DETERMINING A CHAMPION ON 

THE FIELD: A COMPREHENSIVE 

REVIEW OF THE BCS AND 

POSTSEASON COLLEGE FOOTBALL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE COMMERCE, TRADE, AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 7, 2005 

Serial No. 109-42 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2005 25-626PDF 

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 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO)

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

 Ranking Member 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO) 
(III)

CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Weiberg, Kevin, Coordinator, Bowl Championship Series, Commissioner, Big XII 

Conference .................................................................................................................... 18 

Delany, James E., Commissioner, Big Ten Conference .................................................... 23 

Khayat, Robert, Chancellor, The University of Mississippi .............................................. 31 

Junker, John, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fiesta Bowl ................................... 35 

Johnstone, William, Chairman, Rose Bowl Management Committee .............................. 38 

Fox, Derrick, Chairman, Football Bowl Association, President and Chief Executive 

Officer, Alamo Bowl ..................................................................................................... 43 

Additional material submitted for the record: 

Stokan, Gary P., President, Peach Bowl, Inc., letter dated November 30, 2005, to Hon. 

Cliff Stearns................................................................................................................... 52 

Sample, Steven B.., President, University of Southern California, letter dated 

December 6, 2005, to Hon. Mary Bono......................................................................... 57 

Barton, Brad, Sunnyvale, TX, to Hon. Joe Barton ............................................................ 59 

DETERMINING A CHAMPION ON THE 

FIELD: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW 

OF THE BCS AND POSTSEASON 

COLLEGE FOOTBALL 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER 

PROTECTION, 

Washington, DC. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 2123 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns [chairman] 

presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Stearns, Upton, Deal, Cubin, Bass, 

Pitts, Terry, Murphy, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Schakowsky, 

Gonzalez, Baldwin, and Gordon. 

 Staff present: David Cavicke, General Counsel; Andy Black, Deputy 

Staff Director, Policy; Chris Leahy, Policy Coordinator; Andrew 

Snowden, Counsel; Brian McCullough, Professional Staff; Will Carty, 

Professional Staff; Terry Lane, Deputy Communications Director; 

Jonathon Pettibon, Legislative Clerk; and Billy Harvard, Legislative 

Clerk; Jonathan Cordone, Minority Counsel; Jonathan Brater, Minority 

Staff Assistant; and Chris Treanor, Minority Staff Assistant;. 

 MR. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. I am pleased to welcome 

all of you to the Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

Subcommittee's hearing on the current state of postseason college 

football and in particular, the Bowl Championship Series known as BCS. 

 Like many of my fellow Americans, I look forward to this time of the 

year to spend quality time with family and friends, and celebrate the 

Christmas and New Year's holiday. But I also enjoy the distinctly 

American pleasure of gathering around the television to cheer for all the 

adopted college favorites as they participate in the annual postseason 

bowl games. College football is an American institution and the bowls 

are the sacred rituals of that grand institution. And yes, I will definitely 

be tuned in to the University of Florida, the Gators, in the Outback Bowl, 

like many other folks from my home State of Florida. The bowls are the 

culmination of the thrills and excitement that happens every fall. It 

brings the college football fans in the Bowl Championship Series 

(1) 
2

together, and it was created in 1998 and attempts to ensure that we can 

all agree on who is the number one at the end of the fall season. 

 As many have pointed out and history has shown, the process of 

determining a Division I-A college football championship is a lot harder 

than it looks. Just ask USC or Auburn, who each had perfect records in 

2003 and the 2004 season respectively, but were denied a berth in the 

championship game. The system simply doesn't account for more than 

two qualified teams. Since its inception, the BCS has been surrounded 

by a bit of controversy. Computer rankings, coaches polls, conference 

schedules, and simply wins and losses all are part of this unique calculus 

of picking the match-up for the national championship game. That new 

math gets a bit fuzzy when the system produces the two perfect teams 

based on all that data, but most observers recognize that the teams ranked 

third, fourth, or even fifth are equally deserving. Many, including the 

chairman of the full committee, suggest that history has shown that 

finding the right two teams, or only two teams, might be too difficult and 

create as much controversy as existed before the BCS was formed and 

created. Opening the postseason to more teams so that the champion can 

be determined by its on-field performance rather than fuzzy math might 

be a better model and might be fairer to the athletes themselves. 

 Now the traditionalists, on the other hand, continue to believe that 

bowl games should be part of the character of the conference and its 

distinct history rather than a product of supercomputers and other hocuspocus, as they would indicate or imply. And I will add the television 

networks, the media outlets, and local communities that support the 

bowls also have strong opinions about, along with millions invested in 

the longstanding and low and now, of course, very lucrative tradition. 

 So my colleagues, the hearing today is an attempt to allow members 

of the committee an opportunity to learn more about the bowls, the BCS, 

the ranking systems that operate, and the process that takes all the 

ingredients and data and determines the two most qualified teams in 

college football without a playoff elimination structure. Being invited to 

a bowl game, particularly one of the four bowls that are under contract 

with BCS, not only is a great honor, but it also translates into millions of 

dollars of additional revenue for the schools, whose teams participate as 

well as the conferences they represent. The intersection of the big time 

sports and lucrative financial deals is something this committee has 

examined in the past and will continue to have jurisdiction and interest 

in. More importantly, this committee, as well as all Americans, wants to 

be certain that sports are fair, especially to every student athlete who 

works so hard and sacrifices a great deal of the traditional college 

experience in pursuit of athletic excellence. I also believe that we must 

always keep in mind that Division I-A college football is high stakes, big 
3

business, but should remain at its core a component of an academic 

system that sponsors athletes, not NFL lite. 

 With that in mind, a number of BCS alternatives and variations have 

been advanced. Most approaches focus on better ways to allow more 

teams to compete for the title, enabling those title games to be a function 

of prior wins and not rankings. One of the most discussed, the so-called 

BCS plus one approach, would have the four top ranked teams play each 

other and then have the two winners play a championship game the 

following week. Now another option is the NFL-type playoff system 

that would use existing bowl games as part of a traditional playoff 

structure. Finding the perfect system to determine a true champion will 

not, of course, be without obstacles. 

 With that in mind, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 

about how they plan to deal with future challenges, such as avoiding 

another situation that denies athletes an opportunity to play for a national 

championship, as was the case with the Auburn or USC the past two 

years. I am also interested in learning how we can facilitate smaller 

conferences' participation in the bowls, given the extraordinary revenue 

disparity between conferences that exists under the current system. And 

most importantly, I want to know how any system does not further 

compromise the academic integrity of those student athletes and those 

institutions, and balance that mission with the attraction of lucrative 

deals and with big time sports. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Good morning. I am pleased to welcome all of you to the Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection Subcommittee’s hearing on the current state of post-season college 

football and, in particular, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Like many of my 

fellow Americans, I look forward to this time of the year to spend quality time with 

family and friends and celebrate the Christmas and New Year holidays. But I also enjoy 

the distinctly American pleasure of gathering around the television to cheer for our alma 

maters or adopted college favorites as they participate in the annual post season bowl 

games. College football is an American institution and the Bowls are the sacred rituals of 

that grand tradition. And yes, I’ll definitely be tuned into the Gators in the Outback Bowl 

like many other folks from my home in Florida. The Bowls are the culmination of the 

thrills and excitement every fall brings the college football fan and the Bowl 

Championship Series, created in 1998, attempts to ensure that we all can agree on who is 

number at the end of that thrilling fall season. As many have pointed out, and history has 

shown, the process of determining a Division I-A college football champion is a lot 

harder than it looks. Just ask USC or Auburn, who each had perfect records in the 2003 

and 2004 seasons, respectively, but were denied berths in the championship game. The 

system simply doesn’t account for more than two qualified teams. 

 Since its inception, the BCS has been surrounded by controversy. Computer 

rankings, coach’s polls, conference schedules, and simple wins and losses all are part of 

the calculus of picking the match-up for the national championship game. That new math 
4

gets a bit fuzzy when the system produces the two “perfect” teams based on all that data 

but most observers recognize the teams ranked 3, 4, or even 5 are equally deserving. 

Many, including the Chairman of the Full Committee, suggest that history has shown that 

finding the right two teams, or only two teams, might be a bit too difficult and create as 

much controversy as existed before the BCS was formed. Opening the post-season to 

more teams so that the champion can be determined by its on-field performance rather 

than fuzzy math might be a better model, and more fair to the athletes. The 

traditionalists, on the other hand, continue to believe that bowl games should be part of 

the character of the conference and its distinct history rather than a product of 

supercomputers and other hocus pocus, as they might say. And I’d add, the television 

networks, media outlets, and local communities that support the bowls also have strong 

opinions along with the millions invested in this long-standing and now very lucrative 

tradition. 

The hearing today is an attempt to allow members of the Committee an opportunity 

to learn more about how the bowls, the BCS, and the rankings systems operate and the 

process that takes all the ingredients and data and determines the two most qualified 

teams in college football without a playoff elimination structure. Being invited to a Bowl 

game, particularly one of the four Bowls that are under contract with the BCS, not only is 

a great honor but it also translates into millions of dollars of additional revenue for the 

schools whose teams participate as well as the conferences they represent. The 

intersection of big-time sports and lucrative financial deals is something this Committee 

has examined in the past and continues to have an interest in. More importantly, this 

Committee, as well as all Americans, wants to be certain that sports are fair, especially to 

every student athlete who works so hard and sacrifices a great deal of the traditional 

college experience in pursuit of athletic excellence. I also believe we must always keep 

in mind that Division I-A college football is high stakes, big business, but should remain 

at its core a component of an academic system that sponsors athletics, not “NFL-Lite.” 

With that in mind, a number of BCS alternatives and variations have been advanced. 

Most approaches focus on better ways to allow more teams to compete for the title and 

enabling those “title” games to be a function of prior wins not rankings. One of the most 

discussed, the so-called BCS+1 approach, would have the four top ranked teams play 

each other and then have the two winners play a championship game the following week. 

Another option is the NFL-type playoff system that would use the existing Bowl games 

as part of a traditional playoff structure. 

Finding the “perfect” system to determine a true champion will not be without 

obstacles. With that in mind, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about 

how they plan to deal with future challenges, such as avoiding another situation that 

denies athletes an opportunity to play for a national championship as was the case with 

Auburn or USC the past two years. I am also interested in hearing how we can facilitate 

smaller conferences’ participation in the bowls given the extraordinary revenue disparity 

between conferences that exists under the current system. Most importantly, I want to 

know how any system does not further compromise the academic integrity of these 

student athletes and their institutions and balance that mission with the attraction of 

lucrative deals and big-time sports. 

 I welcome the witnesses today and look forward to their testimony. Thank you. 

MR. STEARNS. With that, I welcome the witnesses and I will ask my 

colleague, Mr. Gonzalez, for his opening statement. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

welcome the witnesses. 
5

 I guess the first observation on this side is, you know, what business 

does Congress have? What is its legitimate role? No one, that I 

understand, has asked us to intervene. Nevertheless, I don't think there is 

anything lost by a little bit of education. As far as attendance, I 

apologize. Obviously, we have other conflicts. We have other hearings 

going on at the present time. But going beyond what is a legitimate role 

of government and Congress and this particular committee and 

subcommittee, I know that attendance would be improved greatly if they 

would follow my recommendation, Mr. Chairman, in that we have a field 

hearing on this. I propose it be on January the 4th in Pasadena, 

California at halftime, being a Longhorn, and I would greatly appreciate 

if anybody knew where I could get a couple of really decent tickets to the 

Rose Bowl. 

 But on the serious side, as we approach, and I know that the 

witnesses, and I have read some of the statements already, where were 

we before, where are we today, and where are we going and are really 

going to be improving? Any time that we make any kind of change, 

there is an aversion to change. It doesn't matter whether it is football or 

Congress. It just doesn't matter, any profession. It just is. And I guess 

the only word of caution is, as we move forward, is that if we suggest 

any improvement versus a legitimate for government and Congress to be 

that particular vehicle for that change. I think there are many of us here 

that really believe, like anything else, you leave it out there and let those 

market forces and the appropriate and the level playing field, no pun 

intended, play out. And only in the last resort should really, the 

legislative body such as Congress, come in and make its own 

recommendations and then its mandates. Because at the end of that 

process, it really is a statutory order. 

 And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and I yield back. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Deal. 

 MR. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you on having 

such a distinguished panel of witnesses today. I look forward to their 

testimony. On behalf of my State, I am just pleased that the University 

of Georgia and Georgia Tech are both going to bowls this year. It 

certainly, I think, speaks well of both of their programs. I too would be 

interested in that field hearing that Mr. Gonzalez mentioned. I too have 

reservations about whether this is a legislative arena in which we should 

enter, but I certainly do thank the witnesses for their presence, and it will 

be enlightening hearing, I am sure, to hear your points of view and your 

perspectives on the issue, and thank you for being here. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back my time. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Terry. 
6

 MR. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this 

hearing as a sports fan, a college football fan in particular, and not 

necessarily as a legislator. As an alum from the University of Nebraska, 

a Booster, Mr. Fox, thank you. Nebraska, at least from the fans' 

standpoint, we are very much looking forward to the Alamo Bowl. And 

I think, as I sit here right at this point, I think we have sold out of our 

10,000 allotment. At least there were only about a thousand away late 

last night, so we need more. 

 So we look forward to that and it will be interesting because, as a 

college sports fan, college football fan, I think part of the fun of college 

sports or college football is the BCS, and our arguing about whether we 

should go to a playoff system, whether it should be this hybrid BCS, or 

what other options are out there, or the football tradition of the bowls. 

And I view the BCS as--maybe we could do it a little bit better, certainly 

better than the tie-in, just the strict tie-in. For example, in the Alamo 

Bowl, we will have the opportunity to, at least by way of rhetoric, engage 

in the 1997 national championship, where Michigan and Nebraska were 

by far the top two teams and weren't able to play each other. If there was 

a BCS that year, we would have been able to play each other. Then 

Nebraska would have been the undisputed national championship, 

probably a double-digit winner in that game. A little pre-Alamo smack 

here, okay? Just anything to get the ratings up there. So I kind of like 

this, but again, college football is supposed to be about fun and not 

necessarily all business, and that was the point that our chairman was 

making. 

 One other point that I will make is that the lucrative deal, the issues 

that bowls are big money, is what gives our committee some jurisdiction. 

It is. Because the money is involved, it makes it big business. That 

probably requires us to just kind of keep an eagle's eye on from above. 

But I also hear and I would like to hear, even though this gets away from 

whether should be bowl tie-ins, the hybrid BCS, or a playoff position, 

but on the surface, where you have large payouts for bowl games, 

particularly some of the minutes that look good, from what we hear from 

our athletic directors is they are actually money-losing opportunities for 

the teams or the conferences once you get outside of the BCS-level 

payoffs. So if someone wants to touch on that, my suggestion is, we 

might need to encourage bigger payouts so it isn't a money-losing 

process instead of just another 14 practice days. 

 So with that, welcome to all of our witnesses. This is will be an 

enlightening and I think fun discussion for us today. Thank you. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. The distinguished chairman of 

the full committee, Mr. Barton from Texas. 
7

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to applaud 

your leadership in holding these hearings. I want to applaud our 

witnesses for being here. I know it has not been easy to do this. We 

were going to do this earlier in the year and the Katrina hurricane made it 

difficult to get our witnesses here. And now that we are through with the 

regular season, it is difficult to get witnesses. Many of them are the 

coaches preparing for the bowls, so I am glad we have the group that we 

have here today. 

 This past weekend, the University of Southern California and the 

University of Texas were selected by the Bowl Championship Series to 

play for the Division I-A college football championship in the Rose 

Bowl on January the 4th. I hope I am there to watch that game. USC 

and Texas are worthy contenders, and I want to congratulate their 

players, their coaches, and their fans for truly outstanding seasons. I say 

that as a Texas A&M fan, so you know that it is heartfelt, but yes, I am 

also the husband of a University of Texas graduate. So I really mean it 

when I say that I am truly happy for the Universities of Texas and 

Southern California to be able to play for the national championship. 

 Are those teams worthy of the opportunity to play for the Division IAA championship? Sure they are. They are the two undefeated teams in 

Division I-A this year. Are there other top teams on any given day that 

could beat them? Sure there are. I think Penn State probably would 

have a shot this year. You could argue that Ohio State, that Texas beat, 

could win if you had a rematch. You could certainly argue that Notre 

Dame, who almost beat USC, on any given day might be able to win 

against one of those two teams. Under the current BCS structure, we 

will never find out. BCS was created in 1998. The idea was that each 

year college football would crown something approximating an 

undisputed national championship. It just hasn't worked out very well. 

The fact this year that there are only two teams undefeated does not 

mean that the current system works. What it does mean is that this year 

there are only two undefeated teams. So it is almost a no-brainer which 

two teams should play for the national championship. 

 In contrast, last year brought us the BCS at its unluckiest. Largely 

because it was ranked lower in the preseason polls than the other two 

undefeated teams, Auburn was barred from the title game, despite a 

spectacular season. When polls and computer rankings outweigh the 

performance that a team actually delivers on the field, I think we have a 

problem. Some will say that this is just football, or that a successful 

season is its own reward, but there is more at stake than transitory glory. 

A national championship football team means millions and millions of 

dollars for the university that has that team and the conference in which 

its teams play, if its team plays in a conference. Revenue generated by a 
8

football championship is used to fund, among other things, nonrevenue 

sports and scholarships. When LSU won the BCS national 

championship in 2003, its revenues from merchandise sales alone 

increased almost $2 million the following year. The major BCS bowls 

this year are going to pay out close to $90 million to the participating 

teams. 

 There is one simple way to put all this doubt to rest. Let us play it out 

on the field. Other major college sports, even other divisions of college 

football, have some sort of a playoff system that determines the national 

championship. The fundamental question that I hope we answer today 

is, why can't Division I-A of college football, the diamond, so to speak, 

of the entire football system, the 900 pound gorilla, why can't it do it? 

Now, I have heard many reasons why a playoff system would not work, 

including harming traditional bowl structure, diminishing the importance 

of the regular season, and compromising academics. All of these 

concerns have merit, but none strike me as insurmountable. 

 For example, of the existing 56 teams that are playing in bowls this 

year, 41 percent of them have student athletes that don't meet the 

minimum requirements for NCAA academic performance. So if we are 

serious about academic performance, we ought to put something in it that 

you don't go to a bowl game if you don't have a graduation right above 

50 percent the prior three seasons on average or something like that. 

You know, if we want to be consistent in terms of academics, I am all for 

that. But let us don't use that as an excuse not to have a playoff system, 

and then ignore it once we establish that we are not going to have the 

system. 

 I do want to thank all the witnesses for taking time to be here today. I 

know you probably would rather be somewhere else. I do think it is 

important, though, that we have these hearings. This committee and this 

subcommittee has jurisdiction over sports. Now, upstairs we have got a 

hearing going on right now on peak oil, how much oil is left in the world. 

We are going to have a hearing next week on drug reimportation. We 

just passed a major Medicaid reform bill through this committee. Earlier 

this year, we passed a major energy bill. Next week we may be having a 

markup on a major telecommunication reform bill. This subcommittee 

has passed a data privacy bill that we are trying to get agreement on with 

our friends on the Democratic side so we can mark it up. So we have 

lots and lots of very important issues. 

 But man doesn't live by policy alone. Sports are an important part of 

American society, and this committee and this subcommittee has 

jurisdiction over sports. So every now and then it is appropriate to do 

one of these hearings. We do not have a legislative proposal. 

Congressman Stearns and myself and Mrs. Schakowsky and Mr. 
9

Gonzalez and Mrs. Baldwin, we are not going to introduce a playoff bill 

after this hearing. But I hope that this hearing causes discussion, and I 

would like to see the NCAA and the BCS and the major conferences 

come together and on their own develop a bowl playoff system. You 

know, it could be a 64-team playoff. If you wanted to back to 10 regular 

seasons games, maybe it is a two-team playoff or a four-team playoff or 

an eight-team playoff or 16-team playoff. But I really think there should 

be some sort of a playoff. The BCS is going to have number one and 

number two this year, and that is a good thing, but nobody at this table 

can guarantee that the BCS is going to do that every year, because you 

can't. It only works if you only have two undefeated teams. 

 And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing, which is very timely. This 

past weekend, the Universities of Southern California and Texas were selected by the 

Bowl Championship Series to play for the Division I-A college football championship in 

the Rose Bowl next January 4. USC and Texas are certainly worthy contenders, and I 

want to take a moment to congratulate their players and coaches for truly outstanding 

seasons. As a Texas A&M fan, you have no idea how much it pains me to say that. Are 

these teams deserving of the opportunity to play for the national championship -- yes, 

without a doubt. Are there other top teams, such as Penn State, that could beat them on 

any given day -- probably so. Unfortunately, under the current BCS structure, we won’t 

get the chance to find out. 

 The BCS was created in 1998. The idea was that each year, college football could 

crown something as close as possible to an undisputed national champion. This idea 

hasn’t worked out very well. The fact that only two teams remain undefeated this year 

after fighting their way past worthy opponents does not mean that the system works, 

merely that it got lucky. In contrast, last year brought us the BCS at its unlucky worst. 

Largely because it was ranked lower in preseason polls than two other undefeated teams, 

Auburn was barred from the title game despite a spectacular season. When polls and 

computer rankings outweigh the performance that a team has delivered on the field over 

the course of a season, there is a problem. 

