

There are NCAA football playoffs in Divisions I–AA, Divisions II, 

and III, each having been established by a vote of the member 

schools. The membership in Division I–A has never voted to conduct an NCAA football championship. Instead, I–A has a tradition 

of post-season football participation through a series of bowl games 

conducted during the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. 

13

Unlike the NCAA’s administration of other championships, its 

role in I–A post-season football is minimal, focused primarily on a 

certification process. The association’s involvement in I–A football 

was significantly diminished in 1982 when the U.S. Supreme Court 

ruled the NCAA’s regular season television contract a violation of 

the Sherman Antitrust Act. As a result, schools negotiate television 

contracts through their conferences. The 64 BCS schools have further negotiated joint television contracts for the four major bowls. 

The goal of the BCS is, through the bowls, to match the number 

one and number two teams in a season-ending game. It is focused 

on post-season events. Participation in the 64 BCS schools and four 

major bowls of the series—Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar—has 

long been dominant. 

Currently under debate is access to the BCS bowls by the nonBCS conference institutions. These 53 schools have formed the Coalition for Athletics Reform. Now, many of the media and the public 

favor a full Division I–A playoff not unlike that of the basketball 

tournament. I do not, not because I believe it is academically unsound, but rather because it would diminish the tradition and benefits of the bowls. The addition of a post-bowl game or another BCS 

bowl, while still controversial, may be worthy of consideration. 

I certainly understand the concern for greater access to the major 

bowl games. For those who assign football a high priority in their 

expenditures, there should be a fair means of competing for postseason play. This is, I believe, the essence of the Coalition’s position. No school, including the BCS institutions, should be disadvantaged by any new approach. In that regard, I do not favor redistribution of current revenues that accrue to the BCS universities 

through their football media contracts. The current revenue structure is a result of the free market system at work. Any changes to 

the current approach must add value for all participants. 

On September 8, I facilitated a meeting where the representatives of the BCS and Coalition schools began a conversation to address these issues. I am pleased to report that the meeting accomplished more than anyone would have expected. All the participants emerged from the meeting with a greater appreciation for 

those things they have in common as well as respect and understanding for the differences. These presidents have agreed to meet 

again November 16 to consider post-season football options put 

forth by their fellow presidents and their conference commissioners. 

This is the preferred approach to resolving differences. Intervention by external bodies, including the courts, will be counterproductive. Ultimately, the university presidents are the decision 

makers and I have confidence that they will be statesmen and 

women. I urge the Committee to encourage the Division I–A institutions, as you have, to come together, discuss their issues in good 

faith, and find solutions that advantage intercollegiate athletics 

and higher education as a whole, and I thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Dr. Brand. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brand appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Mr. Perlman, we will turn to you. 

14

STATEMENT OF HARVEY S. PERLMAN, CHANCELLOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 

Mr. PERLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Bowl Championship Series is a limited arrangement designed to create for postseason college football a national championship game and to avoid 

an NFL-style playoff system, which most university presidents oppose. I would be happy to talk about why that occurs in the questioning if it makes sense. But what I would like to do is to talk 

about three myths that are perpetuated by the critics of the BCS 

and to give you our perception of them. 

The first myth is that the distribution of revenue from the BCS 

has created the haves and have-nots in college football. This myth 

fails to account for the economic realities of college athletics. Let 

me use my own school as an example. Nebraska receives approximately $1.2 million annually from the BCS distributions. By contrast, we earn about $3 million from each home game in a stadium 

that seats 77,000 fans and for which we have had over 200 consecutive sell-out crowds. 

The total budget for Nebraska athletics and for other schools 

that have sustained success is in the $50 million range. For the 

most part, these funds come entirely from athletic revenues. My 

own athletic department is entirely self-supporting and, in fact, 

contributes $1.5 million annually to the academic programs of the 

university. If all of the net BCS revenue were equally divided 

among all the Division I–A teams, regardless of their participation, 

each school would receive about $750,000. 

There are, to be sure, major disparities in wealth between football programs in Division I–A, but it is not the product of the BCS. 

Rather, they are the direct result of the passion and generosity of 

our fans and the investments we have made in stadiums and other 

facilities. What critics are asking is to share in money they did not 

produce, to, in effect, have Nebraska fans or students or taxpayers 

subsidize their athletic programs. But even with such sharing, the 

amount of funds in the BCS is insufficient to make a noticeable 

dent in any disparities that exist. 

Myth two is that we have denied access to teams or student athletes for the opportunity to play in a national championship game. 

This is an argument that is emotionally charged but empty of substance. Any Division I–A team has access to the BCS. Any team 

that is ranked in the top six at the end of the season has automatic 

access. Any team that is in the top 12 may be chosen by the bowls 

for two at-large positions. 

Even prior to the BCS, the participants that are now in the BCS 

bowls came almost exclusively from BCS conferences, with no opportunity for other conferences to participate. Now they have such 

opportunities by winning on the field over the course of an entire 

season. The BCS did not alter the landscape of who played in the 

major bowl games. This was and still is dictated largely by networks and bowl committees who want the best teams and the 

teams whose fans are likely to fill their stadiums. 

Myth three is the fairness myth, that somehow it is unfair for 

these non-BCS schools not to have a visible role in the BCS even 

though they have not fielded highly competitive teams on a susVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 May 26, 2004 Jkt 093795 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93795.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
15

tained basis. The argument is too broad and has very serious implications. 

My university competes with other universities on a wide range 

of issues beyond football. We compete for students, for faculty, for 

research grants, for recognition. Our success in this competition is 

determined by our natural advantages, our traditions and location, 

the support of our constituents, and most importantly, by the strategic decisions we make in directing our resources. 

All of the major universities can point to some programs that are 

highly ranked, whether they are academic or athletic. This success 

did not happen by accident but by the choices we made and the 

context in which we operate. A law student who attends a Midwestern university has less access to employment opportunities in 

a Wall Street law firm than those who attend Harvard, even 

though many are just as bright and well trained. A student who 

wants to be an oceanographer will find it very difficult to do so by 

enrolling in Nebraska, just as a student interested in agriculture 

would be disadvantaged going to Harvard. Similarly, a student who 

wants to maximize his chance of playing for a national championship in football will most likely enroll in a school that has a history 

of football success. 

The strength of American higher education is in its diversity. We 

all have areas in which we excel. Why is it valid to only claim that 

those who happen to excel in football are being unfair in doing so? 

Why shouldn’t we open up access to endowments, to tuition income, 

to nationally recognized faculty, to Federal grants, to gifted students under a similar theory that it is unfair for any institution to 

be more successful than any other institution? 

I thought that fairness in our society meant that if you worked 

hard, if you made the right decisions, if you were able to retain the 

allegiance of customers or patrons, and if you were successful, you 

should be able to enjoy the benefits of that success. 

Notwithstanding our view that the BCS arrangement is wholly 

appropriate, I assure you that the BCS presidents are exploring in 

good faith with the other five conferences to see if there are ways 

to improve their situation without diminishing ours. We are doing 

so because we are colleagues, not because we fear antitrust inquiry 

or other legal action. I believe all of us recognize that any proposal 

that might emerge from those discussions will have to be tested in 

the marketplace to see if it has any economic value. 

I thank you very much for this opportunity and I will be happy 

to respond at the appropriate time to any questions. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Chancellor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perlman appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Dr. Cowen? 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT S. COWEN, PRESIDENT, TULANE 

UNIVERSITY, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

Mr. COWEN. Chairman Hatch and esteemed members of the 

Committee, thank you for inviting me to address the issue of fairness and access, or lack thereof, in the Bowl Championship Series. 

I am here today representing a Presidential coalition from more 

than 50 universities which are not part of the BCS. These univerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 May 26, 2004 Jkt 093795 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93795.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
16

sities represent approximately half of all Division I–A schools. I 

want you to understand that this issue is really about creating a 

just system for millions of fans and for over 13,000 student athletes, including the 5,000-plus young men who play football at the 

53 schools not in the BCS. 

My commitment and passion for this subject is borne out of respect for these young people. Have you ever had to stand in front 

of a top ten-ranked team and tell them there was no opportunity 

for them to play in a BCS bowl, much less the national championship, because of an unjust system? I have, and it is not a situation 

I want anyone else to have to experience. 

The Coalition’s position is simply this. The BCS is an unnecessarily restrictive and exclusionary system that results in financial 

competitive harm to the 53 Division I–A schools who are not part 

of the arrangement, even though all of these schools must meet the 

same membership requirements. From our perspective, the BCS is 

unjust and unjustifiable. 

Let me tell you what this issue is not about. It is not about who 

invests more money in their football programs. It is not about what 

system was in place prior to 1998. It is not about us wanting to 

transfer money from one university to another. These arguments, 

or ones like them, are merely smokescreens that fail to address the 

real issues. They are intended to divert us from the fact that the 

BCS is an anti-competitive and highly exclusive system created in 

concert by six conferences, four bowls, and a TV network. The fact 

that the goal of determining a national championship can be accomplished in a much less restrictive manner makes the current 

BCS system an even more problematic one. 

