U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–883 2012

THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES: MONEY AND 

OTHER ISSUES OF FAIRNESS FOR PUBLICLY 

FINANCED UNIVERSITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 1, 2009 

Serial No. 111–34 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

WITNESSES

John D. Swofford, Commissioner, Atlantic Coast Conference ............................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 87 

Craig Thompson, Commissioner, West Mountain Conference ............................. 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 95 

Derrick Fox, President and CEO, Valero Alamo Bowl, Football Bowl Alliance . 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 97 

Gene Bleymaier, Athletic Director, Boise State University ................................. 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 104 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of April 29, 2009, from the Bowl Championship Series ............................ 83 

Letter of April 28, 2009, from the Football Bowl Association .............................. 85 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES: MONEY 

AND OTHER ISSUES OF FAIRNESS FOR PUBLICLY FINANCED UNIVERSITIES 

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rush, Green, and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Christian Tamotsu Fjeld, Counsel; Valerie Baron, 

Legislative Clerk; Michelle Ash, Counsel; Brian McCullough, Minority Senior Professional Staff; William Carty, Minority Professional Staff; Shannon Weinberg, Minority Counsel; and Chad 

Grant, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee will come to order. 

I want to thank the members of the committee, the witnesses, 

and those who are in the audience today for taking the time out 

for appearing before this rare Friday a.m. Subcommittee hearing; 

and the Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for opening 

statements. 

Crowning a national champion in college football has long been 

controversial. Whether it has been decided by the AP sportswriters 

poll or by the current bowl championship series, fans and sportstalk radio have always argued over which team deserves to be 

number one. While personally I favor some sort of playoff system 

to determine a national champion, as does President Obama, I understand and appreciate the history and tradition of the bowl system. 

However, criticism of the BCS goes beyond just a mere sporting 

interest in determining the team that most deserves to be national 

champion. This is indeed about money, and it is about money at 

taxpayer-funded colleges and universities. College football is big 

business, and the BCS strikes many critics as unfair from a financial perspective. 

There are 11 athletic conferences that make up Division 1 college 

football. Under the current BCS system, six of those conferences— 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

the ACC, SEC, the Big East, the Big 12, the big 10, and the PAC 

10—are guaranteed $18 million each to distribute among their 

member schools; while the five other nonautomatic conferences— 

the Sun Belt, the WAC, the MAC, Conference USA, and the Mountain West conference—only receive $9.5 million combined. Notre 

Dame, an independent school, automatically receives $1.3 million 

all by itself. 

How can we justify this system during these tough economic 

times when States are slashing their budgets and cutting spending 

on education? And let me be clear that we are not examining a 

trivial matter at today’s hearing. Colleges and universities are 

funded by taxpayer dollars; and we have to ask whether or not the 

big, dominant conferences are engaged in uncompetitive behavior 

and negotiating contracts at the expense of smaller conferences and 

their schools. In other words, are the big guys getting together and 

shutting out the little guys? 

Such disparity in revenue distribution would arguably be justifiable were the schools from the automatic conferences simply better 

athletically than those from the nonautomatic conferences. But for 

the past year, and for in the past several years, this has clearly not 

been the case. 

Let’s look at last year. Both the ACC and the Big East failed to 

produce a single team in the Top 10 of the BCS standings, while 

the Mountain West and the WAC each had a team in the Top 10, 

Utah and Boise State. Yet both the ACC and the Big East received 

almost $19 million each in BCS revenue, while the Mountain West 

received only $9.8 million, and the WAC received $3 million. On its 

face, this does not seem fair or tied to actual performance on the 

field. 

Nonetheless, I do want to keep an open mind on this matter and 

hear from our distinguished panelists today. I am eager to hear 

from Commissioner Swofford and Mr. Fox on their views on the 

way the BCS revenue is currently distributed, why it is fair and 

equitable to taxpayer-funded colleges and universities. 

I want this to be a deliberative hearing and a robust exchange 

of ideas. The BCS recently signed a new television contract with 

ESPN reportedly worth $125 million a year starting in 2011. I will 

be interested to know how the BCS intends to distribute this considerable sum of dollars to colleges and universities across the 

country. 

Lastly, I just want to thank my friend, the distinguished ranking 

member and former chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton, for 

his extensive and commendable work on this matter. Mr. Barton 

has some strong—I might say very strong opinions on this subject, 

and I appreciate his passion and commitment to exploring this 

issue among many other issues that this Congress is facing. Mr. 

Barton has introduced legislation on this issue, legislation that I 

have cosponsored, and I sincerely hope that we can discuss this bill 

as well. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before us 

today, and I appreciate your travel to the Nation’s capital on relatively short notice. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

I yield back the balance of my time; and now I recognize the 

ranking member of the full committee, my friend from Texas, the 

one and only, Joe Barton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do have strong opinions. My strongest opinion on this issue is 

the fact that my team, Texas A&M, is never mentioned in the same 

breath as national champion for college football, but with Coach 

Sherman maybe one of these days will change. 

I, along with you, want to welcome our distinguished panel. This 

is not the oversight subcommittee, so we don’t subpoena people to 

testify. You folks all came of your own volition when we asked you 

to, and we appreciate it, both those of you who are proponents of 

the playoff and those of you who have some doubts about it. So we 

are extremely gratified you would come on Friday. 

When I was chairman of this committee, I held a hearing on the 

same subject 3 years ago, 4 years ago, to just give attention to it; 

and at that time in that hearing I had hoped that through a spirit 

of volunteerism that the BCS would decide to go to a playoff system. That hasn’t happened yet. 

It is interesting that people of goodwill—and I think everybody 

on whatever side of the issue you are on this one is a person of 

goodwill—keep trying to tinker with the current system; and it is 

to my mind a little bit like—and I don’t mean this directly—but it 

is like communism. You can’t fix it. It will not be fixable. Sooner 

or later, you’re going to have to try and remodel. And that’s why 

we are here today. 

We have heard about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat 

on ABC Wide World of Sports, but, as Mr. Rush says, sports fans 

seldom think about the money. We are going to talk about the 

money a little bit today. Chairman Rush mentioned it in his opening statement, and it is I think an important reason why we do not 

have a playoff system. 

Last year, the so-called championship game had two teams that 

had each lost a game, but there were several other games that had 

only lost one game, and there was a team that hadn’t lost any 

games, Utah, that wasn’t in the national championship game. If 

you had a playoff system, you wouldn’t have that problem. The people in the playoff game, the championship game, would be there because they would have beaten everybody else. 

No system is perfect, but why is it in the NCAA, every other 

sport they give a championship? It is won on the field or on the 

track or on the golf course or in the gymnasium. It is not won because two teams are kind of picked out of a hat or as a result of 

a poll in a computer system and allowed to play for the national 

championship. 