Some will dismiss this as, “It’s just football,” or that a successful season is its own 

reward, but there is more at stake than transitory glory. A national championship means 

millions of dollars for the university and the conference in which its teams play. Revenue 

generated by a football championship is used to fund, among other things, non-revenue 

sports and scholarships. For example, after LSU won the BCS national championship in 

2003, its revenues from merchandise sales alone increased almost $2 million the 

following year. 

 There is one simple way to put all doubt to rest -- let’s play it out on the field. Other 

major college sports -- and even other divisions of college football -- have some type of 

playoff system that determines the champion. The fundamental question that I hope we 

answer today is why can’t Division I-A college football -- the 900-pound gorilla of 

college sports -- do the same? 
10

 I have heard many reasons why a playoff system would not work, including: 

harming the traditional bowl structure; diminishing the importance of the regular season; 

and compromising academics. All of these concerns have merit, but none strike me as 

insurmountable. If we were to incorporate some of the existing bowl games into a 

playoff structure, and maintain the others, we could preserve tradition and increase 

revenue while affording more teams the opportunity to compete for a true national title. 

 I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to be here today. I look 

forward to some lively debate on an issue that is near and dear to many of our hearts. I 

believe that a broad, public discussion of what is working, what needs to be adjusted, and 

what needs to be completely overhauled will be valuable. And I hope that in the end, the 

Division I-A college football championship can be decided where it should be -- on the 

field. In my heart, I also know that sooner or later, the Aggies will win the 

championship, and I want that future victory to be untarnished. And soon would also be 

nice! 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. Ms. Schakowsky, the ranking 

member. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the witnesses for joining us today for an interesting, if not pressing, 

inquiry into the matter in which the NCAA college football national 

championship is determined. I want to extend a special welcome to Mr. 

Delany, who is representing the Big Ten, which is headquartered in my 

district, and which my alma mater, the University of Illinois, falls under. 

And although there is interest in my district about the Bowl 

Championship Series, it is also home to Northwestern University, 

another member of the Big Ten Conference. I believe, in fact, that more 

of my constituents are wondering why this committee and their 

congresswoman are taking time out of the legislative calendar for 

football as opposed to other more pressing issues, not that they are not 

going to watch and pay a lot of attention, but whether or not it is a matter 

for this Congress to be dealing with this. 

 As many know, this hearing was moved from the Oversight and 

Investigation Subcommittee because Democrats raised concerns about 

other more significant hearings that should be held, particularly about 

Hurricane Katrina health care recovery. Our subcommittee should also 

be following up on Katrina and what is needed to help the huge tourist 

industry in New Orleans recover, which is under the jurisdiction of our 

subcommittee, examining how well the ports are functioning, and also 

monitoring how commerce in the Gulf Coast is progressing or not. 

Surely this would be more useful than discussing a football bowl system 

that most colleges, including Texas, are--well, I guess the chairman 

doesn't even know he is in it--they are in it, is not necessarily happy with, 

but most are happy with now. And by the way, there is a bowl game in 

New Orleans, the Sugar Bowl. Those tens of millions of tourist dollars 

are going to Atlanta because of the nonrecovery going on in New 

Orleans. 
11

 With my concerns noted, there have been issues raised about how the 

BCS works. The goal of the BCS is to assign teams to prestigious and 

lucrative bowls in a fair and credible fashion, and use this system to 

crown a single national champion at the end of each season. However, 

the Bowl Championship Series record has had its share of controversies 

over how those decisions are made. The various changes that have been 

implemented since its inception in 1998 have not alleviated questions 

that a number of football followers here have over how the rankings a 

decided. The system has been adjusted to address particular points of 

contention, but there still are concerns about whether the BCS is the 

clearest and fairest basis for choosing the championship contenders. 

 This season has been pointed out, few can argue that the system has 

not produced--few could argue that the system has not produced an 

appealing national title game with the only two undefeated teams, the 

University of Texas and USC, scheduled to meet in the Rose Bowl on 

January 4. Last season, however, left a bitter taste in some football fans' 

mouths, with an undefeated school, Auburn, was left without a chance to 

compete for a championship. It is misleading to argue that these 

controversies have been caused by the implementation of the Bowl 

Championship Series. Prior to its introduction, college football had a 

system that made no attempt to determine a single champion by any 

method other than national polls, and teams were selected for bowls on 

grounds that were arguably based purely on popularity and profits. 

 One model that has been presented to restructure the college football 

playoff system is the multi-tier postseason. Northwestern University and 

the University of Illinois are among a number of major universities that 

have opposed this concept. Opponents believe that a multi-tier playoff 

will greatly diminish the importance of college football's regular season. 

It would also place a greater burden on the cities that currently host bowl 

games, by denying host cities the significant economic stimulus that they 

have long experienced. 

 Finally, a multi-tier playoff system for Division I-A has been fully 

discussed and has been found to be ill-advised and unworkable by a 

strong majority of university presidents. I agree with Northwestern and 

the University of Illinois that another solution must be found, and I think 

that that solution can be found within the current parameters of the bowl 

system itself. 

 Before us today are a number of knowledgeable and influential 

participants in the Bowl Championship Series, and I look forward to 

finding out what, if anything, should be done to improve the BCS 

process. I also look forward to holding hearings on more pressing issues 

in our subcommittee. Thank you. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. Mr. Murphy. 
12

 MR. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is important to all of us, 

our colleges and universities and our students, our children who are at 

these, to make sure that we make these academic and athletic experiences 

as fulfilling as possible. I as a father of a Penn State student would like 

this year to be a little bit more fulfilling for the Penn State team, and still 

believe that Michigan didn't have one second left, but those are sour 

grapes that we can't do anything about. 

 It does come into play, though, that this whole issue of the college 

football national championship, I am not sure any of us understand and it 

is really something that I wonder sometimes if the Federal government 

designed. I think it works something like this: each Division 1 team, to 

percentage point, is derived by dividing that team's actual voting points 

by a maximum of 2,850 possible points in the Harris Interactive Poll, and 

1,550 possible points in the USA Today's Coaches Poll. Then six 

computer rankings provided by Anderson and Hester, Richard 

Billingsley-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Will the gentleman slow down? This is very 

important information. 

 MR. MURPHY. I am trying to help us understand this--Kenneth 

Massey, Jeff Sagarin, Peter Wolfe, are calculated by an inverse 25-point 

scale to determine the overall computer component. The best and worse 

ranking for each team is dropped. The remaining four are added together 

and divided by 100 to produce a computer ranking percentage. Each of 

the six computer rankings account for a schedule strength in its formula. 

Finally, the BCS average is calculated by averaging the percentage totals 

of the Harris Interactive, USA Today Coaches, and computer polls, and 

that is all there is to it. 

 I really hope that this system can be cleaned up in a way that makes it 

so that the best teams, when the guys get together on the gridiron, that 

the best teams play. It is an important part of the American pastime, it is 

an important part of our economy, and it certainly is an important part of 

the college experience, not only academics, but the athletic part of that as 

well. And although this committee, as the chairman said, may not be 

coming up with legislation to make this one where the best teams do play 

each other, we do hope that this committee hearing is one that sheds 

some light on this whole process so that those best teams can play. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I made that impeccably clear. 

 MR. STEARNS. That was impeccably clear. Ms. Baldwin. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I am sure that many of my colleagues did as I did over the 

Thanksgiving recess and spent much of our time in listening sessions and 

engaging with constituents. I can tell you my own experience, in 

listening session after listening session around my district, that I was 
13

shocked to hear more constituents talk about their confusion with the 

Medicare prescription drug plan than their confusion or the changes that 

are being proposed to the BCS formula. I also have to admit, I was taken 

aback when I got more questions about what Congress is doing to 

provide health care to the uninsured and no questions about who I would 

pick to win the Heismann Trophy. For the record, I think that Reggie 

Bush is a lock, with all apologies to Texas University and Vince Young 

fans. 

 But in all seriousness, I know that the BCS system has had its fair 

share of controversies since it was adopted in 1998. Moreover, I do 

believe that it is prudent for the Energy and Commerce Committee to 

keep a watchful eye on the integrity of billion dollar businesses, 

including college football. But I also believe that we must be careful and 

not go too far in suggesting changes to the bowl system that may damage 

the long tradition of college football and what it means to the schools, 

players and coaches. 

 I think most college football fans in Wisconsin would prefer that 

retiring UW coach, Barry Alvarez, have more of a say in these types of 

decisions than Tammy Baldwin or members of Congress, and I agree. 

Those of you who follow college football know how much Wisconsin 

loves their Badgers, and believe me, there is nothing like going to Camp 

Randall Stadium and see that 85,000-plus crowd enjoy the game and 

come together in song to the tune of varsity at the end of the game. 

These traditions may be small, but they have helped make the school and 

the student body what it is today, and are deeply valued and appreciated 

by everyone who is a part of the university. Annual bowl games are 

much bigger traditions, but are valued in much the same way. 

 If there are true flaws in the way college football determines a 

champion, and not just differences in opinion about the best way to do, 

then perhaps this Congress should hear what those flaws are. But I 

believe this Congress should be careful in prescribing how to fix those 

flaws and that the schools should remain--retain the autonomy to do so 

themselves. 

 And I would just like to add that I hope our committee will soon be 

just as vigilant in examining some of the other problems that my 

constituents are deeply concerned about and troubled about, such as how 

to provide health insurance to 45 million uninsured. They deserve no 

less. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from 

Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

 MS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

for holding the hearing today, but I am going to have to tell you that I do 

have many questions and a lot of reservations about why we are holding 
14

the hearing right now, when we do have so many other more pressing 

issues. 

 With that said, I have numerous questions about the BCS. I am going 

to have to agree with some of the others that have commented. I do think 

it is a flawed system. I am just not certain that it ought to be coming 

before us. I think that the fans, the market, that you all should work this 

out and it should not take an act of Congress to address it. So I would 

encourage you, as I welcome our guests. 

 I especially want to welcome my friend, Dr. Khayat, and welcome 

him here. He is the chancellor at the alma mater for both of my children, 

and we enjoyed getting to know him there. I will also say that my alma 

mater, Mississippi State, did beat him and we do hold the Egg Bowl 

trophy for this year. So with that, I will say that we do welcome you. I 

am a bit prideful that we are the Egg Bowl champs, and I hope we 

remain so and that you lose again next year, but welcome anyway. We 

are delighted to have you here. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Upton, the gentleman 

from Michigan. 

 MR. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I don't think anyone here on either side of the aisle is suggesting that 

we might want to legislate a solution to the BCS. It is appropriately left 

to the conference, and I don't think it would be right for the Congress to 

step in and do that, and I don't think this hearing is intended to do that at 

all. There is a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle, and I got to say, in 

the cloakrooms of the House, as well, as we watch different games, and 

as we look at rivalries that have gone on throughout the years, I have got 

a couple of suggestions that I think might merit some consideration by 

the board as they decide the BCS races in the future. 

 One is, as I look at the schedule, I see teams and I look at my good 

friend, Mr. Terry from Nebraska, whom I am not quite ready to yield to, 

but we all arrange to play Nebraska in a bowl game, and I don't know 

why they played Maine. I don't know that Maine is a Division 1 team, 

yet that is on their record. 

 MR. TERRY. We will do our talking on-- 

 MR. UPTON. LSU, LSU, you know, a powerhouse all season long. 

Why are they playing Appalachia State? Are they a Division 1 team? I 

don't know that they are. Maybe I am wrong, in a number of other cases 

as well. This isn't basketball where, in fact, you have conferences, 

whether they be Division 1. Look at local teams. There is a limited 

number of games. Obviously it is not like a college basketball season. I 

think that ought to be a consideration. 

 I do have a private question I would like to ask Mr. Delany a little bit 

later and that is, how did Iowa get a better bowl than Michigan when we 
15

beat them there? I don't quite understand that and my friends at the 

University of Michigan can't tell me that, either. I guess that is in respect 

to Mr. Terry. But I look forward to the testimony. It is an issue that 

many millions of Americans are interested in, but I think they would 

almost all agree that Congress doesn't necessarily need to step into the 

fray. I yield back. 

 [Additional statements submitted for the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

 Mr. Chairman – It is a privilege to be here today as we examine the existing NCAA 

college football postseason format. 

 As today’s discussion ranges from merchandise sales and television and title 

sponsorships to the revenue distribution from these major college bowl games, we must 

ensure that the welfare of our student-athletes remains at the forefront of this debate. 

Whether the existing format remains in place or a new system is ultimately adopted, the 

NCAA postseason structure must neither deny student-athletes equal opportunity to 

compete for a national championship nor infringe upon their education. 

 In my home state of New Hampshire, our two major Division-IAA schools, 

Dartmouth College and the University of New Hampshire, value the importance of 

success in the classroom as highly as their victories on the playing field. In light of a 

recent study that revealed that 41 percent of this year’s bowl-bound college football 

teams fall below the NCAA’s minimum academic requirements – and nearly half fail to 

maintain a 50 percent graduation rate for their student-athletes – it is vital that any 

changes made to the postseason system emphasize academics above economics. We 

cannot allow our students-athletes’ education to suffer for the sake of financial gain. 

 I appreciate the witnesses we have here today taking the time to share their thoughts 

with us, and I look forward to their testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. Since 1998, the champion 

for NCAA Division 1-A football has been determined through the Bowl Championship 

Series. This system was designed to create a clear champion on the field by matching the 

number 1 and number 2 ranked teams in NCAA Division 1-A football, while at the same 

time maintaining the integrity of the college bowl system. 

 The system has matched up universities that previously would not have been able to 

compete against one another in a bowl game and has enjoyed some success; however it 

has also had its years where more controversy has been created than resolved. 

 For instance, my alma mater, the University of Southern California, is a perfect 

university to use to identify the system's flaws because it has been both a beneficiary and 

a victim of the BCS. 

 In the 2003/2004 season, USC was ranked number 1 in both the Associated Press and 

USA Today/ESPN polls. Despite this fact, USC was ranked third in the BCS 

rankings - behind Oklahoma and LSU. That year LSU defeated Oklahoma in the Sugar 

Bowl and USC defeated Michigan in the Rose Bowl. LSU was declared the BCS 

national champion and USC was declared the Associated Press national champion. 

 The following year, in the 2004/2005 season, USC was one of three schools who 

finished the regular season undefeated. That season USC went on to defeat Oklahoma 
16

in the BCS Championship Game - ultimately finishing the season undefeated. Auburn, 

the Southeastern Conference Champion and winner of the Sugar Bowl, also finished the 

season undefeated but was not declared the national champion in any poll. Both of these 

seasons show the imperfections in the BCS and validate today's review. 

 However, at institutions like the University of Southern California where the central 

mission is the “development of human beings and society as a whole through the 

cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit,” football is a piece of the fabric 

of the institution - not the institution itself. And while I support reviewing and improving 

the BCS system, the academic well-being of students and student-athletes is most 

important. 

 I am glad we have an opportunity to explore this issue today. Believe me, as a USC 

alum, I am not only in favor of settling this on the field - I welcome it. However, I hope 

the focus continues to be on maintaining the academic integrity of our colleges and 

universities so that when champions are crowned on the field, we can all rest assured 

that our country's students and student-athletes are champions off the field as well. 

 At this time I would like to submit a letter into the record from Steven B. Sample, 

President of the University of Southern California. 

 Thank you and I yield back. 

MR. STEARNS. If no one seeks any further opening statements, we 

will go to our first panel. Mr. Kevin Weiberg, who is Coordinator of the 

Bowl Championship Series, Commissioner, the Big XII Conference; Mr. 

James Delany, Commissioner, Big Ten Conference; Mr. Robert Khayat, 

Chancellor of the University of Mississippi; Mr. John Junker, President 

and Chief Executive Officer of the Fiesta Bowl; Mr. William Johnstone, 

Chairman of the Rose Bowl Management Committee; and Mr. Derrick 

Fox, Chairman of the Football Bowl Association, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Alamo Bowl. So I would welcome all of you and, 

Mr. Weiberg, I will let you start. 

STATEMENTS OF KEVIN WEIBERG, COORDINATOR, BOWL 

CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES, COMMISSIONER, BIG XII 

CONFERENCE; JAMES E. DELANY, COMMISSIONER, BIG 

TEN CONFERENCE; ROBERT KHAYAT, CHANCELLOR, 

THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; JOHN JUNKER, 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FIESTA 

BOWL; WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, CHAIRMAN, ROSE BOWL 

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE; AND DERRICK FOX, 

CHAIRMAN, FOOTBALL BOWL ASSOCIATION, 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALAMO 

BOWL 

 MR. WEIBERG. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kevin Weiberg and I 

am the Commissioner of the Big XII Conference. 
17

 MR. STEARNS. Just pull your mike in front and then turn it on. Yes, 

it just has a little switch there. 

 MR. WEIBERG. Sorry about that. 

 MR. STEARNS. That is fine. That is good. 

 MR. WEIBERG. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, ladies 

and gentleman, my name is Kevin Weiberg and I am the Commissioner 

of the Big 12 Conference, an association of 12 universities from the 

Midwest and Great Plains regions of our country. The Big 12 office 

currently serves as the coordinating office for the Bowl Championship 

Series. This is an assignment that rotates every two years among the 

conferences that are part of the BCS arrangement. In January, the BCS 

coordination responsibilities will move to the Southeastern Conference 

office and Commissioner Mike Slive. 

 The Bowl Championship Series has simple objectives, to aim to 

match the number one and two ranked teams in a bowl game at season's 

end, and to provide a means by which other highly regarded teams, 

including conference champions, can be matched together to create 

quality bowl games. The BCS is managed by the 11 Division I-A 

conferences and Notre Dame, with oversight provided by a group of 

college presidents and chancellors. The BCS is supportive of the overall 

bowl structure, but it is only a small part of that structure, four bowls out 

of 28 this year. 

 Bowl games provide a number of benefits to college football and the 

communities that host the games. Over 5,000 student athletes participate 

annually in these games, far more than could reasonably participate in a 

playoff structure. Bowl games are also significant civic celebrations and 

economic development opportunities for the communities that host them. 

The bowl system is supportive of and enhances the excitement of college 

football's most valuable asset, its regular season. College football is 

unique for its campus environment. The ability to connect thousands of 

fans, alumni, and supporters with our campuses during the regular season 

to celebrate college football and the universities' many other educational 

and extracurricular activities, is an opportunity we cannot afford to lose. 

 An NFL-style playoff structure could damage the regular season and 

devalue the bowls, potentially resulting in fewer postseason opportunities 

for student athletes. Some have suggested that a multi-tier playoff 

structure be conducted through the bowls. I believe such an approach 

would result in fewer regular season games played on campus, and it 

really isn't realistic, given the nature and mission of bowl games. The 

bowl system better accommodates a student athlete's academic and 

physical well-being. Bowl games are conducted at times that do not 

conflict with institutional exam schedules. The present structure is 

confined to 13 or 14 games played in a single academic semester. It is a 
18

manageable number of contests and is likely better from a health and 

safety perspective than an NFL-style playoff that could extend the season 

for some teams. 

 I believe that the BCS is an improvement for college football's 

postseason, as is evidenced by this year's BCS games. But I am also 

willing to continue to work to improve the current structure in a way that 

may help to address concerns about the determination of the national 

champion, with the following caveats: presidents and chancellors of our 

universities will need to authorize us to explore models that include 

teams playing more than one game in the postseason. Such models, 

however, must not result in fewer postseason playing opportunities for 

student athletes. The regular season must continue to have high 

significance, much more than just teams playing for seeds. And any 

format must be reasonable for student athletes, including adequate 

recovery time between games and no added intrusion on the institutional 

academic calendar. 

 In closing, the future direction of college football continues to be 

managed within the context of higher education. I believe that university 

presidents and chancellors seek a balance between the academic mission 

of their institutions and the desire of fans for a system to crown a 

national champion. We want to maintain the significance of the regular 

season, but also have a vibrant postseason bowl structure that provides a 

maximum number of opportunities for student athletes. I thank you for 

the time, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to answering your questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Kevin Weiberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN WEIBERG, COORDINATOR, BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES,

COMMISSIONER, BIG XII CONFERENCE

 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: my name is Kevin Weiberg and I am the 

commissioner of The Big 12 Conference, an association of 12 universities from the Midwest and 

Great Plains Regions. 

 The Big 12 Conference office currently serves as the coordinating office for the Bowl 

Championship Series. This is an assignment that rotates every two years among the conferences that 

are part of the BCS arrangement. In January, the BCS coordination responsibilities will move to the 

Southeastern Conference office and Commissioner Mike Slive. 

 The Bowl Championship Series, formed in 1998, has always had relatively simple objectives: 

among those is an aim to match the number one and number two ranked teams, through a ranking 

system consisting of two human polls and six computer polls, in a season-ending bowl game. The 

BCS also provides a means by which other highly regarded teams can be matched together to create 

quality bowl match-ups. 

 Decisions concerning the BCS arrangement are made by a presidential oversight committee, a 

group of university presidents and chancellors, with advice from conference commissioners, 

athletics directors and coaches. 

 The BCS arrangement is reviewed annually by all eleven Division I-A conference 

commissioners and an athletics director advisory panel. We also seek the advice of representatives 

of the American Football Coaches Association on certain matters. When we believe that some 

adjustment is appropriate, we make modifications to the arrangement in an effort to ensure that it 

continues to meet its objectives. 
19

 The BCS is but a small part of the landscape of post-season college football; it consists of only 

four games – the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar bowls. Post-season college football in Division IA, however, encompasses far more than just the BCS games. Today, there are 28 bowl games 

hosted by cities as diverse as Detroit and El Paso. 