Our legal concerns with respect to the university have been thoroughly vetted by the Coalition’s legal counsel, Covington and Burling, and we are convinced the BCS presents significant antitrust 

issues. However, we also believe these concerns can be addressed 

by modifying the BCS system in ways I will describe momentarily. 

The BCS needs to be significantly modified because it severely 

limits access to post-season play through its system of automatic 

qualifiers for favored conferences, preferential treatment of Notre 

Dame, statistically suspect ranking system, and interlocking arrangements with the major bowls and a television network. This 

nationwide web of competitive restrictions is a far cry from the old 

traditional bowl system. 

In the past 25 years, Florida State University and the University 

of Miami grew from independent regional teams into national football powers. It is unlikely they could have achieved this success in 

the face of today’s BCS restrictions. 

The current BCS system has created significant branding, competitive and financial disparities between those schools in the BCS 

and those outside it. For example, since the inception of the BCS 

arrangement in 1998, the BCS conferences’ 63 schools have shared 

a pot of approximately $450 million, while the other 54 Division I–

A schools shared $17 million. Yet, we are all part of Division I–A. 

In other words, 96 percent of the revenues go to BCS schools and 

four percent to the remaining Division I–A schools, even though we 

account for approximately half of all Division I–A. This financial 

17

disparity is a consequence of a highly restricted system, not one 

based on free market principles. 

In addition, the BCS causes disparities that go beyond money. 

They affect Title IX, recruiting, facilities, the public perception of 

schools, and the very survival of many athletics programs. We believe the current system can be fixed by replacing it with one that 

has the following characteristics. 

One, a system that is fair and inclusive. 

Two, it fosters a unified Division I–A and enhances the vitality 

of all Division I–A programs. 

Three, it provides reasonable opportunity for all Division I–A 

football programs to have access to what are now referred to as the 

BCS bowls, including the national championship. 

Four, it meets the highest standards of legal soundness and is 

reasonably consistent with how national championships are conducted in all other NCAA-sponsored sports, including Division I–

AA football. 

Five, it respects the historical role of the bowl system and further enhances the value of post-season play for our fans. 

And finally, it allows our student athletes to realize their competitive dreams. 

Our Coalition will offer approaches with these desirable characteristics at our next meeting with our BCS colleagues on November 

16. The Coalition believes our differences with the BCS representatives will be successfully resolved because we all share the same 

common goal, doing what is in keeping with the highest standards 

that guide our universities. 

This hearing is an important part of the resolution process and 

we want to thank the Committee once again for recognizing the importance of this issue. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Dr. Cowen. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cowen appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. Mr. Tribble, we are happy to have you here 

and look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH R. TRIBBLE, CHAIRMAN, FOOTBALL 

BOWL ASSOCIATION, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Thank you. Chairman Hatch, Senator DeWine, and 

Senator Sessions, my name is Keith Tribble and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Orange Bowl Committee, a not-for-profit organization that produces the annual FedEx Orange Bowl and its ancillary events. I also appear today as the Chairman of the Football 

Bowl Association and its membership of 28 individual bowls, virtually all of which are nonprofit organizations. 

On behalf of the Orange Bowl Committee and the Football Bowl 

Association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the merits of the college football bowl structure. Although the 

Orange Bowl is a participant in the Bowl Championship Series, I 

am not appearing here today in that BCS capacity. 

The Football Bowl Association was formed in 1983 to provide a 

forum for bowl issues, to ensure that the quality of the bowls is 

maintained, and to promote the continuing respect for the bowls 

within intercollegiate athletics. Our organization today speaks with 

18

a unified and strong voice for the preservation of one of the Nation’s greatest annual traditions, post-season football. 

A host Committee made up of community and business leaders 

manages each bowl game within the Football Bowl Association. In 

South Florida, the local organization producing the FedEx Orange 

Bowl is the Orange Bowl Committee. Since 1935, our mission has 

been to maintain a self-sustaining, independent organization supporting and producing activities and events that enhance the 

image, economy, and the culture of South Florida. I would like to 

point out that the Orange Bowl Committee proudly has Senators 

Bob Graham and Bill Nelson, as well as Governor Jeb Bush, among 

its membership. 

Simply stated, for the past 90 years, bowl games have been the 

heart and soul of college football. The system has never been better. I would like to identify eight key areas that outline the merits 

of the bowl system. 

The first one is participation. More teams participate in college 

bowl games than ever before. Fifty-six out of 117 Division I–A football teams will play in a post-season bowl game this year. Seventynine teams have participated in bowl games at least once during 

the past 5 years. Approximately 5,000 student athletes, 11,000 college band members, 1,000 cheerleaders, and millions of fans will 

take part in this tradition. 

Number two, experience. Student athletes, alumni, and fans annually take part in the traditional college bowl experience, typically 

encompassing a week of special activities. Across the country, from 

Georgia to Texas to Idaho to California, no other post-season sports 

model is as unique as that in college football. 

Number three, fan attendance. Fan attendance is at an all-time 

high in post-season football. A record 1.4 million fans attended 

bowl games last season. This figure represents 85 percent of total 

stadium capacity. 

Number four, television viewership. The growth of television 

viewership for post-season football has reached unsurpassed levels. 

Last year, a record television audience of 117 million households 

watched college bowl games on six national networks. 

Five, financial contributions to higher education. College bowl 

games contribute a huge amount of money to higher education. Collectively, the bowls have paid out an outstanding $800 million over 

the past 5 years and will pay out a record $185 million this upcoming bowl season. It is projected that at least $2.1 billion will be contributed over the next 10 years. 

Six, economic impact. Bowls are a boost for the local economy 

and help promote the local tourism industry. This past bowl season, 28 bowl games generated an estimated $1 billion worth of economic impact for their host communities. 

Number seven, the importance of the regular season. Bowl games 

bring a measure of importance to the regular season not seen in 

any other sport. No other collegiate sport plays as few regular season games as football, and every game means something. Conference championships mean something. 

And number eight, the charitable contributions. In addition to 

the NCAA institutions participating in post-season college football, 

bowls also contribute significantly to local charities and causes. 

19

Bowl games have been a historic part of this country for almost 

a century. They have provided some of the greatest moments in college football history and add to the pageantry, color, and excitement of this fabled game. Indeed, college football is a proud symbol 

of America. 

On behalf of the Football Bowl Association and the Orange Bowl 

Committee, I would again like to thank you for allowing me to appear here today before you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tribble appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. We will wind up with Coach Edwards. We are 

looking forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LAVELL EDWARDS, FORMER HEAD FOOTBALL 

COACH, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, PROVO, UTAH 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to 

be here this morning. What I want to talk about today are dreams 

and opportunities. 

All of us dream about the great accomplishments we want to 

achieve in our lives. I have spent my life with young athletes and 

I can tell you that dreams are the fuel that drives them to excel. 

Now, there are dreams and there are fantasies. A dream can come 

true; a fantasy can’t. The difference is opportunity. 

The problem with the Bowl Championship Series is that it prevents student athletes at 54 universities from achieving the dream 

of ending the season ranked number one. Being a national champion is only a fantasy for these players. That is because the BCS 

is stacked in favor of teams from their six-conference alliance who 

alone can play in the national championship game at a predetermined bowl game site. In fact, players from those 54 non-BCS 

schools are the only college football players who can’t compete for 

a national championship. Every other division in college football 

allow and offer their players the opportunity to compete for a national championship. 

Mr. Chairman, the BCS system not only disadvantages some 

players’ ability to compete, but also negatively impacts all bowl 

games. In addition, it creates a two-tiered recruiting system, as 

well as an unfair imbalance between universities in terms of revenue derived from football. 

The national champion selection has altered greatly since 1984, 

the year that we won the national championship. Under today’s 

BCS scheme, that 1984 BYU team couldn’t have played in the title 

game. The system wouldn’t have allowed it to happen. 

Mr. Chairman, my fear is that if the BCS system continues, the 

gap between the elite college football programs and the rest of Division I–A football will continue to widen and many universities will 

be forced to drop or alter their programs altogether. 

I have talked today about the national championship game, but 

another consequence of the BCS setup is a negative ripple effect it 

causes for the rest of the bowl games. After locking up the top four 

games, teams from non-BCS schools are shut out from the next 

level of bowl games. The organizers of those bowl games extend invitations to second, third, fourth, fifth, whatever place in those alliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 May 26, 2004 Jkt 093795 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93795.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
20

ance conferences, bumping the rest of us from the opportunity of 

playing in some of these games. 

Mr. Chairman, teams from the six conferences use a stacked 

deck to their advantage, namely in recruiting, what some will 

argue is the most important component of winning teams. At BYU, 

a traditional recruiting hurdle was encountering PAC-Ten coaches 

who would tell kids if they attended BYU, they would never play 

in the Rose Bowl. Well, that was difficult enough to contend with. 