Several college coaches that are well known have said that they 

are advocates for a playoff system. Urban Meyer, who is head coach 

of the current national championship team, Florida, has stated in 

the past that he favors a playoff. Nick Saban, Pete Carroll, the 

head coach at Texas, Mack Brown. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

In May of 2008, one of the winningest college football coaches of 

all time, Joe Paterno, said, and I quote, I think you ought to win 

it on the field. I’ve always been for a playoff. End quote. 

We didn’t ask the coaches of Boise State and Utah to be here 

today, but if they were here and testifying I think they would say 

they were for a playoff. 

There are countless coaches, even a few university presidents, 

and, believe it or not, the President, President Obama, who has 

stated that they think we need to have a playoff the same as we 

have in every other sport. 

The more I think about it and the more people I talk to who really know college football, it is clearer and clearer to me that the reason we don’t have a playoff system is a very green reason. It is not 

green environmentally. It is green money. It is that simple. 

As Chairman Rush has said, you know, a $125 million television 

contract and all the other contracts that are not through nationally 

but through regionally, it is just too much money being made this 

way and people don’t want to change that. 

This is interstate commerce. This committee has every right to 

regulate interstate commerce. The bill that I introduced that Chairman Rush is a cosponsor of doesn’t say there has to be a playoff. 

It simply says, if you’re going to advertise it as a national championship series and a national championship game, it has to be the 

result of a playoff. Otherwise, it is a false and deceptive trade practice under the Federal Trade Act. 

So you couldn’t advertise. You couldn’t get the money. You 

couldn’t sell the T-shirts. You couldn’t do all those things that you 

do under the current system. 

So it is not Congress being dictatorial. It is Congress saying 

truth in advertising. If we’re going to have a national championship game, a national championship team, it ought to be the result 

of a playoff. 

I think equity is a factor here, too. My guess is when Mr. 

Swofford and Mr. Fox talk later they are going to talk about the 

student athlete, as well they should. But it is interesting to me we 

just added another regular season game. I don’t see how that helps 

academics. And we are also playing college football on Tuesdays, 

Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Those are not normal evenings that 

our student athletes should be out on the football field. They 

should be in study hall or something like that. 

And the reason that they are playing Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and 

Thursdays is not because they are making straight A’s in classes, 

although some of them may be. It is because their schools need the 

extra money; and their coaches are hopeful that the extra exposure, 

especially if they are from a non-BCS conference, might get a little 

bump in the polls and move up so that they might have a shot at 

one of the at-large bids in the BCS. 

Some movement has been made. I am told that there was some 

discussion at the last BCS meeting, wherever that was, about a 

playoff, but that it was rejected. I think that is a step in the right 

direction that they are talking about it. But the real step is to go 

ahead and implement it. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

I don’t buy the argument that you can’t change because of television contracts. Those contracts have kick-out clauses. It would be 

very easy to implement a playoff system. 

I also don’t buy the argument—although I am going to listen 

closely to Mr. Fox from the Alamo Bowl—that it would somehow 

destroy the bowl system or the mid-range bowls, things like this. 

They could be a part of the playoff system. They could be an addition to the playoff system. 

The NIT basketball tournament has thrived in the midst of a 65- 

team playoff for the college basketball championship. As I asked 

Mr. Fox off camera, if Texas A&M and Texas Tech were in a playoff and the first round was at the Alamo bowl, I think the Alamo 

Bowl would do pretty well. 

So, in any event, Mr. Chairman, I see my time has way overexpired. I am for college football. I enjoy watching it. I enjoy going 

to the games in person. 

I have a wife who is a fanatic University of Texas longhorn fan. 

She had season tickets at Texas. And so it makes for some interesting Thanksgivings when A&M and Texas are playing in my 

home. I have had ham sandwiches on the back porch as much as 

I have had hot turkey in the dining room in some of these last few 

years. 

But I hope we can work this out. And, again, thank you for holding the hearing; and, you gentleman, thank you for testifying. At 

least you are willing to go on the record. And as I’ve told some of 

you privately, there is a whole bunch of heated intensity off the 

record, but there is not nearly as many people willing to go on the 

record. So we appreciate you being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the ranking member. 

Now the Chair recognizes my friend, my classmate, the Congressman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes of an opening 

statement. 

And, prior to that, the chairman sees that the gentleman has a 

helmet. Are we going to engage in any kind of combat on the hearing? Or that is just—— 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, that violates House rules, but I am 

not going to object. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a blue collar district. We normally wear hard hats, just not this hard. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding the hearing on 

this. And, just for the public’s interest, our Energy and Commerce 

Committee has been spending weeks and actually months now 

working on carbon sequestration and health care; and this is much 

more fun to talk about. Because I am actually here today, even 

though Congress is not, because I thought we were going to have 

some work on our energy work. And coming from Houston, Texas, 

that is awfully important in our community, but I am glad the 

Chair of our subcommittee held the hearing on bowl championship 

series and NCAA Division 1 college football. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

I want to thank our witnesses, like my colleagues did, for traveling across the country. The problem is, you have two Texans here 

and only one fellow from Chicago. So you are going to have to listen to a lot of UT A&M and, in this case, University of Houston, 

because I know you traveled from across the country. 

Over the last several seasons, there has been growing frustration 

from the system and less than unanimous agreement on the teams 

that should be playing a bowl championship series national title 

game. The most recent title game this January was no exception. 

There was hardly agreement from professional commentators and 

fans alike that Oklahoma and Florida were the two best teams in 

the country. 

Now I am an alumnus of the University of Houston, and while 

it has been a while since the Cougars were at the top of the polls, 

my family is divided because my son went to Texas A&M, my 

daughter went to University of Texas. And as we know that UT 

beat Oklahoma earlier in the year in the Red River Shootout, many 

people thought they were a better team to contend for the national 

title. 

There were also two undefeated teams, Utah and Boise State, 

that established themselves as top caliber teams over the recent 

years with bowl wins over larger schools and impressive regular 

season records. 

Despite coming from conferences that do not receive an automatic bid into a BCS bowl game, the coalition conferences that do 

not receive an automatic bid at BCS bowl game also receives significantly less money from BCS-generated revenue, approximately 

half of the $18 million the automatic BCS conferees receive. 

While the coalition conference does receive a larger share if they 

place a team in the BCS bowl, the odds are so highly stacked 

against them, as we saw last year with Utah and Boise State, they 

rarely have that opportunity. 

Last season, my alma mater, University of Houston, actually won 

its first bowl game since 1980 when it defeated Air Force in the 

Armed Forces Bowl. If the Cougars program gets back to where it 

was in late ’70s, when they finished fourth in the AP and Coach’s 

poll in ’76 and fifth in 1979, I would hope they would have the opportunity to compete in the BCS bowl. But recent history has 

shown that, under the BCS system, odds are not in their favor 

since they are a coalition conference. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding the hearing and look forward to fairness of the BCS system. I know our witnesses today 

have a number of different viewpoints on the issue, and I look forward to the testimony. 