 There are often calls for participants in college football to jettison the bowl system for an NFLstyle playoff. A change could occur only as a result of legislation in the NCAA, and the NCAA’s 

constituent groups – presidents, faculty, athletics directors, coaches – have not proposed such 

legislation. 

 An NFL-style playoff would bring with it certain costs for the game, student-athletes, and the 

many communities that annually welcome teams and fans for bowl games. That the bowl structure 

has endured for so long is a testament to its benefits and the unique role that it plays in college 

football. 

 For more than a century, the traditional reward for Division I-A college football teams 

completing successful seasons has been a berth in a post-season bowl. While the BCS uses the 

existing bowl structure in an effort to determine a national champion, the bowl system itself provides 

numerous other benefits that better the game. The bowls annually provide approximately 5,600 

student-athletes with rich and meaningful postseason competitive and educational opportunities. The 

bowls are more than football games played during the holiday season. They are civic celebrations 

that may center around football games but include a host of events, including parades, basketball 

tournaments and other sporting events, social events, and charitable activities. The bowls do a great 

job of allowing student-athletes the opportunity to spend approximately a week in a community 

enjoying the many attractions and hospitality offered by the host bowl committee. 

 Bowl games also provide significant economic development, charitable and volunteer service 

benefits for their communities. For example, the Sugar Bowl estimates that its January 2005 game 

between Auburn and Virginia Tech created an economic impact in the city of New Orleans and the 

state of Louisiana of nearly $210 million. State and local governments realized nearly $16 million in 

tax revenues as a result of the game. As the city of New Orleans continues to rebuild from the 

ravages of Hurricane Katrina, we believe that the impact of events such as the Sugar Bowl, which 

annually lures thousands of visitors to New Orleans during the holiday season, will be a significant 

part of those efforts. 

 College football is different from the NFL. There are 119 Division I-A college football teams, 

and we need a system that provides a large number of those teams with a postseason opportunity. 

The NFL, with only 32 teams, can make a 12-team playoff work nicely within its structure. 

 It is important to note that each year 119 members of NCAA Division I-A can begin the season 

with a goal of playing in a bowl game and 56 teams can make that dream a reality. Most playoff 

plans that have been proposed would be limited to a relatively small number of teams. The bowl 

system, on the other hand, provides post-season opportunities for many deserving teams that would 

not qualify for a national playoff. I can think of several examples from the Big 12 Conference where 

teams have qualified for bowl games with six or seven wins, then went on to have a successful bowl 

experience and used that as a springboard to greater success in future years. Programs like those at 

Kansas State University and Texas Tech University come to mind. 

 The bowl system also heightens the excitement of college football’s most valuable asset, its 

regular season. College football teams are rewarded for consistency over an entire season. Results 

in September have far reaching effects as teams progress through their season. Excitement builds as 

fans point to late-season match-ups, the outcomes of which will affect hopes of conference 

championships and postseason bowl berths. 

 Beyond the significance of its regular season, college football is unique for its campus 

environment. Whether it is 50,000 fans in Ames, Iowa or 80,000 in College Station, Texas, a college 

football weekend, on campus, is the essence of the sport. The ability to connect thousands of fans, 

alumni and supporters with our campuses during the regular season and to celebrate not only college 

football, but a university’s many other educational and extracurricular activities, is an opportunity 

that our schools cannot afford to lose. 

 Under the bowl system, we maximize the importance of regular season games, which 

encourages alumni and fans to come to our games on campus. Further, the current system places a 

high level of importance on every regular season game. That is why early season games take on 

such great significance in this structure, because every game counts. 

 A playoff system, however, could alter that dynamic. For those teams that do not qualify for the 

playoffs, especially those that begin the season poorly, the regular season may lose much of its 

meaning. The chase for a bowl berth, on the other hand, places a tangible goal in front of teams 

even if the national championship is not in the picture. 
20

 Furthermore, the bowl system adds significance to games. The Texas-Texas A&M match-up in 

my conference on Thanksgiving weekend is a good example. Certainly, the rivalry is of great 

interest to the fans of the two institutions and its tradition attracts fans nationwide. But the game had 

a lot of significance this year, because of the bowl system and the BCS. First, Texas entered 

unbeaten and ranked number 2. A loss might have ended its hope of a national championship. 

Second, because Texas A&M entered the game with a 5-5 record, a victory would have made it 

eligible for a bowl berth. Neither would have been the case had there been a playoff. Texas would 

likely have clenched a playoff berth long before the game, so the outcome of the game would have 

had only minimal effect on its national championship hopes. Furthermore, because Texas A&M had 

lost five games, a victory would likely not have secured a playoff berth for the team. 

 The reality is that an NFL-style playoff structure carries with it the risk of devaluing the regular 

season, particularly games played late in the season. Indeed, to some degree, playoffs alter the 

ordinary incentives that are attached to any game. In playoff structures in other sports, once a 

certain spot is secured, coaches’ concerns shift to preparing for the playoffs and away from late 

regular-season games. This is true in a number of sports. In baseball, for example, once a team 

clinches a division title, starters are rested and pitching rotations are set up for a playoff series. 

 The bowl system may also better accommodate a student-athlete’s academic and physical wellbeing. Bowl games are conducted at times that do not conflict with institutional exam schedules. 

Under the current system, the schedule is confined to thirteen or fourteen games in a single academic 

semester. This is a manageable number of contests and is better from a health and safety perspective 

when compared to an NFL-style playoff structure that could extend the season three or four games 

for some teams. 

 In closing, the future direction of college football continues to be managed within the context of 

higher education. University presidents and chancellors seek a balance between the academic 

missions of their institutions and the desire of fans for a system to crown a national champion. We 

want to maintain the significance of the regular season and support a vibrant postseason bowl 

structure that provides a maximum number of opportunities for student-athletes. 

 I am willing to continue to work to improve the current system in a way that may help to 

address concerns about the determination of the national champion with the following caveats: 

• Presidents and chancellors of our universities need to authorize us to explore models that 

include teams playing more than one game in the postseason; 

• Such models must not result in fewer postseason playing opportunities for student-athletes; 

• The regular-season must continue to have high significance, much more than just teams playing 

for seeds; and, 

• Any format must be reasonable for student-athletes including adequate recovery time between 

games and no added intrusion on the institutional academic calendar. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to provide some background on the bowl system and its 

importance to college football. I look forward to answering your questions. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Delany. 

 MR. DELANY. Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee, I am Jim Delany and I am the Commissioner of the Big 

Ten Conference. I have held that position for the last 16 years, and I 

appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about postseason and 

Division I-A college football, and to share with you the views of the Big 

Ten Conference about this subject. 

 To understand the Big Ten's perspective on postseason football, one 

must start with our historic relationship with the Rose Bowl. Since 1946, 

with a few exceptions in recent years, the champion of the Big Ten 

Conference has been invited to play annually in the Rose Bowl against 

the champion of the Pac-10 Conference. It would be difficult to 

overstate the significance of the Rose Bowl in relationship to our 

conference, our member institutions, our student athletes and fans 
21

throughout the Midwest. The opportunity to compete for an annual berth 

in that game has fostered the development of programs at Big Ten 

schools, and added great excitement to our conference championship 

race over the years. In short, the Rose Bowl is far more than a football 

game. It is a great life experience for our players. It is the most 

important external relationship that the Big Ten presently enjoys. 

 Of course, in the late 1990s, the Big Ten decided to participate in the 

Bowl Championship Series arrangement. To do that, we had to alter our 

Rose Bowl relationship by agreeing that our champion would not play in 

that game every year under certain circumstances. Well, I believe that 

that decision was in the Big Ten's best interest and has been healthy for 

college football. It came only after a long and difficult debate among our 

member schools. In the end, we agreed to the changes needed to make 

the BCS and its benefits possible, but the presidents and chancellors of 

Big Ten institutions considered the adjustments to the Rose Bowl 

relationship to be substantial sacrifices that could only be justified if, 

one, they would produce an annual national championship game, and 

they were not likely to cause any significant damage to the Rose Bowl. 

 With the Rose Bowl relationship as a backdrop, it is relatively easy to 

understand the position of the institutions of the Big Ten on a multigame, NFL-style playoff for Division I-A college football. Our 

presidents and chancellors have consistently and publicly opposed the 

implementation of such a system, as have the presidents and chancellors 

of the member institutions to the Pac-10 Conference and the 

Southeastern Conference. Our concerns can be largely summarized in 

four points: one, the Big Ten universities believe that the bowl system 

has great value to the football communities and the local communities in 

hosting games. While the Rose Bowl is longest standing of our bowl 

relationships, we value our ties with each of the bowls that annually host 

one of our teams. A multi-game, NFL-style playoff is likely to siphon 

off the vast bulk, if not the totality, of television and sponsorship 

revenues that support the bowls. 

 Two, the Big Ten is interested in maximizing the number of 

postseason opportunities for our student athletes and coaches. A broadbased bowl system furthers that goal. This year, some 700 football 

players at Big Ten institutions will have opportunity to compete in 

postseason games. Our teams will play in games in Miami, Tempe, 

Orlando, Tampa, San Antonio, El Paso, and Nashville. 

 Three, a multi-game playoff will have a detrimental impact on the 

regular season. Among major sports in the United States today, college 

football stands alone in crowning its championship based almost 

exclusively on regular season performance. The Big Ten has benefited 

greatly from the emphasis on the regular season. This year, over 72,000 
22

people on average attended our games, 30 of 44 were sellouts, and over 5 

million Midwesterners and Americans attended these events. Our 

regular season games have been attracted to fans who regularly pack our 

stadiums, and broadcasters who telecast these games throughout the 

country. We have a traditional end-of-the-year rivalry, such as Ohio 

State and Michigan, that are of great interest, not only to Big Ten fans, 

but also to fans across the country. Today, the regular season functions 

as a lengthy elimination tournament, therefore every game is important. 

The Big Ten does not believe that alterations to the postseason structure 

that dilute the significance of the regular season are beneficial to the Big 

Ten as a league or to college football generally. 

 Finally, the Big Ten believes that the bowl system is consistent with 

the academic mission of the Nation's colleges and universities. While I 

cannot address all of the unfounded criticisms leveled at Division I-A 

football over the years, they do remind all of us in intercollegiate 

athletics that college football is football in the academic tradition. The 

mission of Big Ten institutions is not only to turn out superb athletic 

teams, but to educate young men and women and prepare them for the 

challenges that lie ahead. The presidents and chancellors of Big Ten 

institutions are keenly aware of their responsibilities as stewards of 

educational institutions entrusted to their care. Their first duty is to the 

students who attend their respective universities, whether or not they are 

participants on athletic teams. Given the competing interests that they 

must balance, and the numerous factors that they must weigh, I believe it 

is virtually impossible to second guess their conclusions. 

 A final word needs be said about money. Some claim that the bowl 

system persists because it enriches certain conferences. The allegation is 

preposterous. The amount of money that could be generated by an 

annual college football playoff dwarfs the revenues that are derived from 

bowl games. Big Ten presidents and chancellors are fully aware of the 

economic potential of a college football playoff, yet they have 

consistently opposed a multi-game, NFL-style playoff, notwithstanding 

its revenue-generating potential. 

 In sum, Big Ten presidents and chancellors have resolved this issue 

for the conference, as they have every other major athletic or academic 

question that has faced our 11 universities as a league over the years; 

namely, by carefully considering the myriad relevant factors and 

ultimately bringing to bear the wisdom that we believe should be 

expected of persons entrusted with the governance of our member 

universities. We are confident the decisions that they have made 

concerning postseason football are best for the members of the Big Ten, 

and believe they are consistent with the interests of Division I-A as a 

whole. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 
23

 [The prepared statement of James E. Delany follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. DELANY, COMMISSIONER, BIG TEN CONFERENCE

 Chairman Stearns, Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: My name is Jim Delany, and I am Commissioner of the Big Ten Conference. I have 

held that position for the last 16 years. Before assuming my current duties, I was Commissioner of 

the Ohio Valley Conference for 10 years. I also served on the NCAA enforcement staff and, before 

beginning my career in intercollegiate athletic administration, served as counsel to the Judiciary 

Committee of the North Carolina Senate and as an attorney in the North Carolina Department of 

Justice. During my college days, I played basketball at the University of North Carolina under 

Coach Dean Smith. That was a wonderful experience for me, enabled me to get a first-rate 

education, and prepared me to seek a law degree, which I also received from North Carolina. As a 

student-athlete, I twice had the opportunity to play in the NCAA Final Four, although the 

tournament was quite a bit smaller in those days. I understand the thrill of competing for a national 

championship, and although we did not win a national championship while I was at North Carolina, 

playing in the Final Four was among the highlights of my athletic career. I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak with you today about the post-season in Division I-A college football and to 

share with you the views of the Big Ten Conference about that subject. 

I. The Big Ten’s relationship with the Rose Bowl 

 The Big Ten’s perspective on post-season football is rooted in the history of college bowl 

games. The connection between members of the Big Ten Conference and the bowl system is as old 

as the bowls themselves. The University of Michigan played Stanford in the first Rose Bowl game 

in January 1902 and began what has been for our institutions a long and treasured relationship with 

the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association. Since the 1946 season, with a few exceptions in 

recent years, the champion of the Big Ten Conference has been invited to play annually in the Rose 

Bowl against the champion of the Pacific-10 Conference. It would be difficult to overstate the 

significance of that relationship to our conference, our member institutions individually, and our 

student-athletes and fans. By the 1920s, the Rose Bowl was well-established not only as a major 

sporting event in the United States, but also as a part of the nation’s New Year’s Day celebration. 

The opportunity to compete for an annual berth in that game has fostered the development of 

football programs at Big Ten institutions and added great excitement to our conference 

championship race over the years. Not only does the Rose Bowl relationship permit our champion 

to play in a renowned post-season football game, but our student-athletes, coaches, and fans are able 

to enjoy the many activities of the Tournament of Roses. In short, the Rose Bowl is far more than a 

football game; it is a great life experience, particularly for the student-athletes who are fortunate 

enough to participate. We are proud of our association with the Rose Bowl and grateful for the 

many benefits that it has brought to our conference. 

 At the same time, we like to believe that the Big Ten has helped the Rose Bowl build its 

tradition of excellence. We annually have sent our champion, which is generally a highly ranked 

and highly regarded team, to play in the game. Our fans have traveled great distances and in great 

numbers to the game, not only lured by the many events hosted by the Tournament of Roses and the 

warm weather of Southern California, but driven by great loyalty to and love for their favorite 

institution. Each year our alumni and fans purchase ten of thousands of tickets, fill numerous hotel 

rooms, and support the local community by taking part in all aspects of the Tournament of Roses 

celebration. The quality of our champion and the support it garners have helped the Tournament of 

Roses command broad national interest. That, in turn, has made the Rose Bowl game attractive to 

television networks and generated revenues that have been returned to the participating conferences 

and sustained a number of charitable endeavors of the Tournament of Roses over the years. 

 Over the last 58 years, the Big Ten has consistently nurtured its traditional relationship with the 

Rose Bowl. In fact, until the mid-1970s, the Big Ten did not send any teams to bowl games other 

than the Rose Bowl. This was not because we did not have deserving teams; our conference runner 

up was often ranked among the top ten teams in the nation and occasionally among the top five. Yet 

our presidents, chancellors, and athletic administrators had such great admiration and affection for 

the Tournament of Roses and such a strong desire to make sure that our student-athletes’ first aim 

was to win a Big Ten championship that we, as a conference, simply chose not to send nonchampions to other bowl games, no matter how attractive those other games or how highly regarded 

our non-champion teams. While I believe that the loosening of that rule in the 1970s was good for 
24

our conference and a great benefit to our student-athletes who play on excellent teams that are not 

fortunate enough to win our conference title, it remains the case today that a Rose Bowl berth is the 

focal point of our conference race. 

 Of course, in the late 1990s, we decided to participate in the Bowl Championship Series 

arrangement. To do that, we had to alter our traditional relationship with the Rose Bowl in two 

ways. First, we had to amend our agreement with the Tournament of Roses to permit our champion 

to play in another bowl if it were ranked first or second in the nation and the national championship 

game was slated to be in another bowl. Second, in fairness to the Tournament of Roses, we had to 

agree to permit the Rose Bowl the opportunity to host a national championship game once every four 

years. That means that our champion will not play in the Rose Bowl when the national 

championship game is there unless it is ranked first or second. 

 While I believe that the decision to participate in the BCS was in the Big Ten’s best interest and 

has been healthy for college football, it came only after a long and difficult debate among our 

member institutions. Some believed that our relationship with the Pasadena Tournament of Roses 

Association and the Rose Bowl game was too important to our conference to justify any tinkering. 

In the end, we agreed to the changes needed to make the BCS and its benefits possible, but the 

presidents and chancellors of Big Ten institutions considered the adjustments to the Rose Bowl 

relationship to be substantial sacrifices that could only be justified because: (1) they would produce 

an annual national championship game and (2) they were not likely to cause any significant harm to 

the Rose Bowl. Our presidents and chancellors remain committed to the Rose Bowl, are 

appreciative of its contributions to the Big Ten and to college football broadly, and have consistently 

stated that they do not wish to see the post-season in Division I-A altered in any manner that would 

have a negative impact on what they believe to be one of great institutions of intercollegiate 

athletics. 

II. THE BIG TEN’S VIEW ON A MULTI-GAME, NFL-STYLE PLAYOFF 

 With the Rose Bowl relationship as backdrop, it is relatively easy to understand the position of 

the institutions of the Big Ten on a multi-game, NFL-style playoff for Division I-A college football. 

Our presidents and chancellors have consistently opposed the implementation of such a system and 

done so publicly, as have the presidents and chancellors of the member institutions of the Pacific-10 

Conference and the Southeastern Conference. It is perhaps not surprising that these two conferences 

have taken positions similar to that of the Big Ten on this issue. The Pacific-10 Conference has had 

a longer relationship with the Rose Bowl than the Big Ten. With two exceptions since the beginning 

of the BCS arrangement, a current member of the Pacific-10 has played in every Rose Bowl game 

since 1920. No doubt the members of the Pacific-10 have the same admiration and respect for the 

Rose Bowl as the members of the Big Ten. The Southeastern Conference is similarly situated with a 

bowl partner. It has had a long relationship with the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans that, in many 

respects, mirrors the Big Ten’s relationship with the Rose Bowl. 

 Aside from their venerable football traditions and a history of superlative teams, coaches, and 

players, each of these conferences is similar in that a bowl relationship has occupied a central 

position in the conference’s history and development. Those bowl connections have helped those 

conferences reach the levels of excellence that they have attained over the years. University 

administrators, alumni, and fans have great affinity for these games and have continued to support 

them year after year. Certainly no one in the Big Ten is anxious to see the implementation of a postseason system that is incompatible with or harmful to the bowl system. That is not to suggest that 

the presidents and chancellors of our conference or any other league are inflexible. We in the Big 

Ten, as well as the representatives of other conferences, have always been open to new ideas and 

approaches if they are consistent with the overall objectives of intercollegiate athletics and will 

improve college football. That is why the Big Ten ultimately agreed to participate in the BCS 

arrangement, notwithstanding the need to adjust our traditional relationship with the Rose Bowl. 

 A multi-game, NFL-style playoff for Division I-A, however, presents substantively different 

concerns that are significantly more problematic for the Big Ten than the changes required to make 

the BCS a reality. While the BCS arrangement required some incremental and, from the Big Ten 

perspective, important alterations to traditional post-season matchups, a multi-game playoff would 

require fundamental structural changes that, in our view, do not serve the interests of the bowls, 

student-athletes, the Big Ten Conference, or college football as a whole. The reasons that our 

presidents and chancellors have opposed such a playoff are generally the same as those offered by 

proponents of the bowl system generally, but they bear repeating here because our special 

relationship with the Rose Bowl, we believe, makes those concerns concrete and compelling in a 

way that abstract discussion does not. 
25

A. A Multi-Game, NFL-Style Playoff Will Likely Harm The Bowls. 

1. It Is Not Clear That The Bowl System Can Survive Adoption Of A Multi-Game, NFLStyle Playoff. 

 As I have previously stated, the Big Ten Conference has taken great pride in its relationship 

with the Rose Bowl over the years and has done everything that it could to preserve and nurture the 

vitality of that game. While the Rose Bowl is the longest standing of our bowl relationships, we 

value our ties with each of the bowls that annually hosts one of our teams. Often our runner up 

teams play in one of the other fine bowls that are part of the BCS arrangement – the Fiesta, Orange, 

and Sugar Bowls – and even those teams from our conference that do not qualify for a BCS game 

enjoy the experience of post-season play. For example, we have been fortunate to have a long 

relationship with Florida Citrus Sports, the host of the Capital One Bowl in Orlando. That game has 

provided many of our student-athletes with a rewarding and memorable post-season experience. We 

regularly send teams to play in other fine bowls around the country as well. This year, seven Big 

Ten squads have qualified to play in bowl games. That means that approximately 700 of our 

student-athletes will have the opportunity to compete in the post-season and to enjoy the many 

attractions of the various communities that annually host bowl games. 

 A multi-game, NFL-style playoff will inevitably affect the bowl system. While we prefer to 

focus on the many benefits that the bowls provide, it would be naïve to ignore the fact that bowl 

games have an economic component and that the host committees are independent organizations that 

must respond to their own economic imperatives. Much of the money that makes bowl games 

economically viable comes from television and sponsorships. A multi-game, NFL-style playoff is 

likely to siphon off the vast bulk, if not the totality, of the television and sponsorship dollars that are 

now supporting the bowl system, as the media and fan attention is drawn away from the bowls and 

focused squarely on the playoff games. The result, we in the Big Ten fear, would be the demise of 

some number of bowl games and perhaps the entire system itself. 