After the formation of the 1996 Bowl Alliance, the recruiting hurdle was set even higher. With the BCS in place, PAC-Ten coaches 

and others could and would tell players not only couldn’t they play 

in the Rose Bowl, but they couldn’t or wouldn’t play for a national 

championship game if they were to choose to enroll at school in 

Provo, and they were right. 

Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, parity has come into college football because of fewer scholarships that are offered annually. Many in the university community agree reducing the number 

of scholarships per team has been good for the game. Why, then, 

would the NCAA sanction a post-season system that congregates 

more power and revenue in fewer teams? It is inconsistent and 

counterintuitive. 

The BCS system is not good for the game and it is not good for 

higher education. Surely the NCAA and Division I–A football can 

join the other 22 intercollegiate sports and devise a system that determines a true champion, preserves the integrity of the game, and 

levels the playing field. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, right now, teachers, 

counselors, parents across the country are telling young men and 

women that if they work hard, commit themselves, and never lose 

sight of goals and dreams, they, too, can become a U.S. Senator. 

Every person in our country has that opportunity to turn dreams 

into a reality. It is the reason each of you is here today. The reason 

I am here is that because of this flawed BCS system, talented 

young athletes are denied an opportunity to make their dreams 

come true, and I believe it is wrong. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Coach. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman HATCH. All five of you have given excellent testimony. 

We have a vote on and I am a little bit late for it, but I wanted 

to make sure I got through this panel. So we are going to recess 

until probably Senator DeWine gets back and I have asked him to 

ask any questions he has and anybody else who comes and I will 

come back as soon as I can. 

With that, we will just recess until we can get back, but I really 

appreciate all of you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HATCH. I am sorry to have us interrupted by roll call 

votes, but it is one of the necessary things around here, so I apologize to you. I note that Senator DeWine is here. 

Let me just start, with you, Coach Edwards. I know you are the 

best and I don’t know anybody who doesn’t respect you as a human 

being, as an honest person, as a great coach, and as somebody who 

21

really has done an awful lot for college football and pro football. I 

have a great deal of confidence in you. What is the answer to this? 

What would you suggest we do, or that the respective parties do, 

to resolve this? If there is some way of doing it within reason, it 

would seem to me people ought to consider that. Do you have any 

ideas there? 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, one of the great advantages I have right 

now is the fact that I am not working for anybody and I am— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. —I am not associated anymore with a university 

or with a bowl game or whatever else. 

Let me begin by saying, number one, that I am in favor of keeping the bowl games as we have it. I have seen a lot of plans where 

people would like to incorporate the bowls in some kind of a playoff. I think that would minimizes the bowls. 

What I would like to see happen is they can expand the four BCS 

bowls now to possible six and then at the end, after those six 

games are completed, have a one-game playoff with just two teams. 

They would have to seed them or however they want to do it. But 

they could create a couple of spots. 

I will tell you right now, unless you are playing in the championship game, the other BCS bowl games, are losing interest more and 

more every year. I watched the Orange Bowl a couple of years ago 

when Nebraska was playing in it and I saw a lot of empty seats 

in the stadium, which you never saw before with a Nebraska team 

traveling anywhere. There are a lot of issues dealing with that. 

I believe that you could take the non-BCS schools and have a 

one-game playoff similar to what people are having—it wouldn’t 

even be a playoff, it would be tantamount to a conference championship game. I think the only reason the ACC has raided the Big 

East Conference was to get three premier teams so they can get to 

12 total so they can have a conference championship game. They 

tried to seek permission from the NCAA to get a championship 

game with only 11 teams and they were denied, so now they go out 

and pick up Boston College to reach the number necessary. 

We could take the four conferences in the non-BCS schools, have 

a one-game playoff, take the champion of those two, and play in 

one of these six BCS games. That would still give them the opportunity—when I say them, speaking to BCS—they could still take—

they would have spots there in those games, and every game would 

have meaning, which it doesn’t have right now. Any spin they want 

to put on it, that is simply not the case. And then take the two top 

teams from that game and have one-game playoff. 

I don’t think it would hamper at all the revenue that they are 

receiving now. In fact, I think it probably would even enhance it 

with this one-game playoff. 

And you are not obligating—and we talk about the players suffering, late in the season, whatever else. In 1996, we finished a 

season 14 and one. We were denied access to the—even though at 

the end of the season, we were 13 and one, the first year of the 

Bowl Alliance, we were ranked number five in the Nation. We 

never even got a smell as far as getting into a BCS game. But we 

were invited to play in the Cotton Bowl and the Cotton Bowl was 

a marvelous experience for us. It was a New Year’s Day and it was 

22

a great excitement, although we were disappointed for not getting 

a BCS game, this was great. Now, we can’t even get the Cotton 

Bowl, we can’t get a number of bowls. 

So it truly is unfair and I do believe that there can a system 

worked out that is not going to take any money away from them 

and come up with a system that would allow an opportunity or an 

access and bring a little bit more fairness into the whole system. 

Chairman HATCH. You also mentioned the difficulty of recruiting. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Recruiting? 

Chairman HATCH. Yes. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Oh, no question about it. I mean, that issue comes 

up all the time. Recruiting is a tough situation. If you are out in 

the middle of nowhere, as Nebraska and other schools, it is tough. 

You have to go a long way to get people to come to your school. 

The closest for us is the West Coast because of the nearest part of 

the population. Now, we have always fought the battle of the Rose 

Bowl. That was one of those realities. 

But they just keep adding things now. We don’t have the benefit 

of even going to two bowl games—our conference started the Fiesta 

Bowl and the Holiday Bowl. Pluse others close to us. It is not fair, 

and not only that, it is not right. It is not just. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. Mr. Perlman, you argue that 

BCS’s revenues constitute a very small part of the overall athletic 

program revenues at your university. Given that, why are you so 

vehemently against letting non-BCS schools even have the opportunity to compete with you for that revenue? 

Mr. PERLMAN. Senator, we are not against them having the opportunity to compete for that revenue. It is competition on the 

playing field. BYU in 1996, I believe, would have played in a BCS 

bowl. They were ranked fifth, and anyone in the top six automatically qualified for a major bowl under the BCS arrangement. It was 

the prior arrangement that prevented them from doing so. 

The issue isn’t that. We have opened up access to bowls that before were not possible. The fact is that it is possible for a BYU 

player to play in the Rose Bowl now, where they would have never 

been able to do so before. It is also possible for a Nebraska player 

to play in the Rose Bowl, which was not likely before. 

The question is, how are you going to determine the national 

championship in an arrangement in which there are a lot of independent actors, where television networks and fans want to see 

teams that have had sustained competitive success. So there is no 

intent on our part nor in practice to preclude them from the opportunities to compete. 

Chairman HATCH. As you know, there are only four BCS bowls 

and only eight teams can participate and six of those spots are 

guaranteed to the champions of the six BCS conferences and, thus, 

only two slots available for all 111 remaining teams in both the 

BCS and non-BCS conferences. In addition, it is argued that the 

BCS ranking system that determines which teams will participate 

in the BCS bowls unfairly favors teams that are members of the 

BCS conferences. Do you dispute that, or— 

Mr. PERLMAN. Well, let me respond to both of those. The reason 

there are automatic qualifiers in the current arrangement was because the conferences that are currently part of the BCS had affiliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 May 26, 2004 Jkt 093795 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93795.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
23

ation agreements with these four bowls prior to the BCS. So the 

question was, do we give up those affiliations in order to create the 

BCS. That could be argued one way or another, but it doesn’t 

change the landscape by adding the BCS to that mix. 

The fact is that, again, if you look at the four bowls that constitute the BCS, throughout their history prior to the BCS, the 

teams that participated are largely, almost exclusively, schools that 

now currently are in the BCS conferences. 

So the question is cause and effect, and I guess our view is that 

the BCS has not changed the landscape of competitive equality. It 

has not changed the landscape of who plays in the BCS and who 

gets the money. The only change we have made is we have created 

a system where you could actually have a national championship 

game and we opened up access to schools that before had no access 

to those bowls. 

Chairman HATCH. Dr. Cowen, tell me whether you like Coach 

Edwards’ ideas and answer Mr. Perlman why that is wrong. 

Mr. COWEN. I think both in substance and spirit, the BCS arrangement put in effect in 1998 is substantially different than 

what was there before, because what we do now have in 1998 are 

six conferences, four bowls, and a TV network in a set of horizontal 

agreements where they then also determine how a national championship will be played. They develop the ranking system without 

consultation with 54 other schools. And this is substantially different than exists before. There was no national championship before. 

So I would say, first of all—and there is also a presumption that 

the system that existed prior to 1998 was a fair and legal one, and 

that was never really challenged even though Senator DeWine had 

wonderful hearings about it and raised a lot of issues. 

That is why I say, I think we really have to look at the substance 

of what is going on here. Six conferences, four bowls, one TV network, a set of horizontal agreements. They determine the ranking 

system. They determine the automatic qualifiers. They are the ones 

that gave preferential treatment to Notre Dame. 