In the sports pages and in the college towns across the country 

there is growing frustration that the current system is significantly 

flawed, and I am pleased Craig Thompson is here, because I read 

several articles last week in the Houston Chronicle about your 

presentation of BCS and suggested changes. And while I understand it may be still under consideration, again, thank you for 

being here and appreciate the time today. 

But, again, for the mass public who is worried about carbon and 

health care, we are working on those, but we can walk and chew 

gum at the same time. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Now the Chair is indeed gratified to welcome our witnesses before this panel. Again, I want to reiterate our deep appreciation for 

you taking the time out from your very busy schedules to appear 

before this subcommittee; and I just want to assure you that this 

subcommittee, the chairman, and I believe that the Members of 

Congress have a keen interest in this particular issue and that this 

interest will give us an opportunity to have some meaningful discussions and debate around this particular issue as we go forward. 

Before I swear you in, I just want to say that about a week ago 

I read in the USA Today a comment that was at the risk of our 

congressional involvement—legislative involvement on this particular issue, but—and I can’t remember the author of the statement, the gentleman that the statement was attributed to, but I 

can assure you each and every one of you, that he was dead bang 

wrong. We are quite interested in it. Indeed, some are very passionate about it. And I don’t see it is not in the interests of college 

football for anyone to be dismissive of our congressional intent, our 

responsibility, and our congressional commitment. 

So, with that said, I am going to welcome our witnesses; and I 

would ask you, because it has been a new practice of this subcommittee, to swear in witnesses. So I would ask you to stand and 

please raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Please let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in 

the affirmative. Please take your seat. 

And I will introduce the witnesses first, because we hear their 

opening statements. To my left, to your right, is Mr. John D. 

Swofford, who is the current Commissioner of the Atlantic Coast 

Conference. Next to Mr. Swofford is Mr. Craig Thompson, who is 

the Commissioner of the West Mountain Conference. And next to 

Mr. Thompson is Mr. Derrick Fox, who is the President and CEO 

of the Alamo Bowl, representing the Football Bowl Alliance. And, 

lastly, next to Mr. Fox is Mr. Gene Bleymaier, who is the Athletic 

Director of Boise State University. 

Again, welcome each and every one of you. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN D. SWOFFORD, COMMISSIONER, ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE; CRAIG THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER, WEST MOUNTAIN CONFERENCE; DERRICK FOX, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, VALERO ALAMO BOWL, FOOTBALL 

BOWL ALLIANCE; AND GENE BLEYMAIER, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Swofford, we will begin with you for 5 minutes 

of opening statements or thereabouts. Please pull the mic to you 

and turn it on, and you’re now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. SWOFFORD 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, Ranking Member 

Barton, ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Swofford; and I 

have been commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference since 

1997. Prior to that, I was the Athletic Director at the University 

of North Carolina, my alma mater, for 17 years. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

I speak to you today not only as someone who has been fortunate 

to spend my entire professional career as an athletic administrator 

but also as a former student athlete in the sport of football. While 

I was in college I was fortunate to play at UNC and participate in 

two post-season bowl games. Like most student athletes, my football career ended when I received my undergraduate degree. My 

own experiences in the Peach Bowl and Gator Bowl remain among 

the fondest memories of my athletic career. As an administrator, 

I have tried to ensure that those same post-season opportunities 

exist for as many student athletes as possible. 

Currently, the Atlantic Coast Conference serves as the coordinating offices for the bowl championship series. This is an assignment that rotates every 2 years among the conferences that are a 

part of the BCS arrangement. The BCS is now 11 years old, and 

it is the result of a group of people at the various conferences and 

selected bowls asking one question: How can we keep the bowl system and also create a championship game that includes the number one and number two ranked teams on an annual basis? 

Prior to the current BCS structure, the two top-rated teams 

played each other only nine times in 45 years. The BCS exists to 

accomplish three relatively simple goals: one, create the opportunity for a national championship game; two, maintain the bowl 

structure and create quality match-ups; and, number three, maintain and enhance college football’s regular season as the best and 

most meaningful in all of college sports. 

The BCS has been successful in reaching these three goals. It 

has paired the number one and number two ranked teams in the 

Nation on an annual basis. It now includes all 11 of the football 

bowl subdivision conferences. Every conference has more access 

into the highest level of bowl games, more money and access potentially into the national championship game than ever before. 

During the BCS 11-year span, college football has flourished, attendance is soaring, television ratings are high. BCS television ratings regularly outrate the NCAA basketball Final Four, the NBA 

playoff finals and the World Series. 

Recently, the level of interest of young people in various sports 

was measured. NASCAR and the NFL over the last decade gained 

1 percent. College football gained 9 percent in the 12 to 17 age 

group, the largest gain of any sport. Most every other sport has actually devalued the regular season, while college football’s regular 

season has only gained in stature, interest, attendance and television coverage. While realizing that many American sports fans 

relate very well to a playoff system, much of this could be lost if 

the regular season were turned into a seeding process. 

The current system maintains long-term bowl alliances. Bowls 

have existed for over 90 years, in some cases, starting with the 

Rose Bowl. They stand as cultural icons in our country. Twentynine non-BCS bowls create regional interest, support charitable 

causes, generate tourism, economic impact, and tax dollars for host 

cities, as well as give approximately 6,000 young men, most of 

whom are not fortunate enough to play on college championship 

teams, the chance to enjoy a memorial post season experience. 

Bowls are not merely games. They are events. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

Teams do not travel to them the day before the game and leave 

immediately afterward as in the regular season or would be the 

case in a playoff. Rather, they go to the host city and stay as many 

as 6 days, enjoying the hospitality of the bowl organization. Fans 

travel to the games and stay for several days, thus generating economic benefits for the host city and allowing the bowl to attract 

local sponsors and support that help it fulfill its economic and charitable missions. 

For example, the Sugar Bowl estimates that the two BCS bowl 

games played in January, 2008, created an economic impact in the 

City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana of nearly $400 million. State and local governments realized nearly $25 million in tax 

revenues as a result of those two games. 

We cannot reasonably expect fans and teams to travel multiple 

times in December or January staying several days in each location. Our fans do not have the time, and most do not have the financial resources to do so. Moreover, I am not aware of any football 

playoff in this country at any level in which all games are played 

at predetermined neutral sites that may be thousands of miles 

from the homes of the participating teams. 

College football is different than professional. There are 120 bowl 

subdivision college football teams, and our preference is that a system provide a large number of those teams with a post-season opportunity. Professional football, with only 32 teams, can make a 12- 

team playoff work nicely within its structure. 