 The suggestion is often made that a multi-game playoff could be married with the bowl system 

in such a way to achieve both the goal of an undisputed national champion and preservation of the 

bowl games. In our view, there is no workable way to accommodate such a playoff format within 

the confines of the bowl system. The two systems are incompatible and operate with entirely 

different philosophies, a point that I further discuss below. But logistical considerations alone amply 

demonstrate that any melding of the bowls with a multi-game playoff format is not feasible. Bowls 

attract teams and fans to distant cities and offer many activities and events designed to cater to their 

interests and provide an enjoyable and memorable experience for all participants. One of the reasons 

that bowls often enter into relationships with specific conferences is predictability. The bowl can be 

certain that a particular conference will provide an attractive team with an energetic fan base that 

will travel to the game site. That predictability is lost with a multi-game playoff format. Fans 

cannot be expected to travel to various locales around the nation on a weekly basis during the month 

of December. Bowls hosting playoff contests cannot plan in advance because they will not know 

until one week before the game who will be participating. The inevitable result will be that early 

round playoff games will be played at the home field of one of the competing institutions and only 

the championship game will be played at a neutral site. That is exactly how the NCAA football 

championships and NFL playoffs operate. There is no reason to believe that Division I-A football is 

immune from the realties that impel every other national football playoff to adopt such a format. 

 Perhaps of greater concern, however, is that attempting to turn the bowl games into playoff 

contests will inevitably alter the character of the bowls. As I have noted, the bowls are not merely 

venues for football games; they are events that are built around football games or that include games 

as the centerpiece of a larger celebration. Again, the Tournament of Roses provides a good example. 

The Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association began in 1890, some 12 years before the first Rose 

Bowl game was played. While the Rose Bowl game is a wonderful part of the Tournament of Roses, 

it is not the only event that draws many people. Every New Year’s Day, millions tune in to watch 

the annual Rose Parade in Pasadena. Television coverage is extensive, and many participate in the 

festivities. Although athletic administrators tend to focus on sporting events, for many, the Rose 

Parade is synonymous with New Year’s Day. Tournament of Roses officials, however, cannot be 

expected to shift the dates of the Rose Parade around annually to accommodate the needs of a 

Division I-A playoff. Other bowls with signature events attached to them will face exactly the same 

difficulties. Either the playoff will force the abandonment of such events or the decoupling of them 

from the games. In either event, a unique feature of the bowls will be lost. 

 Part of the great attraction of the bowl system is that coaches, players, and fans spend several 

days in a locale enjoying the hospitality of the host community and taking in the region’s attractions 
26

and flavor. Bowl committees are able to make these events work because many volunteers and local 

organizations support their activities. That reliance on community assistance and volunteer labor 

means that bowls must bend to the realities of the calendar. If the connection between the game and 

the surrounding activities is severed, then the ability of the bowls to attract the scores of volunteers 

necessary to stage the game will be significantly compromised. Coaches, who will rightly be 

worried about advancing to the next round of the playoffs, will not be interested in taking their teams 

to a city well in advance of a game, especially if there are no other activities associated with the 

game. There will be no particular reason for fans to travel to the bowl site, even assuming that their 

pocketbooks and schedules will allow such travel. In short, the bowls will become mere game 

venues. That has never been the sum of the bowl experience, but it is a likely outcome of any 

attempt to shoehorn a multi-game playoff system into the bowl structure. It is doubtful that many 

bowl games could survive under those circumstances, and certainly the presidents and chancellors of 

the Big Ten have not been willing to gamble with one of the great traditions of college football on 

such a long-shot approach. 

2. Alternative Playoff Formats Pose Substantial Difficulties For The Big Ten. 

 We are often asked whether some other approach using the bowl system, short of a multi-game, 

NFL-style playoff, might be a suitable means of determining a national champion. For example, 

there are some who suggest that a single game played after the regular bowls – a so-called “Plus 

One” model – could be incorporated into the bowl system so that a national champion can be 

crowned when there are three or more unbeaten teams or once-beaten teams at the end of the season 

that all have arguable claim to the title. Again, this option may be more attractive in the abstract 

than in its implementation and, in the view of the presidents and chancellors of the Big Ten, could 

potentially affect the bowl system in many of the same ways as a multi-game, NFL-style playoff. 

 Last year provides a good example of some of the difficulties with a “Plus One” approach from 

the Big Ten perspective. Unbeaten USC was the Pacific-10 champion and ranked number 1 at the 

end of the 2004 season. Oklahoma and Auburn were ranked 2 and 3 respectively and were also 

undefeated. To varying degrees California, Texas, and Utah could also claim to be among the top 4 

teams in the nation. Setting aside the difficulty of choosing a fourth team, a challenge that could 

conceivably be surmounted, there remains a substantial issue about how teams are slotted into bowl 

games and which teams are affected. 

 Michigan was the Big Ten champion in 2004 and was ranked 12th in one poll and 13th in the 

other at the end of the regular season. That was one of the lower-ranked Big Ten champions in 

recent years, but nonetheless, Michigan had a very fine squad. Consistent with our relationship with 

the Rose Bowl and our commitment as part of the BCS arrangement, we expected that our champion 

would play in the Rose Bowl game, which it did. While Michigan did not have the opportunity to 

play top-ranked USC, as it would have had there been no BCS arrangement, we in the Big Ten 

understood that was a possibility and were willing to accept that contingency in the interest of 

making a national championship game possible. Michigan played a very highly regarded Texas 

team in the Rose Bowl in what turned out to be one of the greatest Rose Bowl games ever played – a 

game that was decided on a field goal as time expired. 

 A post-bowl championship game in 2004, however, would have had a substantial impact on the 

Big Ten Conference. Because USC was ranked number 1 and was champion of the Pacific-10, it 

would have been slotted to play in the Rose Bowl. Presumably, Oklahoma and Auburn would have 

played against one another in a different bowl game. There is simply no way to resolve the national 

championship question in a Plus One model without pairing those two teams in a game. But the far 

more difficult question and the one that has direct impact on the Big Ten is: Who does USC play in 

the Rose Bowl? On the one hand, an unbeaten Utah or once-beaten Texas and California squads, all 

of which had better records and were ranked higher than Michigan, could claim some entitlement to 

play against USC. Moreover, Oklahoma and Auburn could both say that as a matter of fairness USC 

should have to play against a highly ranked opponent in order to advance to the post-bowl 

championship. After all, why, they might argue, should USC get to play a 12th ranked Michigan 

when the number 2 and 3 teams must play against other in order to advance to the championship? In 

short, the so-called “Plus One” model, if it is to provide an undisputed national champion, appears to 

necessitate a seeding of teams and slotting in bowl games accordingly. But that is precisely the 

problem for the Big Ten in this scenario and why any “Plus One” arrangement poses significant 

concerns to our presidents and chancellors. 

 The Big Ten was willing to participate in the BCS arrangement and to alter its relationship with 

the Rose Bowl in a manner that it believed was good for college football and would not harm its 

relationship with the Rose Bowl. We agreed to play in another bowl when our champion was ranked 
27

1 or 2 in order to facilitate a national championship game. That permitted our champion to play for a 

national title, but we also noted that we would be depriving the Rose Bowl in that situation of a 

highly ranked and attractive team. In recognition of the Rose Bowl’s sacrifice in that circumstance, 

we also agreed that our champion would not play in the Rose Bowl every fourth year, unless it was 

ranked 1 or 2, so that the Rose Bowl could be certain of hosting a national championship game. We 

did not agree – and the Tournament of Roses did not ask us to do so – to vacate our slot when our 

champion would have ordinarily played in the Rose Bowl. Had that been a condition of our 

involvement in the BCS arrangement, I seriously doubt that our presidents and chancellors would 

have approved our participation at that time. As I noted, some of our member institutions felt that 

even the changes that we did make were too great. A “Plus One” format would potentially call on 

the Big Ten to make a substantially greater sacrifice with a far more significant impact on our 

conference and its member institutions. I cannot say that our presidents and chancellors would never 

consider the alternative. As I noted, we are always open to new ideas and approaches. But as of 

today, any iterations of the “Plus One” concept that have been bandied about in the media would not 

satisfy the test that the Big Ten presidents and chancellors have historically applied when addressing 

our relationship with the Rose Bowl. Unless the substantive issues that are posed by the “Plus One” 

format are resolved in a way that meets that test, I believe that it would be difficult for the Big Ten to 

support such an alternative. 

B. A Multi-Game, NFL-Style Playoff Is Inconsistent with the Goal of Maximizing PostSeason Opportunities for Our Student-Athletes. 

 A close corollary to the Big Ten’s concern about potential harm to the bowls is our fear that a 

multi-game, NFL-style playoff will reduce the number of post-season opportunities for our studentathletes, coaches, and fans. This year, some 700 football players at Big Ten institutions will 

compete in post-season bowl games. Many will visit areas of the country in which they have never 

traveled and be offered first-rate hospitality from bowl committees and their armies of volunteers. 

While we have only one conference championship and one Rose Bowl berth to offer, we routinely 

turn out multiple ranked teams. Because the record of our teams against non-conference opposition 

in recent years has been superb, we will often have a substantial majority of our teams finishing the 

season with winning records. 

 The presidents and chancellors of Big Ten member institutions have been concerned about 

maintaining post-season opportunities for as many of our teams as possible. A broad-based bowl 

system furthers that goal. This year, we are fortunate to place two teams in the BCS bowl games. 

Penn State, our conference champion, will travel to Miami for the Orange Bowl game, and Ohio 

State will play in the Fiesta Bowl in Tempe. In addition, we expect to have runner up teams in the 

Capital One Bowl in Orlando, the Outback Bowl in Tampa, the Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, the 

Sun Bowl in El Paso, and the Music City Bowl in Nashville. We also often are able to place a team 

in the Motor City Bowl in Detroit. Each of these bowls offers a distinctive experience for our 

student-athletes, and we are not anxious to see any of them jeopardized by a multi-game playoff 

structure. 

C. A Multi-Game, NFL-Style Playoff Would Have A Detrimental Impact On The Regular 

Season In The Big Ten And In All Of College Football. 

 The concern about the impact of a multi-game playoff on the regular season in college football 

cannot be overemphasized. Among major sports in the United States today, college football stands 

alone in crowning its champion based almost exclusively upon regular-season performance. 

Protection of that unique regular season has been a significant concern of the presidents and 

chancellors of the Big Ten. 

 I have spoken about our historical relationship with the Rose Bowl and the place that it has in 

our conference. The Rose Bowl, however, cannot be separated from our regular season 

championship race. The first goal of every Big Ten team is a conference championship. I suspect 

that the same is true in other conferences as well. Not only does a Big Ten championship carry with 

it a berth in the Rose Bowl, but it has been a prerequisite for any of our teams with national 

championship aspirations. The same is true of other conferences as well. While I have not made an 

exhaustive study of the issue, since 1970, no team that was a member of a conference has won a 

national championship in Division I-A football without first winning its conference title. Therefore, 

a conference championship in Division I-A football remains a stepping stone to a national title. 

 The Big Ten has benefited greatly from this emphasis on conference championships. Our 

regular season games have been attractive to fans who regularly pack our stadiums and to 

broadcasters who telecast those contests around the nation. We have traditional end-of-the-year 
28

rivalries, such as Ohio State-Michigan, that are of great interest, not only to fans of Big Ten 

institutions but also to fans across the country, precisely because they often have considerable 

bearing on our conference championship and thus the national picture as well. A multi-game playoff 

format, however, will transform a season-ending showdown between an unbeaten Ohio State and 

unbeaten Michigan into a game over playoff seeding. The regular-season game will not have nearly 

the same significance in determining the national championship as it does today, especially given the 

prospect that the same teams might meet again in a few weeks in a game that has arbitrarily been 

invested with much greater significance. Today, the regular season functions as a lengthy 

elimination tournament. Therefore, every game is important. The presidents and chancellors of Big 

Ten universities do not believe that alterations to the post-season structure that dilute the significance 

of the regular season are beneficial to the Big Ten as a league or to college football generally. 

D. The Bowl System Is Consistent with the Academic Missions of Big Ten Universities. 

 Over the years, much has been written about the impact of intercollegiate sports on the 

academic missions of the nation’s colleges and universities. Many have been critical of major 

college sports in general, and Division I-A football in particular, for what are perceived as variances 

between the values espoused by the nation’s colleges and universities and the actual operation of 

major college athletic programs. I cannot address these criticisms here, although I believe most of 

them to be unfounded. Nonetheless, these criticisms do have a useful function in framing the debate 

about post-season football. That function is to remind all of us who have the privilege of serving in 

intercollegiate athletics – from presidents and chancellors, to conference commissioners, athletic 

directors, and coaches – that we are not engaged in a purely athletic endeavor. College football is 

not an amateur version of the National Football League, no matter how often that analogy might be 

trumpeted. Rather, college football is football in the academic tradition. The job of Big Ten 

institutions is not to turn out superb athletic teams but to educate young men and women and prepare 

them for the challenges that lie ahead. 

 The presidents and chancellors of Big Ten institutions are keenly aware of their responsibilities 

not merely as overseers of athletic departments but as stewards of the educational institutions 

entrusted to their care. Their first duty is not to the fan or sports columnist who desperately desires 

finality to the national championship picture in college football but to the students who attend their 

respective universities and, by extension, to their parents who sacrifice to pay tuition, and in most 

cases, state taxpayers who provide substantial support for our institutions and rightfully expect that 

the core academic missions of Big Ten universities will be each administration’s overriding concern. 

At bottom, then, decisions made by Big Ten presidents and chancellors concerning the format of 

post-season football, the needs of their various universities, and the priorities that they wish to 

establish for themselves as a league reflect considered educational judgment. Given the competing 

interests that they must balance and the numerous factors that they must weigh, I believe it is 

virtually impossible to second-guess their conclusions. 

 If, as some of our critics have charged, college football has strayed too far from the original 

model envisioned for amateur athletics in the academic tradition, then we hardly hasten a return to 

that model by expanding the Division I-A post-season to a multi-game, NFL-style playoff format. 

If, on the other hand, we have hewn to the aims that have animated intercollegiate athletics at least 

since the founding of the NCAA, as I believe we have, then there is no reason to tamper with the 

delicate balance that has been struck. 

 A final word need be said about money. Critics of college football line up on both sides of this 

issue. Some claim that the bowl system persists and is not jettisoned for a playoff format because 

the bowl system enriches certain conferences. That allegation is preposterous. The amount of 

money that could be generated by an annual college football playoff dwarfs the revenues that are 

derived from the bowl games. Thus, were money the motivating factor, the bowl system would have 

been abandoned many years ago. 

 Other critics have said that college football is not maximizing its revenues by maintaining the 

bowl system. That statement may or may not be accurate. Any prediction about whether overall 

revenues would increase by the adoption of a playoff must also account for any reduction in 

revenues from regular season football as a result of its relative decline in importance in the national 

championship picture. I do believe, however, that a multi-game playoff would be immensely 

popular with television networks and sponsors and would generate substantial revenues. The Big 

Ten presidents and chancellors are fully aware of the economic potential of a college football 

playoff. Yet they have consistently opposed a multi-game, NFL-style playoff notwithstanding its 

revenue-generating potential. 
29

 In sum, the Big Ten presidents and chancellors have resolved this issue for the conference as 

they have every other major athletic or academic question that has faced our 11 institutions as a 

league over the years – namely, by carefully considering the myriad relevant factors and ultimately 

bringing to bear the wisdom that we believe should be expected of persons entrusted with the 

governance of our member universities. We are confident that the decisions that they have made 

concerning post-season football are best for the members of the Big Ten and believe that they are 

consonant with the interests of Division I-A as a whole. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Khayat. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee--I 

apologize. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee--am I on the 

microphone? 

 MR. STEARNS. I don't think your button is on. Well, I don't know. 

Just bring it a little closer, maybe. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Okay. Am I on now? 

 MR. STEARNS. That is perfect. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Okay, sir. 

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, ladies and gentlemen, I am Robert Khayat and for the past 11 

years I have served as chancellor of the University of Mississippi. I join 

my colleagues in thanking you all for this opportunity to talk about a 

matter of national interest. My comments are my own. I have really not 

been licensed to speak for any particular group, but I, of course, have met 

with the Southeastern Conference presidents and chancellors, 

Commissioner Mike Slive, who is with us, and with the presidential 

oversight committee for the BCS. Over the past three years, we have had 

numerous meetings, conference calls, communications of different sorts, 

and the comments I make will be influenced by those experiences. They 

will also be influenced by my personal experience. I was a college 

athlete, a scholarship athlete, who played in two Sugar Bowls and a 

Gator Bowl, and then in professional football. So I have had some 

experience with the subject we are talking about today. 

 As you know, the BCS was organized, really, with one goal in mind, 

and that was to try to determine a national champion for Division I-A 

football. With 117 schools involved in the process, it is important to 

note, that although these schools are NCAA members, the BCS is not an 

NCAA organization, and sometimes members of the public get confused 

about that point. What I will try to do is summarize for you all the 

perceptions regarding the issues and concerns and opportunities that we 

discussed in the oversight committee and in the Southeastern 

Conference, and I am going to try to avoid being redundant with the 

comments that others have made. 

 I can tell you that without exception, and in the face of cynical 

comments, the presidents and chancellors were unanimous in asserting 
30

and believing that our first concern must be protecting the academic 

integrity of our universities. We are opposed, without exception, to any 

erosion of our primary mission, which is providing high-quality 

educational opportunities for all of our students, including our student 

athletes. If you saw the article in the New York Times this week about 

University High School, which enables athletes to, apparently by 

correspondence and without physically appearing at a school, receive 

enhanced GPAs and grade reports, you know that there is reason for 

concern about protecting academic integrity. When you think about the 

amount of money that is being spent on the arenas, on the support 

facilities, training facilities, on the compensation levels of the athleticsrelated personnel, then you quickly note that athletics can easily drive the 

universities. In my opinion, and I think the opinion of every university 

president in America, that would be a terrible mistake, because we do 

exist primarily to provide educational opportunities. Athletics enhance 

what we do. And if they are integrity-based and properly managed, then 

they can bring great value to a university. But athletics out of control 

can be very detrimental to a university. 

 We were concerned about some of the items mentioned by 

predecessors. First and foremost, in the Southeastern Conference, we are 

concerned about our conference. Ole Miss is a charter member of the 

Southeastern Conference. The University of Mississippi athletics 

department is an auxiliary. It is self-supporting. Our budget would not 

be sustainable without our participation in the Southeastern Conference. 

So we are very sensitive about protecting the Southeastern Conference. 

We are sensitive about the Southeastern Conference championship 

football game. It is so popular in the southeast, that in April the arena is 

sold out before anybody knows who the teams are going to be. We have 

relationships with eight bowls. Having played in bowls, I can tell you 

that of all of the college football games, high school football games, and 

professional football games that I played in, most vividly I remember the 

Sugar Bowl in January 1958, the Gator Bowl in December 1958, and the 

Sugar Bowl in 1960. Those games stand out. So for these college 

athletes from these schools who go to these 28 bowls, the bowl 

experience is going to be probably the event that they are going to 

remember most from their college football years. 

 With regard to the financial issues associated with bowls, we have 

been in seven bowls in the 11 years I have served as chancellor, and only 

in the Cotton Bowl did we break even with regard to the expenses related 

to participation. That is not to suggest that a lot of money doesn't pass 

when you move to the BCS levels of the top four bowls. I would say to 

you that, as we talked about the Bowl Championship Series at the 

Southeastern Conference level, we had a lengthy discussion about it. 
31

And our presidents came down—there are 12 of us—eleven expressed 

openly that they would prefer to terminate the BCS. Completely 

terminate it, go back to the pre-BCS arrangement, than to move toward a 

playoff system. I look forward to answering your questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Robert Khayat follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT KHAYAT, CHANCELLOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF 

MISSISSIPPI

 Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen: 

 I am Robert Khayat, Chancellor of The University of Mississippi. Thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss with you a matter of national interest. Please know that my 

comments are my own and I am here in an individual capacity. Nothing I say is intended 

to be representative of the SEC or of the Bowl Championship Presidential Oversight 

Committee. 

 The BCS has as its sole reason for existing an effort to determine annually the 

National College Division IA football champion. There are 11 conferences, Notre Dame, 

and 116 other universities that now comprise the BCS. The BCS is not an NCAA 

organization, although each member of the BCS is a member of the NCAA. 

 It was my privilege to serve as the SEC presidential representative to the BCS 

Presidential Oversight Committee. Along with Commissioner Mike Slive, I participated 

in numerous meetings and conference calls regarding the status and future of the BCS. 

 I will attempt to summarize for you my perceptions regarding the issues, concerns, 

and opportunities discussed at these sessions. 

 1. The presidents and chancellors were unanimous in asserting and believing that our 

first concern must be protecting the academic integrity of our universities. All of us are 

opposed to any erosion of our primary mission – providing high quality educational 

opportunities for all of our students, including our student athletes. 

 2. All of us are committed to protecting and strengthening our conferences. The 

SEC enables 5000 student athletes to compete in 20 intercollegiate sports annually and to 

have opportunities to pursue meaningful academic program. For most of us, football 

provides funding for all sports – men and women. 