Chancellor Perlman do agree on one thing, is access is a myth 

because there is theoretical access, which, in fact, exists, but practical access does not. So that is my view of the BCS. 

Now, secondly, about the solution, my critics on the other side always use as the straw man the deficiency of the 16-team NFL-style 

playoff. That conjures up everything that could be bad about college. And the fact of the matter is, we do playoffs in every other 

sport in the NCAA, including I–AA football. So the culture of playoffs is in the NCAA. 

And we say, well, we can’t do it here because of student athlete 

welfare. Every university president would agree there. I just wish 

we would have consistency about student athlete welfare across all 

sports. Why all of a sudden is it only germane when it comes to 

football when you, in fact, in basketball play 35 games. Baseball 

plays 60 games. That is much more intrusive. 

So I think the arguments that I have heard in terms of not doing 

a 16-team NFL-style playoff are interesting arguments, but quite 

honestly, don’t hold water when you really peel away the layers of 

the onion. 

24

Now, having said that, I think there is a way to do a modified 

playoff that is somewhere between a 16-team and what we have 

right now, and Coach Edwards did mention that. There is a way 

that you can respect the integrity of the existing bowl systems but 

let the championship game be after those bowl games. That doesn’t 

mean it has to be a round robin. You can go right from 12 schools, 

if you had six bowls, let it get down to six winners and select out 

of those six who will play in the national championship game. By 

going to six bowls, you create more access points for other conferences so you have taken the fairness issue. So I think there is 

a modified playoff that would take care of everybody’s concerns if, 

in fact, we are open to it. 

The last thing I would say, Senator, is that on November 16, the 

coalition I represent is going to put a very concrete proposal on the 

table for our colleagues on the other side. It is going to be a principled solution consistent with what I gave in my testimony, but it 

is going to be very concrete about what we want. We are very optimistic, and I want you to know this, that our colleagues are open 

and sensitive to these issues and we will get them resolved. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. Coach Edwards, you wanted to respond. 

Mr. EDWARDS. I just wanted to make one comment in answer to 

what Chancellor Perlman said. He said had we in 1996, when we 

were 13 and one, under the system now, we would have been selected in 1998. That is not true, because in 1996, they did not have 

their formula. They have a formula now that simply would have 

preclude us because of our strength of schedule, plus other criteria 

in the formula. 

In 2001, BYU was 12 and zero after they had just finished beating Mississippi State at Mississippi State. Then unfortunately, they 

lost the next week at Hawaii. However, there were projections 

made based on their formula and whatever else. BYU would have 

never gotten higher than ten or maybe nine on the radar screen 

as far as that formula is concerned. So to say that the system had 

been in place in 1996 is simply not the case at all. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay. Senator Biden, we will turn to you. 

Senator BIDEN. Gentlemen, I again apologize for having to be 

down at this hearing on Afghanistan, and if this is redundant, Mr. 

Chairman, you tell me and I will read it into the record. But explain to me again why the playoff system in AA does not work, 

would not work, in big-time college football. 

Mr. BRAND. May I try, sir? 

Senator BIDEN. Sure. 

Mr. BRAND. The big difference in I–A football from everything 

else, I–AA football, from basketball, from all the other playoffs, are 

the bowls. That is the additional factor that changes the landscape. 

The bowls have a deep and important history, a part of football. We 

all know that. And I think everyone is wont to make that go away. 

We want to find a way— 

Senator BIDEN. That is not true, by the way. I mean, there are 

a whole lot of us in the East who don’t give a damn, really, about 

the Rose Bowl. There are a whole lot of us in the East who don’t 

give a damn about the Sugar Bowl. There are a whole lot of us in 

the East who don’t give a damn about the Orange Bowl. If they are 

25

the only things there to get to play in, we care about them a lot. 

But there are a whole lot of us in the East who would much rather 

see a playoff system. 

But I want to know, what is the mechanical difference? Why mechanically will it not work? Why functionally would it not work in 

terms of stress on players or student quality of life or all these 

other things? 

Mr. BRAND. There is no functional reason why it couldn’t work. 

That is correct. 

Senator BIDEN. All right. 

Mr. BRAND. But the desire by others to keep the bowls intact is 

what is leading in that direction. Now, what about the idea of having a post-bowl championship? That is— 

Senator BIDEN. What about the idea of having post-bowl games 

after the championship? 

Mr. BRAND. That is what I just asked. 

Senator BIDEN. Oh, okay. I am sorry. I have got it. I misunderstood you. I apologize. 

Mr. BRAND. And here is the question that has to be answered, 

if that makes sense. Some people claim that by doing that, you diminish the interest, fan attendance, and most especially the television-media interest in the bowls. Is that—if there were a postbowl game. Is that true? I don’t know. I mean, I think that has to 

be market tested. So the solution that has been proposed may or 

may not be a good one depending upon the market tests. 

Senator BIDEN. What would you say if the market tests were 

that you would find the television audience was three times as big 

for a national playoff as it would be for the Rose Bowl, the Cotton 

Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, or any of the four major bowls? Or let us 

assume that you took all four bowls and combined them, and I 

could show you—I can’t—I show you the market test that a playoff 

for number one and two for the national championship would draw 

a larger audience than all four bowls combined. 

Mr. BRAND. That would be a very important factor. Another factor you are going to have to consider is what is the impact on the 

local communities if the bowls are diminished, because they 

produce a lot of local economic development. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, I know that, but what about the impact on 

our local communities where the bowls aren’t and where teams 

who otherwise might get to play in this are? 

Let me ask you one more question, and I am not in any way 

denigrating the bowls. I mean, my Walter Mitty dream for real 

wasn’t to be a U.S. Senator. I actually thought I could be a flanker 

back for the New York Giants. I know that is ridiculous, but I really did think that— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. and I went off to school on football. I got a lot 

of football scholarship offers out of high school. I was a relatively 

good athlete, and like much of the rest of my life, it proved not to 

pan out. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. But at any rate, having said that, let me—so I 

am not belittling the bowls. I mean, I understand the great tradition that they are and what they—but the bowls back in the days 

26

when I was coming up—I graduated from college in 1965—the Rose 

Bowl was essentially a regional fight. No one in the East gave a 

damn about it. It was the pageantry. You turned on the Rose Bowl 

to see the floats. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. I am not being a wise guy. I am not being a wise 

guy. I went to Syracuse University. I mean, you know, the Rose 

Bowl was the Big Ten and the Pacific—that is what it was, basically. I mean, that is what it usually was every year. So it was a 

great tradition, but it was like the Army-Navy game. It is a great 

tradition but it doesn’t mean anything except to Army and Navy. 

Chairman HATCH. You are losing the California vote, Joe. 

Senator BIDEN. No, I am not— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. Well, in addition to deciding I couldn’t make it 

as a flanker back, I have concluded I can’t be President right now, 

so I am not making any compromises here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. But all kidding aside, one of the things that has 

happened is that—well, I shouldn’t—the bottom line here is that 

what you really seem to be saying to me when you cut everything 

aside is that the only reason not to have a playoff to find out in 

a more legitimate way, in my view, who is the best team in America is that the regional revenues, the local revenues the bowls generate—which is a legitimate concern—for the cities in which they 

are held and the region in which they are held, and secondly, because of the total revenue produced from those bowls. 

I wonder, and I realize it is not exactly comparable, but is there 

any correlation between who watches what the market share for 

the Final Four in basketball is and what the market share is for 

any one of the bowls? Does anybody know that answer? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Senator— 

Senator BIDEN. I realize we are comparing apples and oranges. 

Mr. TRIBBLE. I can speak directly on that particular question. I 

think last year, and I don’t have the exact figures, but the championship game for the BCS did better than the final game of the 

Final Four in terms of the ratings. 

Senator BIDEN. Okay. You mean each one of the bowls did better 

than— 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Collective, no, just the national championship 

game, the national championship game. The BCS national championship game— 

Senator BIDEN. Got you. 

Mr. TRIBBLE. —did better than the Final Four game, the last 

Final Four game. 

Senator BIDEN. Got you. 

Mr. TRIBBLE. So compare those apples to apples. 

Senator BIDEN. But we are talking about a single game. We are 

not talking about all four bowls, correct? Or are we? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. We are talking about a single game, a single championship game. 

Senator BIDEN. A single championship game. Got you. Okay. 

Mr. PERLMAN. Senator, I wonder if I could respond. 

Senator BIDEN. Sure. Please do. 

27

Mr. PERLMAN. Because Miles— 

Senator BIDEN. Chuck Hagel told me to be very careful with you, 

whatever you said— 

Mr. PERLMAN. I appreciate the Senator’s help. 

Senator BIDEN. So I understand. And he said he is not feeling 

very good these days anyway, the last couple—but go ahead. 

Mr. PERLMAN. I would just report to you on the playoff issue and 

what the university presidents I have talked with think. We have 

had a conversation of this among the presidents of the Big 12. I 

know the Big Ten and the PAC Ten presidents have had the same. 