Like all other football playoffs in the NCAA and the professional 

leagues, early round games of any bowl subdivision playoff would 

almost certainly be played at campus sites, with only the final contest at a neutral site. As the playoff grows, sponsorship and television revenues that historically have flowed into bowl games and 

their host cities will inevitably follow, meaning that it will be very 

difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are 

the oldest and most established in the game’s history, to survive. 

The current system also keeps football a one-semester sport, 

maintains the integrity of the regular season, preserves the overall 

bowl system, does not conflict with fall semester exams in most instances, and adds only one additional game. 

One of the reasons we are where we are in post-season college 

football is because of the fact that the BCS is a system that the 

conferences have individually and collectively been able to agree 

on. Decisions concerning the BCS arrangement are made by a Presidential oversight committee, which is a group of university presidents and chancellors with advice from conference commissioners, 

athletic directors, and coaches. The BCS arrangement is reviewed 

annually by all 11 conference commissioners and an athletic director advisory panel. We also seek the advice of representatives of 

the American Football Coaches Association on certain matters. 

Ultimately, our presidents and chancellors remain strongly committed to the balance of academic and athletic excellence. Their 

first priority is their students and preparing them for their futures. 

The BCS, we find, is fully consistent with the educational mission 

of our colleges and universities and maximizes the number of postseason opportunities for our student athletes, coaches, and fans. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Now each year one or more of the conferences submits ideas for 

change in the current system. All of them receive careful and deliberate consideration. Last year, for example, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Southeastern Conference proposed a format adjustment. This year, the Mountain West has suggested a different adjustment in the format, and the conferences will consider that proposal during their various upcoming spring meetings. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Swofford, you’re almost 4 minutes over, but I 

have been pretty lenient, so please close your comments, please. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Thank you, sir. 

We are aware that no mechanism for determining a college football national champion will ever be perfect, without controversy or 

without ambiguity. We are always open to suggestions to improve 

BCS or the game of college football as a whole. 

In closing, 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 the national champion. 

We want to maintain the significance of the regular season and 

support a vibrant post-season bowl structure that provides a maximum number of opportunities for student athletes. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from a number of conferences, 

presidents, and the University of Notre Dame that I would like to 

submit for the record please. 

Mr. RUSH. So ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be with 

you today and to address these matters. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swofford follows:] 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 72883A.001
12 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 72883A.002
13 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 72883A.003
14 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 72883A.004
15 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 72883A.005
16 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 72883A.006
17 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 72883A.007
18 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 72883A.008
19 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 72883A.009
20 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 72883A.010
21 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 72883A.011
22 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 72883A.012
23 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Thompson for 5 minutes or thereabouts. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG THOMPSON 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 

Barton, and members of the subcommittee for holding this important hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. 

The presidents of our nine member institutions believe there are 

five fundamental flaws with the current BCS system. They also feel 

criticism without a solution solves nothing. Therefore, the Mountain West Conference has submitted a proposal known as the BCS 

reform proposal which addresses each of those flaws. 

First, BCS revenue distribution is grossly inequitable. There are 

six automatic qualifying conferences, known as AQ Conferences, 

whose champions are guaranteed access to lucrative BCS bowl 

games each year regardless of how they perform on the field. These 

conferences receive more than 87 percent of the revenue from the 

BCS, whereas the other five conferences, called Nonautomatic 

Qualifying Conferences, collectively receive under 13 percent. 

Under the current system, conferences that perform in a similar 

manner are not treated the same. The Mountain West has performed well against the six Automatic Qualifying Conferences and 

interconference games over the past 4 years. Yet during that same 

span the BCS has paid each of these six conferences an average of 

$78 million in revenue, while we received just $18 million. 

To illustrate the point, in 2008, the Mountain West and an AQ 

Conference each at had one team playing the BCS bowl. We had 

three teams ranked in the top 16, all of whom finished above that 

conference’s champion. Yet the AQ Conference still received almost 

9 million more than the BCS for that year. 

If the revenue were more fairly distributed, nonautomatic qualifying universities could use the additional funds to improve academic programs, increase scholarships, increase medical support 

for student athletes, and pursue a host of other beneficial purposes. 

The reform proposal would also result in considerable new revenue 

for all conferences so that all universities would benefit financially. 

In this economic climate, that is extremely important. 

Second, the BCS relies on non-performance based standards to 

determine which conferences are guaranteed access. Specifically, 

the BCS uses bowl tie-ins and agreements to determine which conferences automatically qualify. Prearranged agreements trump results on the field. The reform proposal ensures that performance is 

the primary factor in determining which conference champions 

automatically qualify for the high-profile BCS bowls. Under the 

proposal, a conference has to win at least 40 percent of its interconference games against AQ Conferences over a 2-year period to earn 

an automatic bid. 

Third, none of the 51 teams that play in non-AQ Conferences can 

realistically ever have the opportunity to win a BCS national championship, given how the current system is constituted. Such a result is patently unfair. 

Again, in 2008, the Mountain West had the best interconference 

record against AQ Conference teams; and Utah had the best record 

in major college football. However, those student athletes did not 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

have an opportunity to compete for the national championship. 

Utah was eliminated this past season not by a team but by the 

BCS system. 

The BCS incorrectly presumes that computers and pollsters can 

look at several outstanding teams and somehow determine which 

two deserve to play in a national championship game. To remedy 

this flaw, the reform proposal creates an 18 playoff. This will not 

only produce substantial new revenue, but it will also make the 

regular season and post season much more exciting. 

Minimal regular season games will impact the national championship race under this proposal, and the number of post-season 

games with title implications will also increase exponentially. The 

playoff would only add about 1.5 weeks to the season during winter 

break and then only for two teams. 

Fourth, the BCS relies on confusing computer formulas and pollsters to decide the BCS rankings. The reform proposal would use 

a well-informed committee like the committee in college basketball 

to make these important determinations. 

Fifth, the BCS dictates unbalanced representation on its governing body. The reform propose would permit each conference and 

Notre Dame to have exactly one vote. Our presidents believe that, 

by remedying these five flaws, the BCS reform proposal helps to 

ensure higher education is sending the appropriate messages to 

students and is acting above reproach. 

One of the primary objectives of universities is to ensure students graduate with a firm understanding of the principles of fundamental fairness and equitable treatment. Yet support of the current BCS system is not consistent with those principles. It is inconsistent with the message that if you work hard you have a chance 

to reach any goal. That is simply not true under the current BCS 

format. 