 3. In the SEC we conduct an annual football championship game in Atlanta. The 

people of the southeast place a high value on that game. Proof of its importance is found 

in the fact that the arena is sold out in the spring before anyone knows who the two teams 

will be. 

 4. Each of the universities is eligible to participate in post season bowls. Many of 

the conferences have relationships with more than one bowl. 

The NCAA has certified 28 bowls. The communities that host those bowls are heavily 

invested in the annual games. College football players never forget the experience of 

bowl participation and university officials know that bowl participation adds great value 

to the life and reputation of the schools. 

Members of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee repeatedly expressed the 

importance of protecting and strengthening the bowls. 

 5. The current BCS format seeks to place the #1 and #2 teams in the end-of-season 

rankings in the BCS game. The site of the game is rotated among the Orange, Sugar, 

Fiesta, and Rose Bowls. 

 6. Following the 2006 bowl games, the format anticipates that the end-of- season #1 

and #2 teams will play the BCS championship game one week after the new year’s 

weekend bowl games. That game is scheduled to be played at Miami, New Orleans, 

Tempe, and Pasadena. Therefore, each of these cities will host their traditional bowls and 

every four years the BCS game will be played at one of these sites. 
32

This format was agreed upon by the entire BCS Oversight Committee. 

 7. As you know, there is a great deal of discussion about a national playoff structure 

that would extend football season well into January. It is my belief that most if not all 

presidents and chancellors oppose a playoff format for several reasons: 

a. The season would be extended into January and, therefore, intrude upon the 

spring semester at most schools and the basketball seasons at all schools. 

b. There is no reason to believe that a playoff format would produce an 

undisputed national champion. For example, note that what has become the 

Final Four first had a 16-team format that evolved to 32 teams, then 64 teams, 

and now 65 teams. 

c. We quickly confront conflict with the first six points above if we move to a 

playoff system. 

d. It is believed that if we pursue an NFL style playoff, some of the uniqueness 

of college football will be lost. 

 8. There are a number of presidents and chancellors who would prefer to terminate 

the BCS rather than compromise academic integrity, the strong traditions of our 

conferences, or reduce the importance of traditional bowl games. 

 Perhaps I should end my opening and try to respond to your questions. 

MR. STEARNS. I thank you, Doctor. And I understand that you 

played for the Redskins. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Yes, sir, I did. 

 MR. STEARNS. From 1960, I guess, to 1963. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Yes, sir. 

 MR. STEARNS. And that was an illustrious group of individuals. I 

have a got a list of some of the players there that have gone on to better 

and bigger things. So it is nice to have sort of a person who has played 

for the Redskins to testify. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Thank you. When you are short on football talent, it 

is nice to have other things that you can do. 

 MR. STEARNS. Right, I got you. Mr. Junker, welcome. 

 MR. JUNKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my 

name is John Junker and I serve as president and chief executive officer 

of the Fiesta Bowl. 

 MR. STEARNS. And I think I need the mic just a little closer, and I 

think you have it on, don't you? 

 MR. JUNKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. Yes, there you go. 

 MR. JUNKER. My name is John Junker. I serve as president and chief 

executive officer of the Fiesta Bowl and the Insight Bowl in Tempe, 

Arizona. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to 

offer a perspective of our work and the nature of our business and our 

efforts to serve our customers and college football. I am in my 25th year 

of work at bowl games, which has included my current service at the 

Fiesta Bowl and Insight Bowl, as well as service previously at the Sun 

Bowl, the Nation's second oldest bowl game. I hope that my service at a 
33

variety of different bowl games in different markets will provide the 

subcommittee with helpful insights. 

 I approach our work together today believing that we are unanimous 

in our intentions to preserve and improve the treasure that college 

football has become to the players, coaches, fans, communities, and bowl 

games who make our sport possible. As some of you may be aware, the 

Fiesta Bowl, now a BCS member and one of the four largest bowl 

games, has not always enjoyed its current stature. We began as the 

Nation's smallest bowl game in 1971. Interestingly, our first broadcast 

contract was for a meager $500. Despite these modest beginnings, 

volunteers in Arizona, by the thousands, have embraced the Fiesta Bowl 

and Insight Bowl step by step. They have helped to ensure its financial 

success. In our early years, many college football programs were willing 

to take a risk and participate in a lesser known bowl game, and in so 

doing provide us the opportunity to serve their postseason needs. Of 

course there have been occasions when the Fiesta Bowl was the recipient 

of some old-fashioned good luck in its ability to assemble some 

remarkable football games. In my opinion, the single most important 

factor in the Fiesta Bowl's success has been its ability to retain and 

exercise local control of our product. Not unlike other businesses, ours is 

a business that must have the expertise and flexibility to respond to the 

needs of our customers in a swift and efficient manner. 

 In the limited universe of college football bowl games, I firmly 

believe that the 28 bowl game volunteer boards and managers are best 

suited to respond in different but effective ways to their customers. 

Although I won't claim perfection, I will tell you that independent 

business units that are represented by bowl games are by their nature 

very effective at serving the interests of our customers and the athletic 

conferences and other member universities who utilize our service. 

Simply stated, the current model of 28 bowl games serving the interest of 

56 universities may at times appear to be complex and imperfect, but that 

really is the nature of a marketplace where local control is most evident. 

In reality, they manage to independently serve the interests of varying 

customers in a multitude of different ways quite effectively. Our 

nonprofit organization manages, as I told you, both the Fiesta Bowl, 

which has hosted five national championship games, and the much 

smaller yet very important Insight Bowl. Teams contending for national 

championship games will always have a place to play, and our 

community hopes to continue in that tradition. But it is the team working 

to build their football programs who most need to access bowl-based 

postseason activities. 

 What is now our Insight Bowl was once a bowl destination for 

Kansas State University, when their legendary coach, Bill Snyder, was 
34

meticulously attempting to build the winner out of a football program 

that the Nation's media reasonably labeled the worst in the land. Coach 

Snyder was effusive in his praise of the importance of that bowl game to 

his work and its importance to his entire university. It worked too. Bill 

Snyder engineered what many observers say is the greatest turnaround in 

college football history, and he made Kansas State a consistent winner. 

And winning a bowl game, however humble the reputation of that game, 

is an important watermark for college football programs struggling to 

gain momentum and build for a successful future. 

 Texas and Southern California will square off in a championship 

game in less than a month. It will be a great event. But Texas and USC, 

or their successors, as championship contenders, will always be well 

provided for in any system, because they are the best and the brightest of 

a particular season. Equally important, however, is that college football's 

postseason continue to offer the invaluable postseason experience to 

deserving programs and colleges who may not ever have the resources to 

compete in the national championship game. A perfect example is our 

upcoming Insight Bowl. This game will feature six and five Arizona 

State against seven and four Rutgers. This is only the second bowl 

appearance for Rutgers University in their history. And Arizona State 

had to kick a last second field goal to qualify. I promise you, those 

teams’ appearance in our young but growing bowl game is just as 

important to those programs as is a national championship game to Texas 

and USC. 

 It is the local control of our enterprise that enables 28 different bowl 

games to address the very different needs of universities and their 

football programs that are a wide variety of positions on the success 

curve. I remain unconvinced that a college football playoff system 

would take care of the needs of fledgling programs because of the 

propensity of a centralized business approach that a playoff system 

would represent to simply address the needs of only the winningest 

programs in our sport. 

 Local control of bowl games is important for one final reason. Last 

year, the Fiesta Bowl donated nearly $400,000 to various charities in our 

communities, including our role as the State's largest sponsor of the 100 

Club, the organization that supports the charities to serve the families of 

fallen firefighters and police officers, as well as dozens of other local 

charities, including nearly $100,000 in scholarship awards. In a system 

that involved local control and participation by a large number of 

volunteers, bowl games have been effective community stewards in 

participating in hundreds of charitable endeavors. Communities that 

support bowl games in turn support, not just the sport of college football, 
35

but dozens of deserving community-based charities. These points 

conclude my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to appear. 

 [The prepared statement of John Junker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN JUNKER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

FIESTA BOWL

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is John Junker and I 

serve as President and Chief Executive officer of the Fiesta Bowl and the Insight Bowl in 

Tempe, Arizona. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to a 

perspective of our work and the nature of our business in our efforts to serve our 

customers in college football. I am in my 25th year of work at bowl games that has 

included my current service at the Fiesta Bowl and Insight Bowl, as well as service at the 

Sun Bowl--the nation's second-oldest bowl game. 

 I hope that my service at a variety of different bowl games in different markets will 

provide the subcommittee with insights helpful to the subject under consideration. 

While it is likely that a subject so broad and colorful as college football and its postseason will evoke many varying and even conflicting opinions, please accept my 

gratitude for interest in our efforts. To learn of your concerns and possible ways to 

improve our work, as well as to share with you some of our demonstrated successes at 

nurturing and growing the sport of college football and its postseason. While we may not 

be in agreement on all issues, I approach our work together today believing that we are 

unanimous in our intentions to preserve and improve the treasure that college football has 

become to the players, fans, and communities who make our sport possible. 

As some of you may be aware, the Fiesta Bowl has not always enjoyed its current 

stature. We began as the nation's smallest bowl game in 1971. Our first game featured 

Arizona State University vs. Florida State University and our payout was, at the time, a 

record for a first-year bowl game of $168,000 per team. Interestingly, our first 

broadcast contract was for a meager five hundred dollars ($500.00) for our game's radio 

rights. Despite these modest beginnings, people in Arizona, by the thousands, have 

embraced the Fiesta Bowl and step by step helped ensure its financial success. In our 

early years, many college football programs were willing to take a risk and participate in 

a lesser-known Bowl game and in so doing, provided us the opportunity to serve as their 

post-season host. Of course, there have been occasions when the Fiesta Bowl was the 

recipient of some “old-fashioned good luck” in its ability to assemble some remarkable 

football bowl games. 

In my opinion, the single most important factor in the Fiesta Bowl’s success has been 

its ability to retain and exercise local control of its product. Not unlike other corporate 

entities, ours is a business that must have the expertise and flexibility to respond to the 

needs of our customers in a swift and efficient manner. In the limited universe of college 

footbalI bowl games, I firmly believe that the 28 bowl game volunteer boards and 

managers are best suited to respond in different but effective ways to serve their 

customers. As a student, I often heard my political science professors state the maxim, 

“all politics are local” when describing the method by which decisions are most 

effectively made. And although I won't claim perfection, I will tell you that that 

independent business units that are represented by bowl games are by their nature, very 

effective at serving the interests of our customers at the athletic conferences or other 

member universities who utilize our services. 

 Simply stated, the current model of 28 bowl games serving the interests of 56 

universities may at times appear to be complex and imperfect, but that is the nature of a 

marketplace where local control is most evident. In reality, they manage to 
36

independently serve the interests of varying customers in a multitude of different ways 

quite effectively. 

 Our non-profit organization manages both the Fiesta Bowl, which has hosted five 

national championship games, and the much smaller, but yet very important Insight 

Bowl. Teams contending for national championship games will always have a place to 

play and our community hopes to continue in that tradition, but it is the teams working to 

build their football programs who most need access to a bowl-based post-season. 

What is now our Insight Bowl was once the bowl destination for Kansas State 

University when their legendary coach Bill Snyder was meticulously attempting to build 

a winner out of a football program that the nation's media reasonably labeled the worst in 

the land. Coach Snyder was effusive in his praise of the importance of that bowl game to 

his work and its importance to his entire university. It worked, too--Bill Snyder 

engineered what many observers say is the greatest turnaround in college football history, 

as he eventually made Kansas State a consistent winner and bowl participant. And 

winning a bowl game, however humble the reputation of that game, may be an important 

watermark for college football programs struggling to gain momentum and to build for a 

successful future. 

Texas and Southern California will square off in a championship game in less than a 

month; and it will be a great event, but Texas and USC, or their successors as the 

championship contenders, will always be well-provided for in any system because they 

are the best and the brightest of a particular season. Equally important, however, is that 

college football’s postseason continue to offer the invaluable postseason experience to 

deserving programs who may not ever have the resources or talent to compete in a 

national championship game. 

A perfect example of this circumstance can be found with the Insight Bowl. This 

Bowl game will be held on December 27th and will feature 6-5 Arizona State against 7-4 

Rutgers. This is only the second appearance for Rutgers University in their school's 

history, while Arizona State had to kick a last-second field goal to qualify for play in our 

bowl. I promise you, that those team's appearance in our young but growing bowl is just 

as important to those programs as a national championship game is to Texas and USC. 

It is the local control of our enterprise that enables 28 different bowl games to 

address the very different needs of universities and their football programs that are at a 

wide variety of positions on the success curve. I remain unconvinced that a college 

football system would take care of the needs of fledgling programs because of the 

propensity of centralized business approach that a playoff system would represent to 

simply address the needs of the winningest programs in our sport. I find the current bowl 

system that allows for a variety of different needs to be met for a variety of different 

customers to be much more appealing. 

My last point that I would request for your kind consideration is the fact that the 

current bowl system, once again, under local control, contributes not only revenues to 

benefit participating universities with their scholarships for non-revenue sports, but also 

contributes millions of dollars to numerous local deserving charities. 

Last year, the Fiesta Bowl donated nearly $400,000 to various charities in our 

communities including our role as the state's largest sponsor of the 100 Club, the 

organization that supports the charitable needs of fallen firefighters and police officers, as 

well as dozens of other local charities, including nearly $100,000 in scholarship awards. 

In a system that involves local control and participation by large numbers of volunteers, 

bowl games are effective community stewards in participating in hundreds of charitable 

endeavors. Communities that support bowl games in turn support not just the sport of 

college football, but dozens of deserving community-based charities. 

These points conclude my remarks and I stand ready to serve your needs as I also 

communicate the thanks for our volunteers and community overall to you for the 

opportunity to appear today. 
37

MR. STEARNS. Thank you. And Mr. Johnstone. 

 MR. JOHNSTONE. Good morning, Chairman Stearns and members of 

the committee. My name is William Johnstone. I am a 40-plus year 

volunteer member of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association. I 

served as president in 1996 and 1997, and I currently chair the Rose 

Bowl Management Committee, which is a committee consisting of 

members of the Pac-10 Conference, the Big Ten Conference, and the 

Tournament of Roses Association. It is charged with the responsibility 

of managing the Rose Bowl game. I appreciate very much being 

extended the privilege of appearing before this committee this morning, 

and after my prepared remarks, I will be happy to answer any questions 

that you have to the extent of my ability. 

 The written statement which has been submitted to your 

subcommittee presents first the history of the Tournament of Roses and 

the Rose Bowl game. This was not done just from the standpoint of 

historical interest, but rather from a perspective of explaining and 

emphasizing the significance of the Rose Bowl game to the purpose of 

the tournament in presenting to the world what we call America's New 

Year's celebration. Such presentation has been going on for 116 years 

and this coming January 2 will be the 117th year. 

 I would like to make one correction to the written statement that I 

submitted, if I might. On page two I said that since 1923, 83 consecutive 

postseason college football games have been played in the Rose Bowl. 

Considering the fact that today is December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, I 

focused on the fact that in 1942, in January 1942, some three weeks after 

the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the game was shifted to Durham, 

North Carolina. And although it continued to be a Rose Bowl game, it 

was not played in the Rose Bowl. That game was played between Duke 

University and Oregon State University. 

 My written statement also focuses on the reasons for and the 

importance of the association of our Rose Bowl game with our 

conference partners, the Big Ten and Pac-10. That 58-year association 

has stood the test of time, and has only increased in its vitality as the 

years have passed. From every measurement, whether from an 

attendance standpoint, television ratings, economics, television rights 

fees, reputation, human interest, what have you, the Rose Bowl game, 

matching the champions of the Pac-10 Conference and the Big Ten 

Conference, is an integral part of our presentation of America's New 

Year's celebration on or about January 1 of each year. 

 Our written statement next discusses our relationship with the Bowl 

Championship Series, the BCS. By way of summary, we have no direct 

contractual relationship with the BCS, contrary to public opinion. We 
38

are not a BCS bowl. We can't control the BCS nor can the BCS control 

the Rose Bowl. We have our own independent broadcasting rights 

agreement with ABC Sports. It establishes the time spot on January 1 or 

January 2, when the first occurs on Sunday at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Coast 

Time in Pasadena. We impose our own limitations on commercial 

contents of the bowl and game. We do not allow a title sponsor. We 

establish our own visitors contract for teams appearing in our game. We 

intend to continue that policy. 

 Because our conference partners are members of the BCS and want 

their champions to be able to play for the national championship, we 

have accommodated them by agreeing to release a number one or two 

team to play in the BCS national championship game. In return, the 

Rose Bowl is designated the site of the national championship game 

every four years. We, of course, have the best of all worlds this coming 

year, as we have the national championship game and the conference 

champion of one of our two conferences playing in that game, and nearly 

a second conference champion in Penn State. Should the underlying 

relationships and assumptions that we have remain the same with the 

BCS, we will continue to release a number one or two. If they change 

without our consent, we are free to disassociate the Rose Bowl from the 

BCS. 

 Finally, our written statement addresses the subject of college 

postseason football playoff system. We believe that a playoff system 

with assigned teams on assigned days would adversely affect the 

tradition of our presentation of America's New Year's celebration, and 

the economic vitality it brings to Pasadena and the greater southern 

California area. We could not support any system which would diminish 

the prestige and luster of the Rose Bowl game, or work toward 

elimination of playing the Big Ten and Pac-10 Conference champions on 

or about New Year's Day in Pasadena, California each year. Moreover, 

while we will leave any discussion of the mechanics of a playoff system 

to others to comment on, it is very difficult for us to envision a playoff 

system which would not undermine our New Year's tradition. Thank you 

very much. I will be happy to answer questions. 

 [The prepared statement of William Johnstone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, CHAIRMAN, ROSE BOWL MANAGEMENT 

COMMITTEE

On behalf of the Rose Bowl Management Committee, we thank you for the invitation 

to testify before your Subcommittee at a hearing entitled “Determining a Champion on 

the Field: A Comprehensive Review of the BCS and Postseason College Football.” 

Before we address the subject matter of the hearing, we feel it would be beneficial for 

you to know some of the history of the Rose Bowl, its current status in postseason college 

football, and its relationships with the Bowl Championship Series (“BCS”). 
39

HISTORY

The Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association was founded in 1890 by citizens of 

the City of Pasadena, California, for the purpose of presenting a floral pageantry on New 

Year's Day in celebration of the beautiful weather in Southern California at that time of 

the year. Its members are volunteers and currently number 935. The celebration drew 

instant recognition, and visitors from the colder climates in our country journeyed west in 

increasing numbers to experience the mild weather and participate in the celebration. In 

fact, because of the influx of citizens from the State of Indiana, Pasadena was often 

referred to as the “Indiana Colony.” 

Partly to compliment the floral pageantry and partly to secure financial support for 

the parade and other activities, the concept of sponsoring a sporting event developed. In 

1902, the first postseason college football game in the United States was played at 

Tournament Park in Pasadena, between the University of Michigan and Stanford 

University. Subsequent to that game, and partly because of the thrashing of the West 

Coast representative (49 – 0), other sporting events, such as ostrich races and chariot 

races, were held in lieu of a football game. In 1916, postseason college football games 

were once again initiated. In the early 1920's a bowl was constructed in Pasadena, and in 

1923 the now famous Rose Bowl hosted its first game, pitting the University of Southern 

California against Penn State. Since that time 83 consecutive postseason college football 

games have been played in the Rose Bowl. The forthcoming game, to be played on 

January 4, 2006, between the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked BCS teams, for the BCS National 

Championship, will be the 92nd Rose Bowl Game. 

Until 1946, the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association selected the participants, 

which consisted of teams throughout the United States playing a Pacific coast football 

champion. 

In 1947, a partnership was entered into among the Pasadena Tournament of Roses 

Association, the Pac-10 Conference, and the Big Ten Conference for hosting the 

champion of those two Conferences on New Year's Day at the Rose Bowl. Since then, 

the champions of the Pac-10 and Big Ten Conferences have played in 56 Rose Bowl 

Games. 

Prior to this partnership, the Rose Bowl was never sold out. From 1947 to the 

present the Rose Bowl has been a contractual sell out every year. 

The Rose Bowl is unique in many respects. It is the oldest college football 

postseason Bowl game in the country. It is also the largest Bowl, with a current 

attendance approximating 93,000 fans, and, prior to accommodation of the Americans for 

Disability Act and incorporation of theatre-type seating in a portion of the Bowl in 1999, 

its seating capacity (and attendance) exceeded 100,000. 

The Rose Bowl is also unique in its partnership with the Pac-10 and Big Ten 

Conferences. No other Bowl has such an arrangement. Since establishment of such 

partnership, the management of the Game has been undertaken by the Rose Bowl 

Management Committee consisting of representatives from the three Partners. Because 

of this partnership arrangement, the Bowl is a contractual sell out every year. Also 

because of this arrangement, the Rose Bowl Management Committee is not structured to 

sell tickets to the public. 

The alliance of the Tournament of Roses, the Big Ten Conference and the Pac-10 

Conference did not occur by happenstance. The Pac-10 Conference is, of course, in 

geographic proximity to the Rose Bowl, hence a natural partner. Geography also plays a 

roll in the Big Ten Conference partnership in the Rose Bowl. There is a strong heritage in 

Southern California tied to the Midwest. From statistics we have been shown through the 

years, there are more alumni from Big Ten schools located in the Southern California 

area than in any other location in the United States. Through the 58 years of our 
40

contractual arrangement with the Big Ten, Midwesterners have shown themselves willing 

to travel to Pasadena to participate in what we refer to as “America's New Year 

Celebration.” Our grandstands are always full, our matchings are always strong, and our 

television ratings consistently either the highest or among the highest in the country. As 

a result of all of the above, the Rose Bowl commands the highest broadcasting rights fees 

of any college football game. 