And we do think it relates not just to the money or not just to preserving the bowl games, although the bowl games are important to 

us because they have been a long part of our traditions. 

But many of us do think it has academic consequences for student athletes. Football is a very demanding sport physically. It is 

also a very demanding sport in time. It is a sport that, right now, 

is played solely in one semester and it gives the second semester 

for student athletes to catch up on their studies— 

Senator BIDEN. Well, the truth is, even when I was playing, it 

was a two-semester sport. In your school, it is a 12-month-a-year 

sport. 

Mr. PERLMAN. Certainly the conditioning is 12 months, but the 

question of being away and being at games is a single semester. 

The question about how many physically demanding games you 

can ask 17, 18, 19, and 20-year-olds to play is an issue, and there 

is no medical evidence one way or the other. 

We do not believe a playoff system would work well for our fans 

unless those— 

Senator BIDEN. Why are these same considerations not so dire 

for I–AA? I mean, what is the difference here? Why for I–AA, 

which on balance have academically higher ratings as universities 

than you guys, why is it for them that it is not so damaging to student athletes? 

Mr. PERLMAN. Well, I can’t speak for I–AA and I don’t know the 

comparative data. All I can tell you is what university presidents— 

Senator BIDEN. The number of games, I think would be the 

same, right? Roughly, I mean. Are we talking about more? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Senator, as a former student athlete, former football player at the University of Florida, I can honestly tell you 

that— 

Senator BIDEN. You don’t know anything about I–AA, being at 

the University of Florida. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TRIBBLE. I can tell you the level of play is a little different—

I think Coach can tell you that—between I–A and what he expects 

and the I–AA. It is a different game. It is just a totally different 

game, from a former student athlete standpoint. 

Senator BIDEN. No, no, I am a former student athlete, too, not 

as good as you, but I am a former student athlete, too. Even at a 

little old school like mine, it was a 30-hour-a-week job playing football. 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Right. 

Senator BIDEN. And a lot of these I–AA schools, it is taken very 

seriously and it is a big deal and you do, at least at a little old 

28

school like mine, unless you started in another sport, you had to 

play spring football, and spring football wasn’t just the 20 days. 

Spring football was the 20 days before and the 20 days after and 

it was a full-time job and you showed up and you had—now, you 

didn’t travel. You didn’t travel, that was the difference. 

So I am not suggesting the quality of the—I mean, it is a different level. Little old Delaware has an offensive line averages 314 

pounds. I mean, these guys aren’t—you know, this is not like when 

I used to play. These guys are required to be in the weight room 

20 hours a week. It is—I realize you guys are the real deal. You 

guys are one click below the pros, and some would argue you are 

the pros and we should make it that. 

No, I am serious. As you well know, some people, like me, begin 

to think maybe we should just declare, look, you choose to be a 

school that is going to have, essentially have professional athletes 

and you can do that. But that is a different story. That is not about 

this. 

The point I am making is that although when I was playing, I 

would get hit by a linebacker who weighed 210 pounds and it hurt. 

Now you get hit by a linebacker that weighs 265 pounds and runs 

the 40 as fast as I can run and it is a different deal. I got that part. 

I understand that part. I remember seeing those black and blue 

dots, you know, when you get hit by guys like you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. I remember my coach once saying to me that, 

look, the difference between playing—my high school. The difference between playing caliber high school football, caliber college 

football, and pro football is the following. For a guy like you, Biden, 

once a game, you may get your clock hit so hard you see those little 

black and blue dots. In college football at a competitive level, you 

are going to see those dots about every fourth time you get hit. In 

pro ball, you see those dots even before you get up on the line. I 

mean, it is just constant. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. So I got the difference in quality. I really do. But 

what I still don’t get is why the pressure on I–AA athletes playing 

I–AA football—like, for example, you had a little old school that 

was I–AA that you all kind of made fun of, is now I–A and beat 

a number of the top—it beat two of the top ten teams and it won 

the national championship in I–AA every year, you know what I 

mean? They are not bad. A little school like McNeese State could 

take you to the cleaners every once in a while, Coach. You know, 

down in Louisiana, these boys take that football seriously. 

Mr. EDWARDS. That is why we didn’t schedule them. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. Oh, by the way, that is exactly why you don’t 

schedule them. No, I got it. So I am not trying to be humorous 

here, but what I am trying to get at is not suggesting that I–AA 

football is of the quality and the level of competition that, quote, 

‘‘big-time football’’ is. It is not. I got that. But what I don’t get is 

why that difference in quality—not intensity, quality—is, in fact, so 

stark that it is all right for the student athletes to play in a playoff 

in I–AA but it doesn’t work for big-time football. I don’t quite get 

that. 

29

Mr. EDWARDS. May I make just one comment. We may be the 

only Division I–A school that has played a 15-game schedule. I 

don’t think anybody else has. We were 14 and one in 1996, the year 

that we were passed over by the Bowl Alliance, and I didn’t notice 

anybody flunking out of school or jumping off a bridge or whatever 

else as a result of that season. That is just one experience we had. 

Senator BIDEN. My time is up and we probably are all thankful 

for that— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BIDEN. —but I just don’t quite get it, why it is that different. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Joe. 

Senator DeWine? 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I am sitting 

here, it sounds like 6 years ago when we held our hearing. I am 

not sure things have changed a lot. The witnesses are different, but 

the issues, I think, are pretty much the same and the arguments 

are pretty much the same. We have had six more years of experience. 

Let me approach this kind of as a fan. In Ohio, we have Ohio 

State and we have a lot of other good teams. We have the MidAmerican Conference, for example. So we can approach it from several different perspectives in Ohio. I think you can appreciate that. 

I understand that a lot of this is about money. I understand that 

the bowls, for example, have to have teams in there that are going 

to attract fans. They have to get teams in there who the TV networks know will attract people who want to watch those teams 

play at night. They also have to have fans who travel well. They 

pick teams that fans will follow them. I understand that. I get that. 

I think we all do. 

From a fan’s perspective, it seems to me that the current system 

does a good job, as well as can be done, of getting us a game, one 

game a year where we see the number one team and the number 

two team. That is never perfect. We can argue who is number one, 

who is number two, who is three, and maybe it is wrong, but it is 

probably about as good as we are going to get, and that is an improvement and I think most fans want to see that. So I think that 

is a positive. 

I think there is a problem, though, with the current system and 

I would like your reaction to this. When you have four major bowls 

and you have eight slots and you have six of those slots that are 

guaranteed already going in to certain conferences, and then you 

have a seventh slot that is going to go to Notre Dame if they are 

in the top ten, and so theoretically, you have got seven slots that 

are gone, off the table, in any given year. So you have got one slot 

left for everybody else. 

Now, let us start with Mr. Perlman. Tell me what is right about 

that for a fan. 

Chairman HATCH. By the way, this is coming from Ohio State 

himself, so— 

Senator DEWINE. Yes, and I have already said I liked the last 

year. Let me tell you something, watching that game, past Ohio 

State wouldn’t have been in a national championship game. We 

would have been at the Rose Bowl, and I would have been here arVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 May 26, 2004 Jkt 093795 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\93795.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
30

guing and saying we really were number one, and we won the Rose 

Bowl and we should have been number one, but, you know, some 

stupid people who were voting, the coaches and all these other different rankings, they didn’t put us number one. 

So I am not saying we should even change our system. I am not 

making that argument. But what I am saying is the current system 

does a good job in giving us the number one and number two game, 

but it seems to me the rest of what we are doing poses a problem 

for fans and it poses a problem for all the other schools, and the 

schools who—kind of the Cinderella schools, who in any one given 

year may be—what are we playing now, 11 and zero, 12 and zero, 

ten and zero, whatever they are playing in any one given year, and 

who have a great year, and then they look up at the end of the 

year and they say, what about us? 

What do you do to those teams that say, well, the system is 

rigged now? And if your answer is it was rigged before, I get that, 

but I am not sure that is going to satisfy me if I am a young man 

or the coach of a team that has had a great year and here we are 

and we think we ought to be there, and you say, well, I could be 

in the rankings, but I am competing for one slot, one slot left. 

Mr. PERLMAN. Well, Senator— 

Senator DEWINE. What is fair about that? 

Mr. PERLMAN. Well, first of all, I think you do have to take into 

account the fact that we basically have a playoff system in the fact 

that we play it off every Saturday during the regular season. And 

so the teams that are in those rankings have played strong teams 

and have been successful and that is fan-based. One of the concerns we have always had with the playoff is that it would diminish the value of the regular season. 

If you want to talk about Cinderellas, Northern Illinois would 

never have had its game televised last week nor had ‘‘Game Day’’ 

appear on its campus if we were in a playoff system where they 

would never have emerged at the end. But they were the Cinderella team that beat three BCS teams and they got a lot of attention and it was exciting and agrees to that. But the structure— 

Senator DEWINE. Well, you have got to explain that to me, because they were ranked and Bowling Green was ranked and that 

is why we got a good game. So you have to explain that to me. We 

had two teams that traditionally were not ranked. We had them 

ranked in the MAC, which was very, very unusual, and so the networks said, hey, this is interesting, and we had ‘‘Game Day’’ at the 

MAC and Bowling Green, Ohio, and we all thought it was a great 

deal. So I agree with you. We loved it. 