Given the system’s fundamental flaws, it is time for the BCS to 

act. It should join President Obama, Vice President Biden, and 

Members of Congress from both parties in acknowledging the need 

for change and take the appropriate steps now to develop a more 

equitable system. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to answering questions. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 72883A.013
26 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 72883A.014
27 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 72883A.015
28 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 72883A.016
29 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 72883A.017
30 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 72883A.018
31 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 72883A.019
32 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 72883A.020
33 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 72883A.021
34 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 72883A.022
35 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 72883A.023
36 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 72883A.024
37 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 72883A.025
38 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 72883A.026
39 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 72883A.027
40 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 72883A.028
41 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 72883A.029
42 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 72883A.030
43 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 72883A.031
44 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 72883A.032
45 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 72883A.033
46 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 72883A.034
47 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 72883A.035
48 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fox for 5 minutes or 

thereabouts for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF DERRICK FOX 

Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and Ranking 

Member Barton, my name is Derrick Fox. I am the former chairman and currently at-large member of the Football Bowl Association. I am also president and CEO of the Valero Alamo Bowl in San 

Antonio, Texas. 

I am here today representing the members of the Football Bowl 

Association, a group that includes all 34 post-season bowl games, 

from the members of the BCS to the smallest of the post-season 

events. These games are played in 29 different communities. Our 

association has been in existence for more than a quarter century, 

and we have grown as the number of bowl games has grown. 

My purpose in appearing here today is to tell you the current 

bowl system, for whatever flaws it may have, is more than just 

alive and kicking but also it is to say that if the net result of your 

efforts is to create a playoff, we will believe you will, by substituting games for events, cause the demise of the bowl system. 

My prepared statement details the current post-season structure, 

the benefits to the institutions, and the benefits to the players and 

their fans. But I would like to stress to you the benefits enjoyed 

by the communities where these games are played. 

What does it mean to the 29 communities where the games are 

held? For one thing, since almost all the post-season bowl games 

are put on by charitable groups, with up to one-quarter of the proceeds from the games dedicated to the community, local charities 

receive tens of millions of dollars every year. Excluding television 

and print exposure these communities receive, it has been estimated the bowl games will generate in excess of $1 billion in annual economic impact. 

As I said before, we don’t put on games; we put on events. Fans 

make the bowl experience a holiday experience, spending up to 1 

week in the community, supporting pre- and post-Christmas businesses and hotels, restaurants, businesses, and visitor attractions. 

Moreover, the title sponsor or presenting sponsors of bowl games 

frequently is a commercial institution headquartered in the host 

city whose integration in the community and vice versa is enhanced by the bowl game itself. 

It is our firm belief that if a playoff is created the television dollars in the post season will flow to that playoff. Likewise, the sponsorship dollars. And when that happens, the mid-tier bowls and 

most assuredly the smaller bowls will simply go out of business. 

Those who don’t like the current system will say, well, that is the 

way of the world. But we don’t believe that government should 

have any role in promoting the demise of the bowl games. 

Let me address a situation I am quite familiar with, being the 

president and CEO of the Valero Alamo Bowl in San Antonio. Periodically, we have conducted an economic and fiscal impact analysis 

for our event. The most recent study was done 14 months ago between Penn State and Texas A&M. This was not some back-of-theenvelope estimate but, rather, a 30-page, intensive analysis perVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:33 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 072883 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A883.XXX A883

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

formed by the combined efforts of two respected sets of economists, 

Sports Strategic Marketing Services of Memphis, Tennessee, and 

Sports Economics of Oakland, California. 

They concluded that there were more than 55,000 incremental 

visitors coming to San Antonio for the game who spent an average 

of just over $740 during their stay. They stayed on average for 3.8 

days, spending $195 a day, plus an additional $142 in tickets and 

other costs in the Dome. These visitors included not only the fans 

of the competing schools but the teams themselves and a full contingent of media covering the event. Their expenditures included 

lodging, food and beverage, transportation, rental cars, retail, and 

entertainment. 

According to the study, the direct economic impact to the City of San Antonio was $42.6 million. The total economic impact on the 

City of San Antonio, including the recognized multiplier, was $73.7 

million. And the incremental tax impact to the City of San Antonio, 

i.e., taxes collected as a result of the events, operations, and 

nonlocal visitors traveling to that city, would not have accrued to 

the region if it were not for the presence of the event being measured, was $2.7 million. 

Why do I cite all this? The reason is simple. We don’t simply put 

on a game. We put on an event that runs the better part of a week. 

It involves not only the game itself but a kickoff function, a team 

fiesta, a pep rally, a great party, golf tournament, FCA breakfast, 

team days at Sea World, Alamo visit, hospital visits, you name it. 

It is an entire week’s package for the student athletes and their 

fans. 

Create a playoff and if the post-season games do not involve the 

home games on college campuses, you will create a 1 day in-andout experience, if that, to replace the current bowl system. 

The proponents of a playoff system simply do not understand the 

economics of the current system as one of events, not just games. 

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 experts on sports-talk 

radio, is rife with dangers for a system that has served collegiate 

athletics pretty well for 100 years. 

It is easy to express the support of a playoff concept which has 

never been tested. All of your assumptions and theories work out 

perfectly. But the current structure of the bowl games, you protect 

the importance of the college football regular season and, as importantly, you have 29 communities committed to providing not just 

the financial support but a quality experience to the thousands of 

players and fans who attend each bowl game. 

The current bowl system does reward over 6,800 student athletes, creates more than $1 billion in annual combined economic 

impact to the host cities, donates one-quarter of a billion dollars 

annually to higher education, and gives millions to charitable endeavors in their own communities. Quite simply, it is a system that 

works well, benefits many, and ought not to be under attack. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like as well to submit a copy of a letter 

from the Association to Members of Congress dealing with the subject. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:] 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 72883A.036
51 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 72883A.037
52 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 72883A.038
53 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 72883A.039
54 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 72883A.040
55 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 72883A.041
56 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 72883A.042
57 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 72883A.043
58 

Mr. RUSH. Hearing no objection, the letter will be entered into 

the record. I want to thank you, Mr. Fox. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. RUSH. Our next witness is Mr. Bleymaier. 

Mr. Bleymaier, you’re recognized for 5 minutes for the purposes 

of opening statements. Take as much time as you may consume. 

STATEMENT OF GENE BLEYMAIER 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Rush and members of the subcommittee and Ranking 

Member Barton, my name is Gene Bleymaier. I am the Athletic Director at Boise State University; and I also founded the Humanitarian Bowl in Boise, Idaho, 12 years ago and am currently on the 

board of directors of the bowl game. 

The issues I would like to address with you today are the following: First, competitiveness. And I would refer you to the handout that you received in your information packet. 

Boise State’s football team is the winningest program in the 

country over the past 10 years, with a winning percentage of 84.3 

percent and an overall record of 108 wins against 20 losses. In the 

past 10 years, Boise State football has the Nation’s best conference 

winning percentage at over 93 percent, 70 wins and 5 losses, and 

also the Nation’s best home winning percentage at 97 percent, 64 

wins and 2 losses. In the past 5 years, Boise State has finished the 

regular season undefeated three times: in 2004, ’06 and ’08. 