RELATIONSHIP OF ROSE BOWL WITH THE BCS

The Rose Bowl Management Committee has no contractual relationship with the 

BCS. Contrary to popular opinion, the Rose Bowl Game is not a BCS Bowl. The BCS 

has no power to control the Rose Bowl Game or the Rose Bowl Management Committee. 

Conversely, the Rose Bowl Management Committee has no power to control the BCS, 

the BCS Conferences, or the organization and structure of the BCS. The Rose Bowl 

Management Committee has its own broadcasting rights agreement with ABC Sports, 

separate from the BCS. The Rose Bowl Management Committee believes it is important, 

and places great value on its efforts, to limit the amount of commercialization permitted 

in connection with the Rose Bowl Game, and, when played, the BCS National 

Championship Game. In that regard, the Rose Bowl Management Committee will not 

allow a title sponsor of the Rose Bowl Game. Distribution of net revenue from each Rose 

Bowl Game is in accordance with the existing Rose Bowl Agreement (between the Pac10 and Big Ten Conferences and the Tournament of Roses Association). 

 The Big Ten Conference and the Pac-10 Conference both are members of the 

BCS, and, as an accommodation to our Conference Partners who are interested in 

participating in a plan allowing their champion to play for the National Championship, 

the Tournament of Roses has entered into a relationship with the BCS, which permits a 

Big Ten and/or Pac-10 Champion to be released from the Rose Bowl to play in the BCS 

National Championship Game. In return, the Rose Bowl is designated as the site of the 

National Championship Game every four years. This relationship has existed since 1998. 

Assuming the underlying relationships and assumptions of the current structure, rules and 

policies of the BCS remain substantially the same, the Rose Bowl will continue to release 

a Pac-10 and/or Big Ten Conference champion to play in a BCS National Championship 

Game if rated one and/or two in the BCS ranking system at the end of each season. In 

addition to the regular Rose Bowl Games, the Rose Bowl will continue to host the 

National Championship Game between the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams at the end of 

each season, once every four year cycle. 

If the underlying relationship and assumptions regarding our affiliation with the BCS 

change without the approval of the Rose Bowl Management Committee, the Rose Bowl 

Management Committee reserves the right to disassociate the Rose Bowl Game from the 

BCS and to decline to host the BCS National Championship Game. 

 

POSTSEASON COLLEGE BOWL GAMES VERSUS A PLAYOFF SYSTEM

We have read the letter proposed to be offered into this Subcommittee's records by 

the Football Bowl Association. We concur wholeheartedly in the comments made 

therein. We believe a playoff system with assigned teams would undermine the essence 

of the Rose Bowl and its business relationships. We believe that any regular change to 

the Big Ten and Pac-10 Champions participating in the Rose Bowl Game will adversely 

affect the 117 years of the tradition of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association, 

both in our presenting America's New Year Celebration and in the economic vitality that 

it brings to the City of Pasadena and the greater Southern California area. We would not 

support any system that would diminish the prestige and the luster of the Rose Bowl 
41

Game or work toward elimination of our playing the Conference champions of the Pac10 and Big Ten on or about New Year's Day in Pasadena, California, each year. 

We leave to others the opportunity to comment upon the subject of the mechanics of 

a playoff system. Suffice it to say that in our view, we cannot envision a playoff system 

that will not undermine our New Year's tradition. 

Attached to the original copy of this letter is a brochure entitled “A Visitor's Guide to 

America's New Year Celebration” describing the events and activities that surround the 

forthcoming BCS National Championship Game. We are dedicated to preserve the 

tradition of the celebration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments at this hearing. We hope that 

each of you will be able to experience what millions of Americans have experienced, and 

participate in America's New Year Celebration with us in Pasadena, California. 

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Fox. 

 MR. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess, before I begin, 

Congressman Terry will be happy to handle your additional requests for 

tickets at the MasterCard Alamo Bowl, and bring more fans to San 

Antonio and Congressman Gonzalez's hometown of San Antonio. 

 MR. FOX. Chairman Stearns, Chairman Barton, and members of the 

subcommittee, my name is Derrick Fox and I am the chairman of the 

Football Bowl Association and also the president and CEO of the 

MasterCard Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, Texas. I am here today 

representing the 28 members of the Football Bowl Association, a group 

that includes every postseason bowl game. I have filed with the 

committee a lengthier testimony than I have time to share with you 

today, but I did want to make a few key points in my time before you. 

 The current bowl system, for whatever flaws it may have, is more 

than just alive. The slogan of the Football Bowl Association is, “where 

everybody wins.” And that in fact is the case. The fans win, the student 

athletes win, the institutions win, and the communities win. Any system 

that attracts more fans than the Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA 

finals, and the NHL Stanley Cup combined can't be all bad, and that is 

exactly what the current bowls do. Any system that attracts 27 percent 

more viewers than last year's Super Bowl must be doing something right, 

and that is exactly what the current bowls do. Any system that generates 

tens of millions of dollars annually for local charities, and some $1.1 

billion in annual local economic impact, must have value, and that is 

exactly what the current bowls do. Any system that this year will 

provide nearly $200 million, and over the next 10 years will pay $2.2 

billion to more than 100 institutions of higher education, serves a 

commendable and worthwhile purpose, and that is exactly what the 

current bowls do. Any system that allows student athletes at 56 

institutions to enjoy and relive what might be one of the highlights of 

their lives, deserves to be preserved, and that is exactly what the current 

bowls do. 
42

 Every year at this time, some newspaper columnists, some talk radio 

hosts, complain about the need for a national championship game and the 

need to create a playoff system that ostensibly would produce a national 

championship game every year. My friends from the Rose and Fiesta 

Bowls have talked about the BCS already, but let me talk about what 

would happen if the most commonly discussed format, the playoff 

system, using the existing bowls, was put into effect. The short answer is 

that the current bowl system, which serves so many different 

communities and interests so well, would collapse. Consider the 

following: neither fans nor institutions would travel to the bowl game 

sites on a vacation schedule the way they do today. The festive 

atmosphere that exists in 24 communities around this Nation in 28 bowl 

games would no longer exist. A 16 team playoff with 15 games would 

eliminate nearly half the existing bowls. Who is going to tell the 

MasterCard Alamo or the folks in San Antonio, Texas, or any of the 

other 24 communities, they may no longer be in business? 

 Because of the nature of the playoff system, the contest replacing the 

bowls would gravitate to the campuses of the schools playing. What 

happens to those bowl games which do not make the cut? Who replaces 

the funds that go to local charities that benefit from the local game? 

What replaces the economic activity at the game site? Who replaces the 

contributions that would go to the institutions which do not play? Do 

you think that by including 16 teams or eight teams or four teams or two 

teams, in any playoff structure, that you are going to avoid the question 

of who gets in? And who will make that decision? 

 Let me end today, Mr. Chairman, with a note about College Park, 

Maryland, the home of the University of Maryland Terrapins, and 

something that took place just 10 days ago. Maryland and NC State each 

had a five and five record when they met on November 26. There was an 

intense interest in College Park and in Raleigh. As a matter of fact, 

attendance was up 15,000 over the prior home game. Why? The winner 

of that game would become bowl eligible. NC State won the game and 

is going to the Meineke Car Care Bowl on December 31. Establish a 

playoff system and the Wolf Pack would be sitting at home on December 

31. The question boils down to this: Who benefits by such a system? 

 Mr. Chairman, no system is perfect. The bowls are not perfect and 

the Bowl Championship Series is not perfect. But certainly the concept 

of a Division I-A playoff is so rife with dangers for a system that has 

served collegiate athletics well for nearly 100 years. It is the system that 

works, which has and continues to benefit so many, and one that ought 

not be under attack. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

 [The prepared statement of Derrick Fox follows:] 
43

 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DERRICK FOX, CHAIRMAN, FOOTBALL BOWL ASSOCIATION,

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALAMO BOWL

 Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, and Chairman Barton, my name is 

Derrick Fox and I am the Chairman of the Football Bowl Association and also President 

and Chief Executive Officer of the MasterCard Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, Texas. I am 

here today representing the twenty-eight members of the Football Bowl Association, a 

group that includes every post-season Bowl game from the members of the Bowl 

Championship Series (BCS) to the smallest of the post-season events. They range in age 

from the Rose Bowl, which has been in existence for 92 years, to the three-year old Fort 

Worth Bowl. 

 Our association has been in existence for nearly a quarter century and we have grown 

as the numbers of Bowls has grown. 

 Your purpose in holding this hearing is to examine the possibilities and potential of a 

post-season college football playoff. My purpose in appearing before you today is to tell 

you that the current Bowl system, for whatever flaws it may have, is more than just alive 

and kicking. The slogan of the Football Bowl Association is “Where Everybody Wins.” 

 It is a system which benefits – in its current form – more than five thousand studentathletes, 11,000 band members, between 50,000 and 100,000 performers and millions of 

fans and community members. It is a system that attracts more fans than the Super Bowl, 

World Series, NBA Finals and NHL Stanley – combined. We did it last year and we will 

do it again – and probably better it – this year. To create a formalized post-season 

college football playoff, whether of 16 teams and 15 games or eight teams and seven 

games or even four teams and three games is to risk the destruction of the current system. 

 If you don’t believe the current Bowl Game system works, let me point to a specific 

circumstance right here in Washington (and in Raleigh, North Carolina) ten days ago. 

The University of Maryland and North Carolina State were playing in Raleigh on 

November 26. Each school had a 5-5 record. The winner of the Maryland-N.C. State 

game would go to a Bowl; the loser would go home. Think there wasn’t interest in that 

game? What would have been the importance of it without a Bowl Game invitation on 

the line? Think of the impact on that game and on those fans if there were no Bowl to 

which the winner might be invited and then think of the result of creating a post-season 

playoff. 

 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, let me describe to you first the 

current status of the Bowls and what they mean to the communities and schools and then 

what would happen with the advent of a post-season college football playoff. 

CURRENT POST-SEASON STRUCTURE 

 A total of twenty-eight post-season Bowl Games are played in twenty-four 

communities across the United States during the months of December and January. Four 

cities will host two games.1

 In the past year, these 28 games attracted just under1.5 

million fans, an average of 53,286, or 90% of capacity. Eleven of the games drew more 

than 100% capacity. And to those who say there is an overabundance of games, we note 

that average attendance went up last year. In fact, for games that have been in existence 

for at least six years, attendance has increased by 6.5% over that period. And of those 

games that have been in existence for six years, they sold 98.5% of their capacity. 

1

 In years past, Phoenix-Tempe, Orlando, and New Orleans have hosted two post-season Bowl 

games. This year, as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Atlanta will host two games, the Chick-Fil-A 

Peach Bowl and the Nokia Sugar Bowl, while the Wyndham New Orleans Bowl has been moved to 

Lafayette, LA. Also, this year the former Silicon Bowl in Fresno has become San Diego’s Poinsettia 

Bowl. 
44

 The opponents of the current Bowl Game system who complain about too many 

games on television don’t point to the fact that 109 million households watched games 

last year, 27% more than watched last year’s Super Bowl. It’s obvious that people want 

to watch the games. 

Benefits to the Communities 

 What does it mean to the 24 (or 25) communities where the games are held? For one 

thing, since virtually all the post-season Bowl Games are put on by charitable groups and 

since up to one-quarter of the proceeds from the game are dedicated to the community, 

local charities receive tens of millions of dollars every year. 

 Excluding the television and print exposure that these communities get, it has been 

estimated that the Bowl games generate $1.1 billion in annual economic impact. Fans 

make the Bowl experience a holiday experience, spending up to a week in the 

community, supporting post-Christmas business in hotels, restaurants, and visitor 

attractions. And this doesn’t even take into account events such as the Tournament of 

Roses Parade or other events, centered around the game itself. 

 For example, the estimated impact of Bowl Games ranged from nearly a quarter 

billion dollars from last year’s Rose Bowl to $4 million in Boise for the MPC Computer 

Bowl. 

 Moreover, the title sponsor or presenting sponsor of a Bowl Game frequently is a 

commercial institution headquarted in the host city, whose integration into the 

community – and vice versa – is enhanced by the game itself. 

Benefits to the Institutions 

 This year, 56 institutions will participate in Bowl Games. That’s 48% of Division 1-

A programs. Some of the opponents of the current system have complained that this is 

too many, but who is to make that judgment? What is wrong with rewarding winning 

teams with a post-season trip for the players and fans? Perhaps Auburn Head Coach 

Tommy Tuberville said it best in August, 2003: “I like the bowls because it rewards a lot 

of teams in college football... I’m totally against a playoff.” 

 (In fact, this 48% number should be compared to the teams that make the 

tournaments in men’s and women’s basketball – 20% -- and those that make the Division 

I-AA football playoffs – 13%.) 

 But the raw numbers of participants do not reveal the whole story. In the 2004-05 

Bowl Game season, $187.5 million was paid out to the participating institutions, many of 

whom, under conference rules, shared that payout with other schools. In other words, 

schools that don’t even qualify for the Bowls have a stake in Bowl Game revenue. In 

fact, more than 100 institutions shared in the Bowl Game payouts this past year. These 

team payouts generally are used to pay for scholarships for athletes in sports programs 

that are without broad marketplace support (i.e., “non-revenue sports”). Moreover, it’s 

expected that the payouts will increase to $193 million this year and, over the next ten 

years, it’s estimated that the Bowl Game payouts to institutions will total $2.2 billion. 

 Intangible benefits also flow to the institutions. Bowl Game appearances generate 

contributions to the institution and even increases in applications. From the Athletics 

Department standpoint, it can lead to additional season ticket sales, licensing income, and 

media exposure and contracts. 

Benefits to the Fans and Players 

 Fans that travel to the Bowl Games enjoy the spectacle of college football, often 

combined with a late-year vacation, whether it’s in Florida, Texas, California or any of 

the other ten states where Bowl Games are played. 

 But it’s not just those college football fans who revel in the Bowl Game experience. 

This past season, in addition to the 5,600 student-athletes, some 11,000 band members, 
45

and 1,100 cheerleaders, up to 100,000 halftime performers, plus alumni and 

administrators and all those in the host communities took part. 

 Playoff proponents argue that the only Bowl Game that matters each year is the BCS 

national championship and that no other Bowl Game matters. Such statements simply are 

not true. Student-athletes and coaches who are in any of the Bowl Games treat the 

experience as one of the most important of their careers. Winning a Bowl Game is a 

lifelong memory for players and coaches – as well as the fans – and it is a particularly 

meaningful experience for the young men who play college football. As Tommy West, 

the head coach at Memphis said so succinctly: 

 “To see our players and fans after the [New Orleans Bowl last year] ... well, you 

 can’t take that away. There’s nothing wrong with 28 teams being happy at the end 

 of the year.” 

 Likewise, anyone who criticizes the current Bowl Game structure should note the 

following comment from The Tampa Tribune this past January 1, before the WisconsinGeorgia Outback Bowl: 

“Maybe no one outside of Wisconsin and Georgia much cares who wins this game, 

but so what? A lot of people came to town, soaked up some sun, ate some good 

food, had a ball. At the end of it all, they play a football game and somebody wins. 

Actually everybody wins. Imagine that.” 

A PLAYOFF WOULD CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD 

 The uniqueness of what the current system of Bowl Games brings to college football 

would be lost by the institution of a playoff system. There are three basic approaches that 

have been suggested for a playoff: (a) a Division 1-A Playoff Tournament; (b) a Division 

1-A Playoff after the Bowls; and (c) a Division 1-A Playoff using the Bowls. No matter 

what system you chose, they are all flawed and the net result would be that the existing 

Bowl Game structure would simply disappear, along with the benefits, for all but a few 

teams. 

Division 1-A Playoff Tournament 

 Why not replace the current Bowl Game structure with a Division 1-A Tournament 

similar to basketball? Sixty-four teams – probably a number with losing records – would 

be more than the 56 teams which play currently in the Bowls. Such a proposal ignores 

the fact that a football team can play once a week, while basketball teams in the NCAA 

Tournament play twice a week, wrapping up the Tournament in three weeks of March 

Madness. The comparable size football tournament would be December-JanuaryFebruary Insanity. 

 More realistically, why not a 16 team playoff? By definition, you would cut out 

nearly half the game sites. Who is going to make the determination that my Alamo Bowl 

in San Antonio, in existence for decades, serving the local community and the college 

athletics community, can no longer be in business? 

 And if you think you have issues now with teams that are not playing for the national 

championship, multiply that by the fact that this year there are 19 teams with nine 

victories or more. Which three 9-2 teams – teams which won 82% of their games – are 

you going to eliminate from any post-season play? 

 Games would be played on campus, as fans would not travel in necessary numbers to 

multiple locations. Teams would treat it like a typical road game, flying in the day 

before, instead of a week prior. 

 The regular season in college football – the most important regular season of any 

college sport – would be undermined. A loss to an underdog or an early season loss to a 
46

rival would simply result in a lower seeding in the tournament. A team could afford to 

lose a couple of games and still win the national championship (as long as it made the 

playoffs), because like college basketball, the real season would be the tournament. 

Everything prior is just “positioning”; just get to the tournament and run off three or four 

victories and you are the national champion. 

 In today’s college regular season, every game is important if you aspire to the 

national title. Games in September can determine whether you have a shot. It intensifies 

every Saturday during the regular season, affecting everything from ticket sales to 

television revenue for these games. As one observer put it, “Division 1-A already has a 

playoff; it’s called the regular season.” 

 College administrators also point out that a Division 1-A playoff replacing the Bowl 

Games would mean more games creating more classes missed, more pressure on the 

players, and more commercialism in college football. 

 It’s no wonder that the vast majority of college presidents, directors of athletics and 

coaches do not favor a playoff. 

Division 1-A Playoff After the Bowls 

 A playoff after the Bowl Games is merely a prelude to the end of the current system, 

where all of the focus will be on those games. And if a four-team/three-game playoff is 

good, why wouldn’t an eight-team or 16-team playoff be even better? How will the 

teams be picked? Who will be left out? Suppose there are three undefeated teams and 

one with a 9-2 record; who is responsible for creating the matchups? Finally, if you had 

two undefeated teams going into the playoffs – as you had in 2002-03 (Miami and Ohio 

State) and this year (Southern Cal and Texas), why should those teams have to play an 

extra game to meet one another? 

Division 1-A Playoff Using the Bowls 

 There are those who attempt to strike a middle ground by saying they would create a 

Division 1-A Playoff, but would continue to use the existing Bowl Game structure. 

These people are living in a fantasy world. A playoff attempting to use the existing Bowl 

Game structure is doomed to failure and in itself dooms the current system, which has 

served collegiate athletics so well. 

 Dr. Myles Brand, the President of the NCAA and a former university president at 

Oregon, takes this view: 

“If you have a playoff, you threaten [the smaller bowls] as well as some of the midlevel bowls...[T]he bowl system gives a much wider ranger of opportunities for more 

student-athletes to be involved, more alumni and fans to celebrate. Not everyone has 

to raise their finger No. 1 to be part of a winning season and football right now.” 

 Consider the following with a proposed playoff using the existing Bowl structure: 

• How – and who? – will determine which Bowl Games will be the survivors to 

be made part of a playoff structure? 

• What happens to those Bowl Games who do not make the “cut”? Who replaces 

the contributions that would go to the institutions which do not play? Who 

replaces the funds that go to local charities that benefit from the local game? 

What replaces the economic activity at the game site? 

 Let’s assume that a 16-team, 15-game playoff structure is created. What is likely to 

happen to the current status: 

• First, nearly half the existing Bowls – the remaining 13 – will immediately 

suffer. It is comparable to the appeal of basketball’s National Invitation 

Tournament, which limped along in various incarnations after the NCAA 

Tournament expanded, until it was finally bought by the NCAA. 
47

• The remaining Bowls – those that are part of that playoff structure – themselves 

will change in nature. Except for one, they will all simply become a prelude to 

the championship game. The aura of Bowl week will no longer exist; 

• Host communities, faced with the loss of the Bowl Game ambience, will no 

longer turn out in support of the Bowl Game effort; 

• Fans won’t travel the way they do today. The 10,000-30,000 fans which might 

follow the team to a Bowl site today may wait to see if the team makes it into 

the championship. They won’t travel to the early games and certainly wouldn’t 

travel three weeks in a row; 

• If they do travel to the Bowl playoff site, they won’t spend the better part of a 

week there; rather a day or two would be the norm. This will not be the 

vacation journey that it is today; 

• Faced with the potential of significantly increased travel costs covering 

multiple weeks, the teams likely would arrive the day before a game, not spend 

the entire week at the Bowl site. It’s merely an away game; 

• Faced with the absence of Bowl sites, such a playoff would end up relying on 

campus stadiums sites of one of the participants, like professional football; and. 

• Non-playoff Bowl Games, reduced to a post-season-NIT-type of existence, 

would simply close down.

Playoff Financial Considerations 

 Everyone points to the “boxcar” numbers that a playoff would produce, ignoring the 

fact that the existing Bowl Game structure will produce nearly $200 million this year for 

the institutions and projects $2.2 billion over the next decade. A proposal made a few 

years ago offered $2.5 billion over a ten year period to take over the BCS Bowls and add 

a three-game playoff after the Bowls. The company that made the offer went bankrupt 

recently leaving its international business partners in the lurch. So much for boxcar 

dollars! 