Mr. PERLMAN. If we were in the playoffs— 

Senator DEWINE. And if you were Dick Durbin, you didn’t like 

the outcome, but if you are Mike DeWine, you did, but that is okay. 

Mr. PERLMAN. If we were in a playoff system, that game would 

have been insignificant. That game would have been insignificant. 

Right now, every game you play, every single game you play is 

critically important if you have any— 

Senator DEWINE. Let me just interrupt you. You could devise a 

system that was different from the old system. See, what you are 

saying—your argument would be, well, we would have to go back 

to the old system. What I am saying is the choices in life aren’t just 

31

the old system and the current system. There could be another system which would not automatically say that certain conferences get 

six of the eight, plus Notre Dame can get seven. That is all I am 

saying. I am not advocating for that, I am just being sort of the 

devil’s advocate here to get your answer. 

Mr. PERLMAN. There are other systems and maybe some of them 

would appear to be fair. You could take the top eight teams as 

ranked and put them in the bowl games. That is something that 

could be openly discussed. 

The actors here, however—I mean, there are other issues involved with doing that. The bowls want to assure that they have 

teams whose fans will travel because their economic survival depends upon it. 

Senator DEWINE. Sure. Oh, I get it. 

Mr. PERLMAN. The networks want teams that will attract a fan 

base beyond their own. And so, yes, there are other systems that 

are, on one level may appear fair, but on other levels raise very difficult questions about the economics of these arrangements. 

Senator BIDEN. Could I interrupt and ask a question? 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I have got a red light here, but yes? 

Senator BIDEN. I am confused. Assume you took the top eight 

teams. Is the suggestion that any one of those top eight teams are 

not likely to have the fan base that would travel? Is that what you 

are saying? In other words, only those in the conferences who have 

demonstrated they draw these large crowds would have enough of 

a fan base to travel? Is that the idea? I am not disputing it, I just 

want to understand what you mean by that. 

Mr. PERLMAN. There are teams that travel better than others. 

We have sort of been known for traveling well. 

Senator BIDEN. I mean, are there any teams that haven’t traveled to the bowls? I mean, can you give me examples of a history 

when the Rose Bowl wasn’t filled? Can you give me an example of 

when the Sugar Bowl wasn’t filled? Can you give me an example 

when the Fiesta Bowl of late wasn’t filled? I mean, I am confused 

by that one. That seems to be, in my old business as a lawyer, that 

seems to be a bit of a red herring, Mr. President. 

I mean, if you can show to me now when so-and-so and so-andso played in the Rose Bowl, they only had 70 percent capacity show 

up. That was it, and there were empty seats. Can anybody name 

for me any time when any of the four bowls we are talking about 

did not have a capacity crowd? Maybe that is true. I don’t know. 

It is a genuine question. I may be mistaken. Or is it just they don’t 

wear red? 

Mr. PERLMAN. Well, if they didn’t wear red, they wouldn’t be 

from Nebraska. 

Senator BIDEN. That is my point. No, I mean—I wish we would 

be a little more straight about this, you know what I mean? If 

there is evidence of that, I would like it for the record, that there 

are times when teams have been picked before to play in the bowls 

where people didn’t show up and what would make anybody think 

that any university that made the top eight, that was in contention 

to be the national champion, would not—we would not fill that stadium, whatever it was? 

Senator DEWINE. Does anybody want to respond? 

32

Mr. TRIBBLE. I will take an attempt at it, Senator. I can’t recall 

of a specific time, particularly talking about the Orange Bowl, in 

the top eight, but I think when you get, in some instances, the top 

12 or 15, depending on where the school ends up, it depends on 

how the school finishes. It could affect it. 

I think one of the things that Senator DeWine was talking about 

is that the bowls are very adamant that, you know, they have obviously been doing this for 90 years and the point of being involved 

in this business is to provide that economic impact and to provide 

opportunities for the schools in terms of the money we pay. But 

that is all based on a business model, a model that looks at which 

schools can travel, which schools have the appeal to television and 

so forth and so on. 

The one, I guess, good point about having a lot of potential atlarges, and yes, at some point we were looking at Northern Illinois 

because they had a potential in our game. But we were going to 

look at them just like the other six or seven schools that could have 

a possibility for a potential slot in our game and make a business 

decision based upon what is good for our area and what is good for 

our economy and what is good for producing the things that we 

need to do for the schools. 

Senator BIDEN. I appreciate your answer, but what about the 

teams that aren’t in these conferences and the fans that aren’t in 

these conferences? It looks un-American. It really does. It looks not 

fair. It looks like a rigged deal. It looks like if you have the biggest 

team, if you spend the most money, even if you have turn-out, not 

to have the best team that year, then it is rigged. It is just not 

American. That is how it comes across. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Chairman— 

Senator BIDEN. Now, it doesn’t come across in your conferences 

that way, but it comes across at Ohio University that way, which 

is not part of this. It comes across in a lot of these other places that 

way. I don’t know, it just doesn’t smell right. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Chairman, in our previous hearing, there 

clearly was testimony—that is why I alluded to it in my statement—there clearly was testimony that certain teams, quote, ‘‘don’t 

travel well’’ or fans don’t travel well, and that was the testimony 

we had before. The allegation was that certain teams did not—

their fans didn’t travel and also that if they did travel, they didn’t 

spend money. I know we had that testimony last time. I am not 

saying that is right, but that is what the testimony was. 

There were examples last year, when you got away from the top 

four bowl teams, I read in the newspapers, read on the sports page 

where certain teams or schools were required, if you were going to 

accept this bowl bid, you were going to be required to guarantee 

X-number of tickets, that your school had to buy X-number of tickets. Now, is that right, Mr. Perlman? That is not unusual. 

Mr. PERLMAN. No, that is common. 

Senator DEWINE. You are going to have to guarantee, I don’t 

know, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, whatever it is number of tickets, and 

there were examples that I saw last year, at least one example I 

recall where a school had to eat some tickets, and they just had to 

guarantee X-number of tickets, so— 

Senator BIDEN. For the top four bowls, Senator? 

33

Senator DEWINE. Not the top four, no, sir. Not the top four. But 

these are bowls you had heard about and bowls you watched on 

TV. So this issue does come into play, but I think your point is that 

on the top four, when you are dealing with the top four, that— 

Chairman HATCH. Their ability— 

Senator DEWINE. —they are going to be sold. 

Chairman HATCH. Dr. Brand, we promised we would let you go— 

Senator DEWINE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my time. 

Chairman HATCH. —at 12. Do you need to leave. 

Mr. BRAND. This is too interesting, Senator. Can I stay a while? 

I am having too much fun. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. We are glad to have you here, but we will understand if you have to leave. 

Mr. BRAND. Thank you. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Chairman Hatch. I love college 

football. I remember in the 1960’s when my little senior class of 35, 

was graduating and we went to Montgomery. Our little group of 

five bought a $30-something bus ticket to Miami to the Orange 

Bowl to see Auburn and Nebraska play. We were convinced that 

no one could beat Tucker Fredericksen and Jimmy Sidel, but Nebraska did. Congratulations Mr. Perlman. So bowl games do 

have—you know, the thought of going off to some tropical paradise. 

There is a lot of history here and that is important. 

I think about this past Saturday when Alabama and Tennessee 

played. Both of them have had disappointing seasons so far. Neither one will be in the national championship game. A packed 

house at Tuscaloosa, almost 80,000 people, five overtimes, one of 

the great games in recent years, and it was just a magnificent sight 

and spectacle, really. College football is special. 

I think, Mr. Perlman, you touched on something that is not insignificant and that is what happens to the regular season games 

when you are not going to be in the national championship game? 

Nebraska plays Oklahoma or Oklahoma State or Texas and Auburn plays Georgia, the oldest rivalry in the South. Those games 

are important. I would kind of hate to have us suggest that the 

only thing that really counts in football is who wins this playoff, 

who gets hot the last week. We want a team to feel good about a 

seven-and-three, eight-and-two season. Mr. Brand, do you have any 

thoughts about that? 

Mr. BRAND. I think the regular season games are absolutely important, and just as you say, I agree with you entirely, Senator, 

about the desirability for the fan base from the schools and we 

should never do anything to harm those. I concur with you entirely, 

Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. And that is why the TV ratings are good. I am 

sort of surprised how many SEC games are shown in this area on 

television. I realize people who grew up in the SEC environment 

want to watch their teams wherever they are, and there are a fairly decent number here. 

Now, Coach Edwards’ comments, I think, are not invalid. I think 

they have some validity to it. But I also have got to tell you, this 

knife can cut both ways. An eight-and-two Georgia team could beat 

34

one of these 14-and-zero teams from a smaller conference. Or you 

take a Florida team that plays Miami, or Florida State plays 

Miami and loses by one point. Florida State has all year played 

tough games and they lose one by a small margin, it does not mean 

they are not as good as a 14-and-zero team who didn’t have to play 

Miami. 