Boise State’s football record ranks number eight overall all time 

in the country. The team has won over 70 percent of its games. Our 

success is not recent but spans nearly 80 years. 

Boise State is also one of the most nationally televised teams in 

the country, with no fewer than four games televised nationally 

each of the past 6 years. Thirty-three times in those years Boise 

State has been on national television; and we are scheduled to be 

on national television seven times again this fall, nearly six national telecasts per year. 

In 2004, Boise State went undefeated and finished the season 

ranked ninth in the BCS rankings. Boise State did not get invited 

to the BCS. However Michigan, ranked 13th, and Pittsburgh, 

ranked 21st, did get invited. 

In 2006, Boise State again went undefeated and finished the season ranked eighth in the BCS rankings and was invited to the Fiesta Bowl to play the University of Oklahoma. Boise State defeated 

Oklahoma in one of the greatest games ever played. 

In 2008, Boise State again went undefeated and finished the season ranked ninth in the BCS rankings. While Boise State did not 

get invited to the BCS again, Ohio State, ranked 10th, Cincinnati, 

ranked 12th, and Virginia Tech, ranked 19th, did. 

Three times in the past 5 years, Boise State has won all of its 

games in the current BCS system, never came close to playing in 

the national championship game. The BCS system not only restricts access but essentially precludes schools from playing in the 

national championship. How many more years do we need to go 

undefeated before we get a chance? 

We believe the BCS system is exclusionary and limits access to 

BCS bowls to the benefit of Automatic Qualifying Conferences and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

to the detriment of Nonautomatic Qualifying Conferences. The 

automatic qualifying criteria bestowed on the six Automatic Qualifying Conferences, in our opinion, should be adjusted, altered or 

eliminated. 

Third is revenue distribution. The BCS revenue distribution formula and automatic qualifying criteria is heavily weighted toward 

rewarding the AQ Conferences and not rewarding the Non-AQ Conferences. The Automatic Qualifying Conferences receive approximately 90 percent of the BCS revenues unless a non-AQ Conference school, which encompasses 51 schools, qualifies for a BCS 

game. 

Annually, Non-AQ Conferences are only guaranteed a little over 

9 percent of the total revenue to split among 51 institutions. 

The last point is governance. The BCS does not afford conferences equitable representation on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, which is the body that governs the BCS. The 

Automatic Qualifying Conferences, the six, receive six votes. Notre 

Dame receives one vote. The nonqualifying conferences, 5 conferences, 51 schools, receive a total of one vote. Sixty-five schools 

get 6 votes, 51 schools get one vote, and one school gets one vote. 

This voting distribution is unfair, inequitable and totally unmanageable. One president cannot adequately represent 51 institutions 

in five different conferences. 

The NCAA sponsors 88 championships in almost every sport, but 

they do not sponsor the biggest one, the championship of the Football Bowl Subdivision, formerly Division 1–A. We believe there is 

a lot of revenue being left on the table without having the NCAA 

run this championship. 

The six Automatic Qualifying Conference commissioners and the 

athletic director at Notre Dame control the BCS and the national 

championship for major college football. This group has devised a 

system that gives them approximately 90 percent of the proceeds 

and essentially excludes over 50 institutions from playing for the 

national championship. 

The BCS system, in our opinion, needs to be more equitable financially, more accessible, and provide more institutions with fair 

representation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bleymaier follows:] 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 72883A.044
61 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 72883A.045
62 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 72883A.046
63 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 72883A.047
64 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 72883A.048
65 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman and thanks all of the 

witnesses. 

Now the Chair recognizes himself for as much as time as he may 

consume for the purpose of asking questions of these witnesses. 

Let me begin by stating I really want to spend some time on this 

matter of revenue and revenue distributions. According to the BCS 

media guide, in the year 2008, $18 million automatically went to 

each of the six automatic conferences. I think this has been stated 

earlier. In one of these conferences, they had two teams in a BCS 

bowl, and the next conference received an additional $4.5 million. 

By contrast, the five other nonautomatic conferences automatically received in the aggregate a total of $9.5 million, plus an extra 

$9.5 million because the Mountain West, for example, was in the 

Sugar Bowl. As such, each nonautomatic conference received approximately $3.8 million in BCS revenue for their member schools. 

Notre Dame, as was stated earlier, which is an independent school, 

automatically received $1.3 million and qualifies for another $4.5 

million all by itself if it is in a BCS game. 

The question that I would like to ask these members of the 

panel—and you can be very brief in the answers. I want to ask 

each and every one the members, can you comment on the fairness 

of the revenue distribution other than the scenario that I just outlined? How is that fair? Starting with Mr. Swofford. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I think one has to go back to the 

beginnings of the BCS to understand the financial distribution. The 

BCS is totally voluntary. If any conferences don’t want to be a part 

of it, they can opt out at any time. 

In order to come to a conclusion and a system that the conferences could agree upon and move forward with, we had to take 

into account what the various conferences were making in their 

current contractual agreements at the time the BCS was started. 

And at that point in time you had the Rose Bowl with the Big 10 

and PAC 10, the Fiesta Bowl with the Big 12, the Sugar Bowl with 

the Southeastern Conference, and an offer on the table with the 

Blockbuster Bowl for the Atlantic Coast Conference in the Big East 

to receive equivalent dollars to any of those aforementioned bowls. 

Then the Orange Bowl wanted to connect with the Atlantic Coast 

Conference and the Big East as host institutions. 

So, at the beginning, you had the six conferences that currently 

have automatic qualification receiving significant dollars because of 

their ability, marketplace, and the history of the competitiveness 

within those leagues and the performance of those leagues that tied 

in to the major bowls. So I think that is what set the bar in terms 

of where we were. 

It also set the bar in a sense in terms of the other conferences 

that are a part of the BCS. In the 11 conferences—and all of the 

conferences talked through this and agreed upon it and any 

changes that had been made in it since that point in time, the 

same thing has been true, the conferences have agreed upon it. It 

has been thoroughly discussed in terms of what the distribution 

would be, in terms of what the—what you would need to do as a 

conference to be an automatic qualifier in the BCS and agreed 

upon. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Mr. RUSH. I certainly appreciate the history, but it didn’t answer 

the question. The way these revenues are distributed, where is the 

fairness? Is this a fair way? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. I think, you know, a fairness a lot of times is 

from where you sit. I understand that. But I think it is fair because 

it represents the marketplace, and the BCS and bowls and postseason football are related to the marketplace. And I think you 

have to look at if the conferences did away with the BCS—and that 

could happen if the appropriate and right conferences, so to 

speak—— 

Mr. RUSH. I don’t want to dominate the time. Thank you so 

much. I want to move to the next witness. 