CONCLUSION 

 No system is perfect. The Bowls are not perfect and the Bowl Championship Series 

is not perfect. But certainly, the concept of a playoff – as attractive as it may sound from 

the “experts” on Sports Talk radio this time of year – is rife with dangers for a system 

that has served collegiate athletics pretty well for the past nearly one hundred years. 

 It’s easy to express support for a playoff concept which has never been tested; all of 

your assumptions and theories work out perfectly. On the other hand, however, the 

Bowls have already withstood the test of time and have not been found wanting. 

 With the current structure of the Bowl Games, you protect the importance of the 

college football regular season and, as importantly, you have twenty-four communities 

committed to providing not just the financial support, but a quality experience for the 

thousands of players and fans who attend each Bowl Game. 

 The current Bowl Game system does reward over 5600 student-athletes, creates over 

$1 billion in combined economic impact to the host sites, donates nearly $200 million 

annually back to higher education, and gives millions more to charitable endeavors in 

their own communities. 

 It is a system that works well, benefits so many, and ought not to be under attack. 

 Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 
48
49
50
51

 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank the witnesses, and I will start off with my 

questions. Let me first of all ask unanimous consent to put into the 

record three letters, one that has been addressed to me from the ChickFil-A Peach Bowl, and the other to Ms. Bono from USC, and a third to 

Chairman Barton. With unanimous consent, so order and I will put those 

in. 

 [The information follows:] 
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

 

 MR. STEARNS. Let me just say, as preface to my questions, this 

subcommittee has the jurisdiction over sports. As Chairman Barton had 

mentioned, we have done a lot of substantive hearings, both in dealing 

with data security and spyware, privacy. We have had, I think, seven 

hearings on it, dealing with consumer protection and copyright 

protection. We also did a hearing on Homeland Security for those big 

football games where you have the possibility of planes flying overhead. 

We have obviously done hearings on steroids, which I think we have 

made some progress with baseball and football, dealing with boxing and 

of course sports, women's sports and Title IX. So we have huge 

jurisdiction. So in this case, when there is a lot of money involved, it is 

very perplexing how these bowl arrangements are made. In fairness, we 

think it is important, so we might adopt the Star Trek motto, to boldly go 

where no man has gone before, and that is why we are here today. To 

discuss something that is a little arcane, sort of a mist of mysticism and 

arcaneness in this process, and we are trying to figure it out. 

 But as a layman, if I look at this and I see, well, there are playoffs for 

baseball and basketball. So, Mr. Weiberg, this is your question. We are 

here because you say that you don't want to have a playoff because it 

dilutes revenues and the students' academics are affected. But in 

basketball, we have an NCAA playoff and then we also have it with 

baseball, and I am sure other sports. So the big question is, if that is such 

a problem, why is that we can have it in these sports, playoffs, so that we 

actually know who is the ultimate champion? 

 MR. WEIBERG. Sure. Well, the sport of football, I think, is unique in 

a number of ways. It is not a sport that lends itself well to a tournament 

structure. Sports like basketball, baseball, can play games on 

consecutive days in some cases, or with only one day off. In the case of 

the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, it is possible to conduct a 64 

team event over three weeks. Football would require a good deal more 

time for such a structure. 
62

 MR. STEARNS. Mr. Weiberg, doesn't Division I-AA football have a 

playoff? 

 MR. WEIBERG. We do. 

 MR. STEARNS. So wouldn't that hurt your argument in saying that-- 

 MR. WEIBERG. But again, I tried to mention in my statement that in 

the case of I-AA football, there are some substantial differences from I-A 

football. 

 MR. STEARNS. And now you were giving me the difference between 

baseball and basketball, but now you are giving me the difference 

between within football and football. 

 MR. WEIBERG. That is true. 

 MR. STEARNS. Which makes it a little difficult to understand, if you 

are talking about Division I-AA has a playoff, yet you seem to say that-- 

 MR. WEIBERG. But certainly, Congressman, it is possible to have a 

playoff. 

 MR. STEARNS. Right. 

 MR. WEIBERG. So don't misunderstand me. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. 

 MR. WEIBERG. It definitely is possible-- 

 MR. STEARNS. Yes. 

 MR. WEIBERG. -- to do it at the I-A level as well. We have chosen 

not to go down that path because of the value of our regular season. 

Because in I-A football, to move fans and teams from playoff site to 

playoff site, unless it is going to be conducted on campus, which then has 

a detrimental effect on the-- 

 MR. STEARNS. But they do it in AA football with no problems. 

 MR. WEIBERG. They do with much smaller, much smaller 

attendance, a much different structure. 

 MR. STEARNS. Let me ask this question of Mr. Delany. There has 

been some question that the players' welfare is one of your concerns as 

an issue. Why did you support the addition of the 12th game being 

added for the 2006 regular season, if we are concerned about the players' 

welfare and dealing with academics? 

 MR. DELANY. Well, the first thing is the 12th game, after 

considerable discussion with our coaches, our players, and other people 

on campus, it was determined that if they had their druthers, they would 

like to get rid of spring practice, since they feel like they practice too 

much and don't play enough games. And so we have a biweek. The 

question is, do you plan the biweek or do you sit and not plan a biweek? 

And after talking to the players, there was a sense that they would rather 

play than practice. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. Let me ask Dr. Khayat. Do you support the 

idea of an additional 12th game being added to the 2006 regular season? 
63

 MR. KHAYAT. I did not support it when we had those conversations. 

 MR. STEARNS. And so here we have them arguing that they need it, 

yet, as a college president, you would say it must affect the academics of 

the students, wouldn't you say? 

 MR. KHAYAT. I think that any expansion of player activity, whether 

it is practice or game responsibilities, will impact the academic programs 

of those students. I understood the reasoning for the 12th game. As I 

mentioned to you in my testimony, athletics is an auxiliary enterprise at a 

university and has to be self-sustaining financially. And with the number 

of nonrevenue sports, and with the Title IX sports that are so meaningful 

to our universities, it is necessary that football, in our case, generate 

enough revenue to support an entire athletics budget. 

 MR. STEARNS. So it is a combination of academics and revenue? 

 MR. KHAYAT. It is. 

 MR. STEARNS. Your idea. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Much like your work, we are constantly trying to 

balance this complex, comprehensive organization. 

 MR. STEARNS. Yes. I don't have the time, really, to argue the 

revenue side, but I can understand the student academics. Mr. Fox, what 

is your biggest fear of what I mentioned to Mr. Weiberg, of a playoff like 

the NCAA does for basketball and baseball? What is your biggest fear? 

 MR. FOX. Well, if you went to the playoffs, the bowl system as we 

have it now would no longer exist. You are talking about going to a oneday, much like a road game now. Teams would come in, at best, on a 

one-day turnaround, or more than likely they would go to the home 

campuses of the teams participating in those games, which not only 

changes the dynamic and the model of the bowl system we currently are 

under, but certainly change the competitive aspect from a coaches 

perspective as well, and probably some other revenue opportunities. 

 MR. STEARNS. My time has expired. Mr. Gonzalez. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And first of 

all, to commend Derrick Fox for the great work that you do at the Alamo 

Bowl. It is just a great success. And I know that I attend along with 

members of the family. We all look forward to it and it is going to be a 

great one this year. 

 The first observation I think that we need to make is, BCS is really a 

reaction to what has been going on in collegiate sports. It is totally 

different, and I know that Chairman Barton and I remember the good old 

days of Kern Tibbs and Humble Oil, remember, in the Southwest 

Conference. Well, we don't even have a Southwest Conference; and the 

merging of these conferences. And remember the old days, Chairman, 

when students could actually get tickets to go to the game. Instead, you 

find Chairman Barton and Charlie Gonzalez in those seats today. You 
64

know, things have really changed and that is the reality, and there is a 

huge financial stake for these universities. And some of it is not all bad, 

because I believe that that money does go for other athletic opportunities 

for many more athletes that, when we went to college, were not available 

for them. Title IX is a real great example of it. You know, how do you 

finance all of that? And so there is much more going on in these 

particular bowl games. 

 But the real question, I guess, comes down to, what would be 

different? Right now we are talking about playoffs. We are really 

concerned about trying to find the best teams at the end of this whole 

process, and the only way you could do that in a perfect world is to have 

these playoffs. Is there any argument today, and I know that we went 

over the formula and such, that the rankings would be any different if we 

reverted to the old way? I don't think that there would be. I think the 

rankings are the rankings regardless of whether we are using the 

computer or we go the old way and we have polls and have everybody 

else. What would be different is the pairings and where we have these 

individual teams and whether we would have what is a championship 

game today. Now, am I wrong in that assumption? And I will go--and 

we will go down the line. 

 MR. WEIBERG. Well, no, I think that is correct. You know, if we 

were to move back to the old bowl structure, in which conferences would 

make their arrangements directly with individual bowl games, the matchup that we have in this year's Rose Bowl, Texas versus Southern 

California, would not occur. Most likely, my conference, the Big 12, 

would have entered into an agreement with a bowl like the Orange Bowl 

or Fiesta Bowl, or perhaps the Cotton Bowl, and our champion would be 

designated to play theirs. So I think that that is the improvement 

associated with the current structure, that it gives us the opportunity to 

put different teams from different conferences together in a one-two 

game, but also to create other match-ups that probably wouldn't have 

occurred in the old bowl structure. 

 MR. DELANY. I will just comment. Three times in the last 10 years, 

the Big Ten has produced teams that have been ranked either one or two. 

In 1994, Nebraska was ranked one and Penn State was ranked two. 

Now, if there had been the computers at that time, Penn State would have 

looked pretty good on the computers, but not too good in the coaches 

poll and the writers poll. We never got a chance to play Nebraska, in the 

interest of, you know, a little smack talk in anticipation of the polls in 

San Antonio. You know, we would love the opportunity to play 

Nebraska, even though it is not Penn State versus Nebraska. In 1997, 

again, Michigan and Nebraska. No computers. The coaches voted one 

group. Michigan won. And the other group, Nebraska won. They never 
65

had a chance to play. That is one of the reasons we got involved with the 

BCS. We thought those games should be played. 

 Now there was a third-ranked team in both of those years, and I am 

sure they would have argued at that time that they should have the right 

to play. But the fact of it is, as we took a step away from the bowl 

system towards a one-two game, in order to avoid an eight team or a 16 

team or a 32 team playoff, because to some extent the public looks for 

the one-two. That is what America wants to know. Who is number one? 

We prefer to have that played out, for the most part, during the regular 

season. 

 We know there is some controversy around three and four and one 

and two, but I think what we have today is a step forward. But I think, as 

Dr. Khayat said and Bill Johnstone from the Rose Bowl, if the choices 

between a one-two game in the BCS or a series of NFL-styled tiered 

playoffs, we would prefer to go back where we were, and I think that has 

been the misunderstanding. The media and others have not been willing 

to accept the fact that we took a step forward, but we are not too 

interested in taking the next step. Thank you. 

 MR. KHAYAT. The only consistent theme in this conversation today 

has been the desire to identify a clear national champion, and to gain 

consensus on it among the public. Given our experiences in virtually 

every other athletics activity, that is unlikely to happen. This year we 

have these two undefeated wonderful football teams playing in the Rose 

Bowl, and perhaps there will be less disagreement and conversation 

about it. But you can bet that the people at Auburn last year and the 

people at USC the year before were not satisfied, and you all had made 

comments about that. So it seems to me a little futile to spend a lot of 

energy trying to gain some sort of national consensus about who the 

football champion is. As a matter of fact, I am not sure it is not a good 

idea to have two or three national champions. I am serious, so that the 

kids on those teams can be members of national championship teams. If 

memory serves me correctly, in 1959, Syracuse, LSU, and my university 

were all three selected as national champions by different selection 

groups. That was not so bad, and we weren't fussing about it. We didn't 

think we were better than Syracuse. We probably thought we were better 

than LSU, but we didn't know about Syracuse. But I don't think there is 

anything wrong with that. And the other presidents, when we talked 

about this in the BCS oversight meeting, the continuing comment was 

that BCS may fall of its own weight. It just may collapse, because we 

cannot accommodate the competing interests. Each of us who served on 

that committee received, I wouldn't say hundreds, but multiple detailed emails of the absolute perfect solution to the BCS designation. So I would 

be very comfortable, and our presidents would be comfortable, I think, if 
66

we decided we can't do this. Let us go back to the pre-BCS, but not a 

playoff. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Mr. Junker? 

 MR. JUNKER. Sir, I would briefly comment to Mr. Fox's earlier 

comment, and although I never played the game like Dr. Khayat, I have 

observed for 35 years, and been very close and observed players who 

have. And should we move toward a playoff system, Mr. Fox mentioned 

it briefly, but it is quite evident that the reward aspect of what a bowl 

game means to approximately 100 football players will be greatly 

damaged. And it is my feeling, very strongly, in observing the bowl 

game experience, it is something unique in sports, it is something that 

serves as a lifetime memory, and it is something that is well deserved by 

the young men who break their bones and spill their blood for the 

revenue necessary to fulfill all the needs that financially we have to, to 

fulfill obligations for Title IX, Olympic sports, and other things. And 

there is no question. As we add events, there will be a propensity to 

make it an abbreviated experience and simply an experience of what 

happens between the white lines on game day rather than an opportunity 

for young men to enjoy something very special in their lives. Thank you. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Mr. Johnstone? 

 MR. JOHNSTONE. Congressman Gonzalez, addressing your first 

observation, I am sorry. I did not bring any tickets to the Rose Bowl 

game for you, but perhaps we could talk after the hearing. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. I will meet you at Bullfeathers at 5:00. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. You got to be careful about an illegal gratuity, 

Congressman. 

 MR. GONZALEZ. Oh please. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. He has got to bring tickets for me, too, if he 

brings them for you. 

 MR. JOHNSTONE. The Rose Bowl was very comfortable with the 

situation before the BCS. And we as the Tournament of Roses were not 

pushing for such a system. And as I indicated in my remarks, we 

accommodated the wishes of our respective conferences. As we have 

gotten used to the BCS system, we find that, as a playoff system, it 

comes about as close as it can to permitting the existing bowl systems to 

continue as they are. In our situation, we have played up until this year 

three of four years on a regular Pac-10/Big Ten championship. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentleman's time has expired. If you could just 

make your comment, sum it up and then, Mr. Fox, sum it up quickly and 

we can move on. 

 MR. JOHNSTONE. I have said enough, then. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. Mr. Fox? 
67

 MR. FOX. I will make mine very brief. But I think one of the things 

that is important, and I applaud the BCS for allowing a mechanism 

within the current bowl structure to crown a one versus two game, which 

they certainly have done and done very well this year and I applaud them 

for that. I also keep in mind that there are 27 other bowl games that will 

have a chance, and 27 other teams that will end the year on a win, and 

they too will be crowned champions in their own honor, and that is not 

such a bad thing, as Dr. Khayat mentioned earlier. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Barton, the 

chairman of the full committee. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I 

want to thank all our witnesses for being here. But I guess my first 

question, and I am just puzzled, I want to ask my friend from the Big Ten 

why there are 11 teams in the Big Ten? 

 MR. DELANY. We can't count. Just can't count. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. It is hard to comprehend having a Big Ten that 

has 11 teams. But anyway, my college president friend from the 

University, I think it was the University of Mississippi, obviously an 

outstanding academic record, an outstanding athletic record. What was 

your major at the University of Mississippi? 

 MR. KHAYAT. I majored in history. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Majored in history. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Off the top of your head, do you know how 

many football scholarship athletes at the University of Mississippi are 

majoring in history this year? 

 MR. KHAYAT. I don't. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Do you want to make a guess? I would guess 

zero. 

 MR. KHAYAT. I probably wouldn't guess about it. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes. I just have a feeling that your era, when 

there truly were scholarship athletes as the general rule rather than the 

exception, it has been reversed. And so it is very difficult to have a true 

scholarship athlete today at a big-time college. Not impossible, but very 

difficult. 

 MR. KHAYAT. May I respond to that? 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Sure. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Actually, it depends on the commitment that you 

make to the academic integrity of your programs. The NCAA has taken 

steps, led by many of the people at this table, to ensure that there is some 

accountability in the academic area. There is no doubt that academic 

quality has been eroded. Programs like general studies, I would suggest, 

probably have little value. 
68

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I am all for college athletics and I am for 

big-time college athletics. The point I am trying to make is, you are an 

example of the way everybody thinks it still is, and it is just not. I mean, 

for a lot of good reasons it is not. But one of the reasons that is used 

against the playoff system, is because of the academic aspect. 

Obviously, this is why you go to college. And I would postulate that 

whether you have a playoff or not have a playoff really isn't going to 

impact on the academic experience. For example, and again, my friend, 

Mr. Weiberg from the Big 12, who is right now the coordinator for the 

BCS, the BCS is not affiliated directly with the NCAA. But, if we are all 

about academics, why would we not set a rule that you don't go to a bowl 

game if your graduation rate of your seniors, for some multiple period in 

prior years, is either not at least 50 percent or whatever the rate is of the 

academic body that you are representing? What would be wrong with 

that? 

 MR. WEIBERG. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are on that path, I think, to 

some extent. The NCAA has adopted academic reforms that I think will 

indeed end up penalizing some institutions for poor academic 

performance of their team, in a variety of sports that will take them out 

of postseason play. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am not going to name names of colleges, but 

my friend, Mr. Gonzalez, was talking about the old Southwest 

Conference, which the school that I went to was a proud member of. 

There was a year, and it wasn't like that long ago, one of the schools of 

the Southwest Conference, the old Southwest Conference, had no 

football scholarship athlete who graduated. 

 MR. WEIBERG. I think those days have-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. None. 

 MR. WEIBERG. --changed dramatically. I actually look at it-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. None. 

 MR. WEIBERG. --in the opposite way, as you have expressed it. I 

think that there is a much better path of academic performance. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. My point is that, you know, it just boggles my 

mind that in every other NCAA sport, every other college sport, they 

have a playoff. In all high school sports in most States--I just asked my 

friend from Nebraska, do they have a playoff system for high school 

sports in Nebraska? And he says they do. They do in Texas, you know. 

But for some reason, in NCAA Division I-A football, a playoff is a bad 

idea, and the testimony here today, you fine gentlemen have all gone 

around and around. We want to get as close to a playoff as we can 

without actually having a playoff. And then we get all of the reasons we 

can't do a playoff, academic excellence and all of this, but doesn't it 

really boil down that the major bowls, my friend at the Rose Bowl, the 
69

University of Texas is going to go to, and I hope I get to--after today's 

hearing, still be able to purchase a ticket to go. You know, my friend at 

the Fiesta Bowl, which is another of the major bowls, friends at the 

Alamo Bowl, where Texas A&M has gone to the Alamo Bowl in the 

past, and had a great experience. Is it that you guys just don't want a 

playoff system because you think it is going to impinge on the money 

that these, the big bowls actually make? Isn't that the real reason that we 

don't have a playoff system? And I yield to Mr. Johnstone, if he wants to 

respond to that. 

 MR. JOHNSTONE. Not from the standpoint of the Rose Bowl, 

Congressman. It isn't the matter of economics. As a matter of fact, the 

BCS system that starts in 2007 with the double hosting will preserve 

better for Rose Bowl games in four years. In addition, we have a fifth 

game, which will be a national championship game. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, I will let my friend from the Fiesta Bowl 

also comment on that. 

 MR. JUNKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would respond by saying 

first of all, that there is some truth that our communities do have a stake 

in this. They have participated, they have volunteered. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. And that is a good thing. 

 MR. JUNKER. They have funded and done it for many years. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. That is a good thing. The Cotton Bowl brings 

lots of money to Dallas and that is a good thing, not a bad thing. 

 MR. JUNKER. And we are grateful that stake is recognized. At the 

same time, in the case of our bowl, it has always been our policy that the 

state and shape of postseason football, is really owned by those 

stakeholders, which is those universities and their communities that own 

the sport and we felt strongly that it is their job to look at how the 

postseason should be handled and regulated and we feel very strongly 

that there has been tremendous research diligence paid as to the system 

that we have now and a great amount of work done by colleagues of 

people represented here. So it is not just the case of protectionism, by 

any case. It is a case of allowing the people in the marketplace closest to 

the product to help make those business decisions. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, if the NCAA would decide to impose or 

go to a playoff system in football, I-A, like they do the other sports, 

wouldn't it be possible to meld the playoff with the bowl system? 

 MR. JUNKER. It would be very difficult to foresee ways that that 

might operate, sir, but perhaps it would take one brighter than me to 

determine how that would work. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, we have got several plans that have been 

presented to the committee in preparation for the hearing that would 

indicate it could be done, so my time has expired. 
70

 MR. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield? As I mentioned earlier, 

they have playoffs in the Division I-AA and the Division I-AAA football 

and I asked Mr. Weiberg if he is making the argument that he can't have 

it in Division I-A because it is so much different than baseball and 

basketball, why is there so much difference between the AA and the 

AAA? 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Well, the only explanation that makes sense to 

me is that there is so much money in some of the major bowls that they 

somehow don't want to participate in a playoff structure, but I would 

postulate that the big bowls, Rose Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, the Sugar 

Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, I mean, pick your major bowl; the Orange Bowl. 