So these conferences come together and they band together, Mr. 

Perlman, and they choose the best competitive programs to be in 

their conference. We can see expansion interest in the ACC. They 

wanted the best teams they could get with the biggest stadiums 

and the strongest programs because that helps the conference, but 

it also increases the strength of their schedule, does it not, and increases the likelihood that they may not get to the end of that season undefeated? 

Mr. PERLMAN. It is hard for me to know whether it increases the 

strength of schedule or not. It may very well have that effect. Certainly— 

Senator SESSIONS. Depending on how good the team brought into 

the program, you are right. 

Mr. PERLMAN. You are exactly right— 

Senator SESSIONS. It may not be. 

Mr. PERLMAN. —and how many of the lower-tier schools of the 

conference they have to play because of the conference schedule. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well— 

Mr. EDWARDS. I was taken back a little bit by the comment that 

someone made about the Bowling Green-Northern Illinois game, 

that without the publicity of the game, its not meaning anything 

if we had a playoff. That is simply not the case. If we had a playoff, 

the winner of that conference is going to be invited to get into the 

playoffs. That part doesn’t make sense. 

The problem with—you can have an eight-and-two team and you 

can have a seven-and-three team, but you know what? They still 

have the opportunity to get into this BCS thing. A 13-and-zero 

Tulane team had no chance whatsoever and that is the inequity of 

the whole thing. All we are trying to say is the fact that there can 

be a way to work this out, to make it fair, but also that is not going 

to damage the system that you have in place today, and that is a 

closed monopoly on college football, any way you want to look at 

it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would say that maybe the system can 

be improved. I think the Bowl Championship Series was an improvement. Alabamians felt like the Rose Bowl entered into that 

contract between the Big Ten and the PAC Ten to keep Alabama 

from coming out there. They used to go out there and win, and I 

guess they probably didn’t travel, and didn’t have any money if 

they did, in the Depression days so they would probably rather 

have a team that could travel better. But they were shut out of 

that. 

And so I hope we are in a movement, I really do, that would provide more opportunity for openness. I really think we need to do 

that. But I am not unmindful of the great traditions of an Alabama 

or a Tennessee or an LSU or a Penn State, Ohio State, that carry 

the popularity, a Notre Dame team, that really drives the popularity of this sport. That is who people turn on their television to 

35

watch most of the time. They have those historic storied traditions, 

packed stadiums, bands, and all the things that just really make 

college football such a wonderful spectacle. I think it is the greatest 

sport there is. A great football game between two big teams in college is just unsurpassed. It is just magnificent. 

I don’t know that some changes are going to ruin that. Coach Edwards doesn’t believe it will, but I think we need to let our institutions here work together. The bowls have an interest. Television 

has an interest. They are paying the money to put it on and you 

need to have a game that people will watch. So all these things are 

factors. 

Mr. Chairman, I think it is great for us to have this hearing and 

discuss it. I think we ought to be careful that we don’t let lawyers 

and politicians stick our nose too much into this subject. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. 

Dr. Brand, we realize your members are split on this issue, but 

you have heard a lot of criticism here today. You have heard Senator Biden say that this seems to be un-American, the way this 

works, and very prejudicial and not fair. I guess what I am saying 

is that you are an educator, you are a teacher. Let me ask you, do 

you think this system is fair or can we make it better? 

Mr. BRAND. I think the decision makers, namely the presidents— 

Chairman HATCH. No— 

Mr. BRAND. I am going to answer your question, sir. 

Chairman HATCH. I am asking you. 

Mr. BRAND. I think the decision makers, the presidents, share 

your view and my view, as well, that they will do everything possible to make it fair, attractive to fans— 

Chairman HATCH. So that implies it is not fair. 

Mr. BRAND. No, I didn’t say that. They will do everything they 

can to make it fair, whether it has to be changed somewhat—I 

don’t think radical change is in order, I really don’t, in going for 

an NFL-type football approach on the one side and making no 

changes whatsoever on the other. I don’t think those radical solutions are there. But there is a window, I think, to provide additional access for institutions and I do think that the presidents, the 

decision makers, will work towards that goal. 

I have confidence in them that they do want football to be successful. They do see the benefits, as Senator Sessions said. And 

they do want fairness. That doesn’t mean equality for all independently of what you start with. It means opportunities based upon 

success on the field. So I think they will work towards that, but 

I don’t think one should expect radical change from where we are 

right now. 

Chairman HATCH. Dr. Cowen, you wanted to comment. 

Mr. COWEN. Just a couple of comments, Senator Hatch, if I may. 

First of all, I would like to just comment on something Senator 

DeWine said, because it was very key, about the fans. You ought 

to know, in the last 3 months, there has been at least three national polls of fans, and in each poll, over 80 percent indicated they 

want the BCS system changed. So the fan support out there is not 

for the BCS system if you could believe these polls. 

The second thing is I think there is a lot of mythology about the 

competitiveness of non-BCS and BCS schools. I don’t know if you 

36

realize that in the last 5 years, in bowl games where non-BCS 

schools have played BCS schools, the record is eight and eight. So 

this mythology that somehow they are so much superior than we 

are doesn’t exist in fact. 

The third thing, if you look at the ESPN ratings for games where 

non-BCS play non-BCS schools, those ratings are very comparable 

to when the BCS schools play each other. So that would indicate 

that the audiences out there want it. 

The fourth thing is, and this is the great irony for me, if the BCS 

schools are so superior competitively and they have invested so 

much money, why do they need all these restrictions? Because 

then, according to them, it will come out the same way anyway. So 

how on the one hand can you say we have invested all this money, 

this is a priority for us, it is a birthright, and then say, well, just 

in case, we are setting up all these restrictions to increase the 

probability. The logic of that doesn’t strike me. 

Having said all that, Senator Hatch, my colleagues on the BCS 

side are good and honorable people. I know a lot of them personally, including my colleague to the right. I am totally comfortable 

that we will reach a settlement because I do think everybody is 

going to the table with an idea of fairness and openness and opportunity. So I am cautiously optimistic we will get it. There is no 

doubt in my mind the current system is unjust and unjustifiable. 

But I think it can be changed and preserve a lot of the things that 

are good about it and also make it a fairer system for all the rest 

of us who constitute Division I–A. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just go back to Coach Edwards, and 

we will end this pretty soon. Senator DeWine’s comments reminded 

me just a little bit of—Coach Edwards has one of the greatest 

senses of humor of anybody who has ever coached in college football and we all love him out there, but one time, Coach Edwards, 

he joked about BYU. He said, they don’t travel well because BYU’s 

fans arrive in town with the Ten Commandments and a 50-dollar 

bill and they leave without breaking either of them. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. EDWARDS. And I got in trouble. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HATCH. Yes, he got in trouble for that comment. I am 

not— 

Mr. EDWARDS. But we always filled stadiums where we traveled, 

for the most part. 

Chairman HATCH. That is the point. There is a huge contingency 

all over this country of BYU fans that always fill those stadiums. 

But I just love that comment. That just tickled me to death. 

But Coach Edwards, and then Mr. Tribble, as well, could you 

comment on how important traveling well is in getting a bowl invitation? Go ahead. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I don’t think there is any question when you 

go to a bowl game that that is an issue that does come up. A couple 

of years ago, I don’t know, three or 4 years ago, when New Mexico, 

I think, was ten and one and were not invited to a bowl game anywhere because the perception was that they didn’t travel well. They 

certainly deserved to be somewhere because they had an excellent 

football team. I think that perception out there hurts and it creates 

37

a situation where it even continues to make it difficult for a team 

to get out from under this. I think that had they had a chance, I 

think that particular team would have traveled well, but that is 

just supposition on my part. 

But, you know, there are teams that travel well, but that is an 

issue. There is no question about it. Bowl teams always—that is 

one of the number one considerations that they have, that and 

probably how they are going to sell on television. 

Chairman HATCH. Because of the great quarterbacks you developed over the years, BYU had a lot of non-Utahans, non-Mormon 

people who supported BYU and just loved to see the game played 

the way you coached it. So they didn’t have any trouble filling 

those stadiums, I have got to say that, in spite of our propensity 

to carry the Ten Commandments and a 50-dollar bill and not 

breaking either. 

Mr. Tribble? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Chairman Hatch, I agree with Coach. It is the 

number one issue that bowls look at. I mean, bowls are looking to 

see how many fans will travel to their areas, and that is not just 

the BCS bowls, that is all 28 bowls, and we make decisions based 

on that. We make decisions based on the alumni base, the appeal 

to television. So we have a business model and all of us have a 

business model that we have been using for over 90 years. 