Mr. Thompson, is this a fair way to distribute the revenues? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would agree with Commissioner Swofford that 

basically these tie-ins are based on marketplace past history and 

contractual arrangements. Our position is they should be based 

more on performance-based basis, and that perhaps each conference receives a particular base level and then every first placement by each conference receives an equal distribution. And if you 

have a second team, certainly that warrants an additional stipend. 

But the fairness would be that if you play in a game, that each of 

those first participants have equal distributions. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Fox, would you care to answer this? I recognize 

Mr. Fox right now. Would you please answer the question? 

Mr. FOX. Sure. Obviously, from our perspective, we are not a 

member, we are not part of the system itself but obviously part of 

the bowl system. And that, too, is predicated on the marketplace 

drives the dynamics. We have conference agreements with the Big 

10 and Big 12 respectively, and we come to a market-based decision as to what our team payout will be. So, again, it goes to the 

entire system, not just at the BCS level. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Bleymaier, would you take a shot at that question, please? 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that at the origin these were bold-based contracts with conferences. But now 

that the system has changed, now that we have the BCS rankings 

and the formula and 10 slots, it is a whole different market, it is 

a whole different model. And I think it would not hurt the bowls 

at all financially and help the schools if this was more performance-based. And you take the top 10 based on the BCS rankings 

and reward them with opportunities to play in those BCS games, 

and then distribute the revenues accordingly. 

Mr. RUSH. Let me just remind all the witnesses, I understand 

that when you have market-based considerations that you should 

take into account when you are making, say, decisions. But you 

can’t forget that the basic foundations for all of these universities, 

all these participating programs are the Federal and State tax dollars that go into these schools. And right now all of these schools 

are experiencing financial crises simply because of the fact that 

they have to cut back on their budgets. And so marketplace considerations are one thing, but you can’t obviate or just can’t deny and 

erase the fact that there is a determinant for equitable treatment 

simply because you are using Federal tax dollars for your basic existence. All of these universities are. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

And given that the States are imposing steep educational cuts to 

public universities funded by taxpayer dollars, is there a role for 

this Congress? Should Congress intervene? I will ask you, Mr. 

Swofford, and you can start. Should Congress intervene in this 

matter? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Well, I think all of us involved with this welcome 

input from Congress or anywhere else that can help us improve the 

system. It is not a perfect system, we understand that. It is a system that has been able to bring the conferences together. And if 

the conferences determine that it is a system they don’t want to be 

a part of, then the BCS structure unravels at that point and the 

conferences that would be—I don’t think the major conferences are 

going to be a part of a system that brings their market value down 

rather than where they know it could be on an individual basis. 

So the beauty of what we have and the necessity of what we 

have is that it has been something that can bring the conferences 

together. I think the conferences without automatic qualification 

have been enhanced with the BCS during this 11-year period both 

financially as well as with the opportunities to play in the various 

BCS bowls that have been mentioned. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Simply, certainly our university presidents, myself, we work for and with the representatives of the people, the 

fans. Every poll that I have seen indicates a strong desire for a different playoff format, a playoff format. And simply looking at the 

whole process, I feel part of our fundamental flaw issue is the representation. With one president representing 51 institutions, it is 

very difficult to filter that message down or to have a very loud 

voice. It might be outvoted. There might be a unanimous opposition. 

Mr. RUSH. Does the Congress, the U.S. Congress, have a role in 

this matter? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Does U.S. Congress have a role? I think the U.S. 

Congress again represents fans, constituencies, and our university 

presidents work with that same group of constituency. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Fox. 

Mr. FOX. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I think one of the things that 

is important to stress here is taking a look at the entire system 

and how it has evolved over the 90 years. And there has always 

been communication, there has been dialogue, things have transpired and evolved. We had the alliance, the coalition of BCS. You 

can see over time how things have evolved. And it has been a constant work in progress to try to take care of all the constituents 

that are a part of this. At the end of the day, it is a system that 

has worked for 90 years. And, as I said, $250 million going back 

to higher education each year, that is a pretty successful benchmark and each year it goes up. 

In this current BCS system, we were here 4 years ago, there 

were 28 bowl games; there is now 34. So it has also allowed additional opportunities for teams in the marketplace as well, and 

those dollars are going back to higher education too. 

Mr. RUSH. So your answer to the question is, does Congress—yes 

or no? Does Congress have a role or Congress doesn’t have a role? 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

Mr. FOX. I think the people who have a vested interest in the 

business are the people within the system, and they probably are 

best issued to deal with the system. 

Mr. RUSH. So the answer is no, Congress, doesn’t have a role? 

Mr. FOX. It is your choice, sir. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Bleymaier. 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Chairman Rush, I would think if you look at the 

history of the development of the BCS and where we have got to 

today, it has evolved over time. It has never been a perfect system 

and it has changed. But if you look, a lot of times historically that 

change has only come with hearings like we are having today. And, 

unfortunately, with the threat of lawsuits, it would be better for all 

served if the conferences could agree on a plan and a formula and 

approve it themselves. But because of the representation disparity 

that we have, that is virtually impossible, in our opinion. The only 

way this is going to change is with help from the outside. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much. The Chair has exhausted his 

time right now, and the Chair now recognizes the ranking member 

for such time as he may consume. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Chairman Rush. 

First, I want to compliment you gentlemen for your refreshing 

candor. We do have a new tradition here that we ask you to testify 

under oath, which has not normally been the case for an authorization subcommittee. But having said that, the testimony today is 

much more cogent than it was 4 years ago and it is much more 

open about what the real reason the current bowl system exists, 

and it is money. When you are talking about market share and 

market dominance and all that, you know—and when Mr. Fox is 

talking about it is a week of events and how much money it brings 

to San Antonio, at least we are putting on the table why the current system is so entrenched. 

I do think that after today’s hearing we need to have a piece of 

advice for the BCS coordinating board. You should either change 

your name to BES for Bowl Exhibition System, or just drop the C 

and call it the BS system, because it is not about determining the 

championship on the field. 

I am going to read some of Mr. Thompson’s testimony because, 

to the average fan, this is the reason that people are so upset. His 

reason—Mr. Thompson’s reason number three that the current system is flawed is that: The BCS is based on a flawed premise. Nearly half of the FBS teams are eliminated from the national championship before the season even begins. The current BCS system is 

based on a fundamentally flawed premise that computers and pollsters can look at six or seven outstanding teams, all of whom have 

lost no more than one game and few, if any, have ever played each 

other in that year, and decide which are the two best and should 

play in the national championship game. It is impossible to know 

which of those great teams are actually the best unless they play 

each other. Computers don’t know, pollsters don’t know, and the 

BCS surely doesn’t know. Nearly half of the FBS teams are eliminated from the national championship even before the season begins. None of the 51 teams that play in the non-AQ conferences 

can, for all practical purposes, ever win a BCS national championship given how the current system is constituted. These teams are, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

in effect, done before day one. A system that produces this result 

is patently unfair. 