You can incorporate that with some sort of a rotational system like the 

BCS has and make it work and use all the lower bowls, the lesser pay-out 

bowls as part of your entry into the playoffs. But anyway, my time has 

expired. 

 MR. STEARNS. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Terry. Mr. 

Terry. Oh, the gentleman who is waiting on the Democrat side is not a 

member of the committee and we have decided to give him an 

opportunity to ask questions at the end of all the questions from you 

folks. 

 MR. TERRY. Appreciate that. I guess the fundamental question here 

is how do we eliminate or best encourage change so that what happened 

last year where you had three undefeated teams, that you don't have one 

legitimate team left out of the process and I think that is, you know, 

when you boil down to it, that is the ultimate question here. What 

happened this year where you have the two obvious teams that everyone, 

most everyone was picking as the top two teams going into college 

football ended up that way at the end of the season, so I guess I can say 

this year was kind of the anomaly that everything just kind of lined up. 

Is there a way, has the BCS folks discussed ways of manipulating, 

massaging the BCS so that if there are three or four deserving teams of 

the national championship who are having a shot, that you aren't, by 

artificial means excluding the Auburns or those and so since you are the 

BCS guy this year, you get a start with that answer. And by the way, I 

think the other valid criticism of the BCS is that it doesn't have the 

Dunkle index anymore since Mr. Dunkle is sitting in the back row. I had 

to throw that one out. Go ahead and answer. 

 MR. WEIBERG. Well, I remain interested, as I said in my statement, 

in looking at models and ideas for continued improvement of what we 

have. I think that the BCS is an improvement and I tend to agree with 

you that if we could find ways to address the question of whether the 

right two teams are playing for the championship, that it might be 

possible to have a broader consensus that the system works and is good 
71

for the sport. In order to do that, it seems to me, you really have to be 

willing to allow teams to play more than one game in the postseason. It 

is a rather simplistic notion, obviously, but I think you would really have 

to, at that point, look at things like one additional game and that raises 

other questions, of course, about then how do teams play to that one 

additional game, but I think the so called “plus one model” is one that 

deserves review and it is really not, as of yet, had a full opportunity for 

review. 

 When we went through the process in the last round of putting 

together plans for negotiation of the next four-year television contract, up 

to that point there had not been more than two unbeaten teams at season's 

end that were among the top four teams in the country. Subsequent, 

then, to the agreement to move forward with the package for a four-year 

period, we had the circumstance of last year in which we had three teams 

as has been pointed out. Auburn being the third ranked of those teams 

that were undefeated at the top. There were actually five unbeaten teams 

in that particular year, but my point is that there hasn't been a lot of indepth or serious consideration of that model, although it has been one 

that has been mentioned as a possible way to make improvement. 

 MR. TERRY. Anybody else on that specific? Just let us go down the 

line. 

 MR. DELANY. Thank you. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Excuse me. 

 MR. DELANY. I spent 10 years as commissioner of the Ohio Valley 

Conference, which is a I-AA conference that has a national football 

playoff, so I am not philosophically or morally opposed to a playoff. We 

had a relatively meaningless regular season from the standpoint of 

attendance; maybe 8,000 or 6,000 people would normally come to a 

game. There were no bowl opportunities. We tried to arrange bowl 

opportunities between the Ohio Valley Conference and the Southern 

Conference and play in the Liberty Bowl Memphis. Nobody was 

interested in that community in supporting that game. There were no 

television entities, no sponsorship, so the only way that the I-AA people 

could get any interest in the postseason was to create a playoff. 

 In 1979 it was four teams. In 1982 it was eight teams. In 1983 it was 

12 teams, then it was 16 teams that were subsidized from the television 

perspective. You are playing Middle Tennessee versus Delaware in 

Wichita Falls. You can imagine the crowd that draws. So you have a 

playoff system, because there is not community interest in a bowl 

system. I think the majority of people would prefer--now, the Ivy 

League doesn't play. They don't play postseason football, so they don't 

engage it. I spent six years on the Men's Basketball Committee and 

played in it as a student athlete at North Carolina. It started in 1939 as an 
72

eight team affair and then when I played in it, it was 24 teams in the late 

1960s. Then it moved to 32 and 48 and 53 and 64 and now 65 and there 

is discussion about adding another week, which include another 64 

teams. 

 The point of it is, is that it is an exorable, politically, an exorable 

result that once you start a playoff, there is always a number three team 

that feels left out. If you have a four-team, you will then have a fifth 

team. If you have an eight-team, you will have a ninth team. This is 

played out over and over and over again. I am sure there must be things 

that you do that lead to similar kinds of results. Once it is given, it can 

never be taken away and it tends to grow, you know, like it tends to 

grow, in a way that it is not controllable. So I think those are some of the 

reasons it does exist in I-AA. It is not impossible, but we have a system 

that is fairly workable in view of a lot of people, especially university 

presidents. 

 MR. KHAYAT. We do have an academic calendar we have in classes 

during football season. Many schools have examinations during 

December, assuming some sort of playoff might begin in December. 

Many schools have examinations in early January. If they have 

examinations before Christmas, school begins in January, or in our case, 

as a winter session. College basketball, men's and women's is underway, 

well underway in January and so anywhere you put this football playoff 

system, it begins to conflict with the academic calendar and with the 

other intercollegiate sports that we play. 

 The second concern is that football, as we all know, includes a certain 

amount of violence and physical contact and the bodies, as well as the 

spirits of athletes are frequently battered by December and to expand the 

number of games-- 

 MR. TERRY. Well, getting back to the question. The question is 

within the terms of the BCS, is there a way to massage the BCS so it 

wasn't just strictly a playoff question. It was within the realm of the 

current BCS. 

 MR. KHAYAT. Well, I would refer it to the knowledgeable people 

about that. 

 MR. TERRY. Okay. Because I like the plus one and that is where I 

was going. Fiesta. 

 MR. JUNKER. Mr. Terry, we are honored to have your Cornhuskers 

win a national championship in our game in the interest of football 

antics. 

 MR. TERRY. And I remind every one of my Florida friends about 

that. 

 MR. JUNKER. Well, however, there has been much talk today about 

Auburn University's experience last year and we are quite sensitive to 
73

that. They had a fine and deserving team, but I must confess my hurt 

feelings, that it is interesting we talk about these things and outcomes 

and plus ones, possibilities like that, but in our game we had the 

University of Utah and none of your colleagues today are represented 

from that great State. They were unbeaten. They had a fine team. They 

were ranked fifth, I believe, in the final poll, an unbeaten team. Now 

there is a plus one, now who should play USC? Should it be Auburn, 

should it be, oh, we need another game. We need another opportunity. 

 MR. TERRY. And was Boise State also undefeated? 

 MR. JUNKER. I believe, yes, they were. We had a case in our team 

represented who, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did happen to succeed in 

their game against Texas A&M. They succeeded against North Carolina, 

they succeeded against the big East champion, Pittsburgh. They had a 

fine season. And I guess the point is, to Mr. Delany's comment that 

attempting to eliminate controversy and attempting to continue to expand 

the system can lead to outcomes that can be devastating to our sport. 

 MR. TERRY. Anybody else? 

 MR. STEARNS. Gentleman's time has expired. 

 MR. TERRY. Yes, it has. 

 MR. STEARNS. Okay. Mr. Murphy. 

 MR. MURPHY. I guess I want to follow up a little bit on some of the 

discussions here about academics, because I can understand the concern 

about the academics and obviously, that is the key concern. When 

students are in college, we hope their key concern is to get a degree, 

which they can go on to work and not just simply use it as a showcase for 

the NFL draft. But I also know the schools spend a tremendous amount 

of effort on helping students. I mean, I am just amazed at, for example, 

Penn State, where I said my money goes and my daughter, what is done 

to help, but I also find this incredible what happens on college campuses 

where the football teams really serve as an inspiration for the students on 

so many levels. 

 I mean, it is almost an indescribable level of what happens there. 

And yet, I cannot help but think that so much this year, but in past years 

how it has been such a frustrating disappointment for so many schools 

because they would find themselves with what they thought was a 

winning record, an undefeated record and somehow left out in the lurch. 

But it brings me to this question. I am not sure if what, and we don't 

expect you gentlemen to come with a consensus here, but I am not sure if 

any of you are proposing just leave things as they are or it is too difficult 

and let us not move forward, that maybe we will try something in the 

future, or it is certainly, I hope you understood I was reading tongue in 

cheek that formula before, perhaps we could recommend that colleges 

would all have a required class to try to understand the formula. It would 
74

be great mathematical computer analysis, but it is--but I am wondering, 

are you suggesting, gentlemen, that you would--are you pushing for 

some reform on this? 

 I understand the difficulties with the demands on the athletes' bodies, 

the demands on academics, and we want the students first and foremost 

to graduate with a helpful degree, but where should we go from here? 

Where should Congress go from here? I open it up. Of course, I would 

like to hear from the head of the Big Ten. By the way, who led the Big 

Ten this year? Who--what team? 

 MR. DELANY. We had co-champions. Excuse me. We had cochampions. 

 MR. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like that struck from the 

record. With Penn State winning all tie-breakers and therefore-- 

 MR. DELANY. That is right. 

 MR. MURPHY. --our representative-- 

 MR. DELANY. I had included in my statement-- 

 MR. MURPHY. But I would like it if you could comment, though. 

 MR. DELANY. I will be candid and to the point on this. From the Big 

Ten's perspective, and when I talk about the Big Ten, I am talking about 

a super majority of presidents and chancellors, a super majority of 

athletic directors and football coaches. Those are the people that I 

interact with, either work with or work for. They will support what we 

have now. My sense is that if it expands beyond where it is, they would 

prefer to go back to the traditional Rose Bowl relationship. So on their 

behalf, I have to be clear and candid. Now, are there individuals among 

presidents who would consider a plus one? There are individuals, maybe 

an individual. And among athletic directors there may be an individual, 

but the super majority of people that I am speaking for here would either 

support the system we have here or move back to the traditional system 

if there is an effort to expand to something that looks like a slippery 

slope to them, a plus one that would then lead to an eight game, 16 game, 

12 game. They think that would be bad for-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. Mr. Murphy yield? 

 MR. MURPHY. Yes, I will yield. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am puzzled that there is such intense 

opposition to some sort of a multi-team playoff system. What is so 

slippery about that? 

 MR. DELANY. Okay, what is slippery about that? This is an 

interesting sort of position that people take. The faculty reached one 

conclusion based on one set of reasons. The football coaches reach the 

same conclusion based on a different set of reasons. The presidents and 

chancellors reach the same conclusion, but for different reasons, so it is 

not true that all the constituents that I work for or report to have the exact 
75

same reasons for reaching that conclusion. For us, it is the historic 55, 

57 year title, the Rose Bowl that is important. 

 It is the importance of the regular season; it is the interest in the 

multiple opportunities for many of our teams to play the bowl system. 

Ours is about the quality of our middle class. We understand that Penn 

State, Michigan and Ohio State have historically vibrant programs, but 

the key for us, is our regular season. In our whole approach to college 

football it is the health of all of our programs, and we think the overall 

health, the great teams will have an opportunity if there are one or two. 

We understand what it must be like to be Auburn or to be Southern Cal 

and not to be there when you rank three. That is a local and difficult 

political issue. 

 But for us, and we have had third ranked teams; we have had second 

ranked teams. We had Penn State, that was difficult for them not to be 

recognized by the polls. We have had Michigan share it. That wasn't so 

difficult because at least they shared it. It was easier to accept. And we 

have had one team have an opportunity to play in the one-two game 

against Miami. It was fairly clear, much like this year, but to even take 

those two teams after they were fairly clear and then throw them into a 

playoff system; it will not stop at four teams. The-- 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I have taken Mr. Murphy's time, but I don't see 

the danger of an eight team or a 16 team playoff system. It is presented 

as if that is somebody is going to catch cancer or something if you go to 

more than a BCS plus one, but in every sport and in every other level of 

competition, playoffs are assumed to be good things. Everybody has a 

chance to be number one. 

 MR. MURPHY. And just, if I could reclaim the time then, Mr. 

Chairman, but the issue still comes down to, I think, this year perhaps the 

concerns are less because the way the whole system works is it works 

best in years you don't need it at all. I don't know, when you have teams 

that are undefeated, they play very tough schedules. It appears to be that 

way, but I think in other years where there are some difficulties, I think 

the cry will rise again in accusations that perhaps it is being done for 

money or for television or for some other rights like that, so I am still 

hoping that although this year may be something of an anomaly, that it 

may be--I still believe it is something that should be looked into for the 

good of college football and of academics. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you, gentleman. Ms. Blackburn is not here. 

Ms. Cubin. 

 MS. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me it is really not 

about football, it is about money. You know, the questions and the 

answers and the testimony that is where it all points to, to me. I have 

four brothers and only sons and I still don't understand how men think, 
76

but--and I appreciate Mr. Junker bringing up the example of Utah. Utah 

last year was one of those undefeated teams and I don't represent Utah, 

but Wyoming is in the Mountain West with Utah and you know, you said 

how it is too bad that Auburn or USC, you know, were up there but they 

didn't have a chance to be national champions, but what about somebody 

in the Mountain West? Forget about it. It doesn't matter how good Utah 

was, they weren't ever going to have--they wouldn't have a chance. If 

you are from the Mountain West, you are not going to have a chance to 

play for the national championship. Does anybody disagree with that? 

Yeah, Mr. Delany, go ahead. 

 MR. DELANY. 1984, BYU, national champion beat Michigan in the 

Holiday Bowl. 

 MS. CUBIN. I couldn't hear you. 

 MR. DELANY. BYU, 1984, beat Michigan to claim the national 

championship. 

 MS. CUBIN. Well, I am talking about under the BCS system. 

 MR. DELANY. Well, they would have been in the BCS game because 

they were ranked either one or two in that year. 

 MS. CUBIN. And that was, too, when it wasn't the Mountain West 

then, it was Western Athletic Conference, which was a whole different 

ball game and so that, I don't think that is really a fair--Mr. Junker. 

 MR. JUNKER. Thank you, Representative, if I may respond. 

University of Utah was selected by our selection committee and in fact, 

we had the opportunity to invite a fine team from the University of 

Texas, which is now competing for the national championship and we 

made the overt decisions, voluntarily, to invite the University of Utah to 

participate in the Fiesta Bowl. 

 MS. CUBIN. Yeah, I realize that they got to play in the bowl, but I am 

talking about in national championship game. You know, they are not 

going to have a chance. Let me move on just a little bit. So how in the 

world, what scenario, I guess, would make it possible for a Mountain 

West team to be able to play for the national championship if there isn't a 

playoff in football? I mean, would they have to frontload their games so 

that they would have a whole bunch of difficult road games at the 

beginning of their schedule? Would that scenario help them and if that is 

the only scenario there is, is that fair? 

 MR. WEIBERG. Well, all teams start the season with the same 

opportunity to play for the national championship if they can achieve a 

one and two ranking and I don't believe that the Mountain West 

Conference cannot achieve that standard. They have programs that have 

the potential to be very good national programs. It certainly helps to play 

meaningful non-conference games. For example, this year if the 

University of Texas had not played at Ohio State and won that game, I 
77

think it would have been very difficult for them to have made it through, 

assuming there were other unbeaten teams at season end and so playing 

quality opponents in the non-conference is important, but I personally 

don't believe there is an automatic exclusion of teams from the Mountain 

West or other conferences in terms of their ability to reach a 

championship game in this structure. It is not easy, but it is not easy for 

any program. 

 MS. CUBIN. But what could Utah have done last year? 

 MR. WEIBERG. Well, there is no question in a year in which we end 

up with more than two unbeaten teams at season end, it is the point that 

has been made here on numerous occasions, the ranking system is going 

to determine the one-two match up. There are only two slots, so unless 

you expand the number of slots in some fashion, that issue cannot be 

addressed. 

 MS. CUBIN. Well, then, if you had a playoff, it seems to me that that 

might reflect the ability of the football players a little more. This year 

Wyoming went to the Las Vegas Bowl and played UCLA and UCLA, 

they were furious that they even had to come, had to play Wyoming and 

then we whooped them. So you know, people's opinions don't 

necessarily reflect what the results will be. I don't understand you guys, 

so I only have 18 seconds. I will yield them back. 

 MR. DELANY. Just one comment; the Big Ten went from 1968 to 

1997 without a national championship. It is not easy to get a national 

championship. 

 MS. CUBIN. Right. Right. 

 MR. DELANY. 1968 Rex Kern at Ohio State. 1997, it was 29 years 

and so-- 

 MS. CUBIN. But they have always got the chance and the Mountain 

West doesn't have a chance. That is my point. That is my belief, I 

should say. Thank you. I yield back. 

 MR. STEARNS. Thank you, Gentlelady. The gentlelady from 

Tennessee. 

 MS. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

all of our panelists. Thank you for being here. I want to go back to the 

educational and the academic components of this. I had looked at the 

ESPN.com website, there was a story yesterday citing that 41 percent of 

all NCAA Division I teams that will play in bowl games this year are 

currently falling below the academic requirements set by the NCAA and 

about half of those teams have only 50 percent of their players on track 

to graduate. Are you all familiar with that story? Did everybody-- 

 MR. WEIBERG. Yes, I saw that story yesterday and I think there are 

some inaccuracies in that story. First of all, the data being used, the 

academic progress rate data, is data that is raw data from the very first 
78

year of the NCAA's tracking of academic progress under the new 

academic reform program. If a second year of data was included, I 

believe that that number would be substantially lower and then, of 

course, the penalty structure will kick in, as it should, to address those 

programs that are not performing well. I think the number with corrected 

data may have been as few as 10 programs out of 56, if not smaller, and 

so the only point I want to make about that is to say yes, there are 

academic concerns associated with these programs, but the broad 

indictment of that story I don't believe was very fairly done and-- 

 MS. BLACKBURN. Okay, let me ask you this. 

 MR. WEIBERG. --reflect the data that was not-- 

 MS. BLACKBURN. Let me reclaim my time and then ask you this. 

Are you planning to produce a study that would then refute those results? 

 MR. WEIBERG. It is my understanding that the NCAA is attempting 

to issue some sort of statement regarding that data. I don't know if it has 

been out yesterday. I received an e-mail message about it yesterday to 

the effect that I described and I hope they do issue a statement to correct 

the record. 

 MS. BLACKBURN. Then may I ask you, for the record, to submit to 

me that information? 

 MR. WEIBERG. Sure. 

 MS. BLACKBURN. I would be interested to know what each of your 

schools do to be certain that athletes graduate. I would also be interested 

to know of the number of individuals that play on your team over a fiveyear, 10-year, 20-year period of time, kind of where are they now, 

looking at what they have done. Did they receive a degree? Did they 

have an appropriate education to go on and in whatever way they choose 

to live their life, to be successful in living that life because the focus is to 

go to school and receive an education and extra-curricular activities are 

supposed to be just that. 

 MR. WEIBERG. Well, if I may-- 

 MS. BLACKBURN. They are supposed to be additional ways to round 

out one's education and they are not to be the focus of it. And 

unfortunately, as we have talked many time, it seems that the focus 

becomes money and the focus too often gets placed on money, and Mr. 

Delany, in your testimony, you had mentioned that, you used the word 

preposterous in saying that it was preposterous to say that the current 

bowl system enriches certain conferences. In reading some statistics that 

I have from the NCAA, it shows the BCS conferences and participating 

schools received almost $170 million of the $191 million from the bowl 

payouts in 2004 and additionally, it shows the Big Ten alone received 

over $22 million in the 2003-2004 season and over $16 million in the 

2004-2005 season, and I have--those figures are included in the 
79

committee memo that we have. So Mr. Delany, how much money are 

you expecting the Big Ten to receive as a result of both Ohio State and 

Penn State playing in the-- 

 MR. DELANY. I think that number would probably be about $22 

million divided by 11. Each institution, whether they play or not, will 

receive about $2 million. To put it into context, in order to support 8500 

male and female athletes on 250 teams, there is about $650 million 

annually that is necessary. Of that $600 plus million, about $20 million 

to $25 million comes from the BCS, maximum. And so it is an 

important part of what we do. The relative point I was trying to make is 

that I am absolutely sure that an NFL-style football playoff would 

provide maybe three or four times as many dollars to the Big Ten than 

the present system does. In fact, a number of corporations have come 

forward and tried to lure us into a playoff with those kinds of dollars. 

There is no doubt in my mind that we are leaving hundreds of millions of 

dollars on the table for the reasons that have been expressed here around 

this table, so there is more money out there and we have turned our back, 

we don't get very much credit. We get credit for taking it, but for not 

turning our back on it. 

 MS. BLACKBURN. Thank you. My time is expired. 

 MR. STEARNS. I thank you, Gentlelady. I think we are all finished 

with questions and the hearing is coming to a conclusion. I want to 

thank the witnesses. I think maybe as chairman, I have an opportunity 

sometimes to a concluding comment. I represent the University of 

Florida and they are very much in favor of the current system, so I am 

sensitive to that, but I would say, after hearing Chairman Barton and 

others, that it looks like the Division I-A is an anomaly. When you look 

at what is happening in basketball and you look in baseball and then you 

even look down at the Division I-AA and Division II and Division III 

within football itself, so Mr. Weiberg, your argument doesn't quite work. 

But maybe the solution is the plus one that you are talking about. It 

might be a better avenue to go, but I think in any hearing that we have in 

Congress it has been very edifying, and I think we have had some 

opportunity to share some humor and I just want to comment to Mr. 

Delany that on the spot he can go back to 1984 and remember those two 

teams is pretty impressive, so with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

○