An example is that last year, we had Iowa versus USC. Iowa had 

40,000 fans that attended that game and USC had 15,000 to 

20,000. So the economic impact for our area was obviously tremendous. So we had a lot of people visiting our area during the time 

when, as we all know, we all need to stimulate the economy. So 

this, obviously, we do our part as a bowl to help that, and that is 

done in all 26 communities to help that part of it. But we do look 

at the fan support. We do look at the amount of fans that will travel as one of the criteria. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you. Are there any further questions? 

Senator BIDEN. Yes. Could I ask one? I am confused about a few 

things. Let us assume that, for just the sake of discussion, as we 

say, to argue in the alternative, Mr. President, do you think that 

the four major bowls would not fill the stadiums if there was a national playoff and post-bowl play? Would you worry that they would 

not be filled? 

Mr. TRIBBLE. Yes. I think from the Bowl Association’s standpoint 

and from the BCS, and obvious, the BCS bowls are part of that, 

we are very concerned about anything that will really diminish the 

bowls. It has been said that it is akin to basketball, but basketball 

is different. We are talking about a sport that has to travel 30,000 

to 40,000 people week to week and there are certain parts of the 

United States that an airline ticket will cost you $1,500 to travel 

to Miami, and if next week you are going to the Rose Bowl, that 

is another $2,000. Today, people just don’t have that disposable income to be doing that kind of thing. 

So that is why we feel very strongly that the system that we 

have in place today is good. It has worked, and obviously, the BCS 

is part of that. 

Senator BIDEN. Okay. The second question I have is, President 

Perlman, you talked about the importance of the weekly games in 

38

a season. The Senator from Alabama talked about the spectacles, 

which I agree with him. I mean, it is incredible. One of the most 

exciting games I have ever seen—I didn’t care about either team—

was Miss playing Ole Miss and being in the Grove down in Ole 

Miss. I mean, it is an experience. It is an experience. 

But is anyone suggesting that if we had a different system, that 

Michigan and Michigan State wouldn’t put 100,000 people in that 

stadium, or that Auburn-Alabama or Auburn-Georgia wouldn’t put, 

whatever, 87,000 people in that stadium that week, or any of these 

great traditions would suffer week to week because there was a different system at the end determining who the national champion 

was? I mean, is that implicit in the concern about—I am not sure 

I understood this notion about affecting week to week. 

Mr. PERLMAN. Well, Senator, I don’t think any system is going 

to keep us from filling our stadium. 

Senator BIDEN. Yes. I don’t think so, either. 

Mr. PERLMAN. And I am certainly not an expert on this, but I 

am told there is at least evidence that suggests that the playoff 

system in collegiate basketball diminishes the value of the regular 

season, both in terms of television revenues and others. You know, 

it is— 

Senator BIDEN. But I don’t understand— 

Mr. PERLMAN. It is not going to hurt our fans, but the question 

is, how enthusiastic are people not directly connected with a university going to be to watch it during the regular season. 

Senator BIDEN. Well, the point is that, you know, I don’t know 

how—I mean, look. Dr. Brand, you said the NFL football model. A 

lot of us who are in States that don’t have these big schools think 

you are an NFL football model. I am not being facetious. I am not 

trying to be a wise guy. They think you are an NFL football model. 

In every other way, you are a model of NFL football. All I have to 

do is go down the list of scandals every year that are legion. So nobody has to—I mean, the idea that the rest of the country out there 

that doesn’t have a team in one of these six conferences, the idea 

that we don’t look at you already and think you are an NFL football model, because that is what you are in the minds of many of 

us. 

I don’t know that you all get what other people think when they 

are not in these conferences and I find it kind of compelling, what 

Senator DeWine said. You have got eight slots. At least six are 

guaranteed of the eight slots. And you get to determine the ratings 

and the rankings about what constitutes competitiveness. I mean, 

that is like talking about the fox guarding the henhouse. I mean, 

you get to determine what constitutes competitive. That is like us 

saying, you know what we are going to do? We will let each party 

determine when the election results turn in and whether or not it 

was fair based on the outcome. 

This patina of fairness and openness is just so much malarkey. 

There is no other place where you would say that a national championship or the champion or the winner has to be determined, 

which understandably, based on being weighted, based on their 

competition, and the six outfits that already get a slot are the ones 

that determine how to weight it. I mean, that is kind of interesting. 

I think you are all phony about that, not personally phony, but I 

39

think you are being disingenuous. There is nothing objective about 

this. There is nothing objective about it. 

Now, if you said, all right, what you are going to do is you are 

going to go out and the conferences and the other teams are going 

to submit the names of 15 people who each week will decide what 

the ratings are and there will be four independent folks that don’t 

represent any conference in here or whatever sports writers, then, 

okay, I get that. There is no doubt it should be weighted, because, 

Coach, you are right. There are a whole lot of seven-and-three 

teams that could beat 14-and-zero teams. 

And the one incredible thing about college football, or at least 

used to be, is that what does matter, even more than in the pros, 

is what does matter is heart. There are those incredible games 

where the folks with less talent beat the folks with a great deal 

more talent. That used to be the single most exciting thing about 

football, college football. 

I am going to get in trouble here for saying this, but the reason 

I don’t watch college football anymore, it is like pro football. Watching Miami—a wonderful school, by the way—play Florida State, I 

might as well turn on and watch the Eagles play the Packers. 

These are schoolboy athletes who have come out and made their 

way. 

I mean, you guys are operating in a—I just don’t get it and the 

point I want to make is the idea that this thing—it is like Senator—he wouldn’t mind my telling this—Senator Dodd tells a story. 

When he first got here as a young Congressman, he was under 

the—neither one of us served in the House, but he was serving in 

the House and they have a five-minute rule where you get to stand 

up in front of the chamber—usually no one is in the chamber—and 

you get the chance to make a speech. Here with us, the danger is 

you can get up at any time and make a speech if you want and 

there is no limitation. 

And he was making his first speech, he said, and I will not mention the other Congressman’s name, but while he is standing in 

front of the House making a speech to essentially an empty chamber, he said this senior Congressman walked up and walked behind 

him and whispered. He said, ‘‘Kid, you are acting like this thing 

is on the level.’’ 

You guys are acting like this is on the level. You guys are acting 

like there is an objective means by which we weight this. Maybe 

what you all should do is go out and find an objective means to 

weight it, not change anything, but not let you guys determine how 

to weight it. Anyway— 

Mr. PERLMAN. Senator, could I make one quick response to that? 

Senator BIDEN. Sure. Please. 

Mr. PERLMAN. I mean, it is clearly the perception that we control 

the rankings, and to be sure, we decide what elements go into the 

rankings. But each of those elements is out of our control. The fact 

is that we use the AP writers’ poll, the coaches’ poll, which includes 

coaches from Division I from these five conferences that are not 

part of the BCS. We use computer surveys that we have no control 

over. We use strength of schedule, which you can debate whether 

it is appropriate or not, but I think most of us intuitively think 

40

that the stronger teams that you beat, the better team you are. 

And we use wins and losses. 

So while, sure, we put it together and we said, these are the elements to be considered and here is how you figure it out and that 

creates a perception that we are in control, each of those elements, 

we have nothing whatsoever to do with. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me just say in closing that one thing I am 

getting about this is there will be an effort to try and straighten 

this matter out. Now, I am suggesting to you as Chairman of the 

Judiciary Committee that that effort needs to take place, because 

there are a lot of people very, very upset at what they consider to 

be inequities and justice here and partiality and, to use the term, 

maybe phoniness. 

So I am hopeful you are right, Dr. Cowen, that you can get together, all of your friends on all sides of this issue, and resolve this 

matter, because if it isn’t resolved, it seems to me Congress could 

step in, because I do see antitrust implications here. Admittedly, 

admittedly, they are not clear-cut, but I do see them and I see 

some real problems if that is the route that has to be taken, or if 

the Congress has to rectify this situation. But it is not right to not 

have fairness in a system that we all value very highly. 

So with that, I just want to compliment all of you for being here. 

We really appreciate you taking the time to be here. This has been 

a very, very important hearing. I have enjoyed all the questions of 

my colleagues and I have certainly enjoyed all that you have had 

to say. With that, we will recess until further notice. 

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

41


93795.001
42


93795.002
43


93795.003
44


93795.004
45


93795.005
46


93795.006
47


93795.007
48


93795.008
49


93795.009
50


93795.010
51


93795.011
52


93795.012
53


93795.013
54


93795.014
55


93795.015
56


93795.016
57


93795.017
58


93795.018
59


93795.019
60


93795.020
61


93795.021
62


93795.022
63


93795.023
64


93795.024
65


93795.025
66


93795.026
67


93795.027
68


93795.028
69


93795.029
70


93795.030
71


93795.031
72


93795.032
73


93795.033
74


93795.034
75


93795.035
76


93795.036
77


93795.037
78


93795.038
79


93795.039
80


93795.040
81


93795.041
82


93795.042
83


93795.043
84


93795.044
85


93795.045
86


93795.046
87


93795.047
88


93795.048
89


93795.049
90


93795.050
91


93795.051
92


93795.052
93


93795.053
94


93795.054
95


93795.055
96


93795.056
97

Æ


93795.057