I don’t think that is a debatable proposition. Mr. Swofford, you 

are the head of the BCS. You are the point person. How do you answer that, that from day—from before the first game is even 

played, half the football teams in the country that play college football at Division 1–A don’t have a prayer to win in the national 

championship? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Well, I think the answer to that, Congressman 

Barton, is that the polls—and I know a lot of people question the 

polls, they have been questioned forever and ever in college football. But the polls reflect what has happened on the field, and it 

reflects a mix of people’s view from a national perspective. Each of 

the 11 conferences nominate potential pollsters for the Harris Poll, 

which is our newest poll. 

Mr. BARTON. But how do you answer Mr. Bleymaier and his testimony? In 2004, Boise State Broncos were undefeated and ranked 

ninth in the BCS. They were excluded. But Michigan at 13th and 

Pittsburgh at 21st got into a BCS game. In 2008 they were 

undefeated again, and they ended up ranked ninth in the BCS. 

Again, they were excluded. Ohio State, Cincinnati, and Virginia 

Tech, all ranked lower than Boise State, were in the BCS. The one 

year, 2006, they were undefeated, they did get invited to the BCS, 

and son of a gun, they beat Oklahoma in one of the most exciting 

college football games that I have ever watched. 

I mean, again, half the teams that start out don’t have a prayer 

that they are going to get to play in that championship game. And 

even the best of the best—and I didn’t realize how good Boise State 

was, but their record compares with any team in the country. They 

just happen to be in a small population State, in a weak media 

market and, with all due respect, have the ugliest football field I 

have ever seen. I try to watch them, and it just hurts my eyes to 

watch that blue field. I mean. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Congressman, as I said, the polls and how this 

is determined has been agreed upon by all 11 conferences. That is 

where we are today. 

Mr. BARTON. But you yourself said in response to Mr. Rush’s 

question that these conference agreements are about money. It is 

about market share. It is not about athleticism on the field. Mr. 

Bleymaier pointed out that there are 88 NCAA schools—88 NCAA 

championships. Those are determined on the field. The Division 1– 

A college football isn’t. And the difference is, with possibly the exception of basketball, none of the NCAA sports make any money. 

Football does. Division 1–A football does. And I understand that a 

conference affiliation at a Big 12 where my school is, Texas A&M 

has got an athletic budget. I don’t know what it is but I bet it is 

$30 million, $40 million a year. You know? So I am glad that they 

have it and I am glad that they do it and I am glad they are part 

of the Big 12. But even in Division 1–A, you could have a playoff 

system make just as much money, but you would have the added 

benefit that the championship would be determined on the field. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. I have a little differing view of whether it is determined on the field. In my earlier remarks, I talked about the 

regular season and the importance of the regular season, and the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

fact that I don’t think anybody would argue this point: That college 

football has the best regular season in all of sports. And the reason 

that is, is because that is our playoff. Every day—— 

Mr. BARTON. Why do you think every game of the regular season? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Every day of the regular season is a part of that 

playoff. Every game matters. We have got a situation now where, 

if you are in Texas you are probably concerned about what is going 

on on the West Coast or in the Southeastern Conference or the Atlantic Coast Conference, because what happens in those games 

may well impact what happens in the Big 12, for instance. So every 

game is basically a playoff during the regular season in college 

football. 

Mr. BARTON. If that is your argument, then you shouldn’t have 

but one or two nonconference games and you shouldn’t be adding 

regular season games. You should also have the championship 

game between the South and the North or the East and the West 

Divisions of your power conferences. That game ought to mean 

something. It doesn’t. 

I think one of you testified, or at least we read some testimony, 

that attendance is down at these championship—these so-called 

conference championship games because they don’t mean anything. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Actually, they do. Because if you win those 

games, that is the automatic qualifier from that conference into the 

BCS game. 

Mr. BARTON. So why was attendance down in the ACC championship game last year if it means so much? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. That is a good question. We’d like to get it back 

up, and I think we will. It may have been the matchup in the State 

of Florida, it might have been geographic. It might have been related to the conference. 

Mr. BARTON. Let me ask a few more questions about the BCS. 

It is a voluntary organization. I would as soon assume it is chartered as a corporation. Is that right or wrong? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. No. 

Mr. BARTON. It is not chartered? It has a governing board, and 

there are eight votes on the governing board. Is that right? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. At the presidential level, yes, sir. There are 11 

at the commissioners level. 

Mr. BARTON. And Mr. Bleymaier pointed out that the six power 

conferences each have one vote. I understand that. The other 51 

schools, unfortunately, combined get one vote. I don’t understand 

that. And Notre Dame gets a vote. Why does Notre Dame get a 

vote? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Well, because of their history and tradition and 

the role they have in college football historically and presently. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Why wouldn’t USC get their own vote? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. They are a conference member. They have a vote 

through—— 

Mr. BARTON. Or Oklahoma or Alabama or Ohio State or Penn 

State? They have got storied college programs. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Notre Dame is an independent. 

Mr. BARTON. Is it because Notre Dame has its own national contract for televising college football? 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. SWOFFORD. I don’t think it is because of that. I think it is 

because of the place that they have in the tradition in history of 

college football. And if they weren’t involved in the BCS, and qualified, for instance, for the national championship game, that would 

certainly undermine the current system. 

Mr. BARTON. Using that logic, Delaware, which is the first State 

in the Nation, ought to have 50 votes in the House because of their 

tradition and they were the first one to ratify the Constitution and 

the first State. I mean, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. 

The money that the BCS gets for their football television contract, where does that actually go? I mean, do you have a bank account in New York, Chicago? Does it go to each of the conferences 

directly, or does it go to a central repository financial institution 

and then it is distributed? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. It goes to a central escrow account, which is then 

distributed back out through the various conferences. 

Mr. BARTON. Who controls that? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. The conference that is the coordinating conference. 

Mr. BARTON. So that rotates? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. Is there an audit committee? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Yes? 

Mr. BARTON. Are those audits publicly available? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. They are publicly available. Does the BCS as a 

legal entity make a profit? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. No. It goes to the institutions and conferences. 

Mr. BARTON. So the BCS as a repository is purely a contractual 

legal entity; and the money flows through that to the member conferences, and then the member conference distributes it to the 

members of their conference. And if you are an independent, depending on where you rank in the hierarchy, you would get directly 

from the central repository. Is that right? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. It is a pass-through. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Does Notre Dame get a disproportionate share because they have one vote? Or, do they get more than Boise State 

or they get more than Ohio State because they seem to be in and 

of themselves—— 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Notre Dame receives, if they do not play in a 

BCS game, a 1/66th share, which is basically the equivalent of 

what they might receive if they were a member of one of the six. 

Mr. BARTON. If they do play, then they get the $18 million? Is 

that right? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. No. They get the $4.5 million if they do participate in the game. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. One thing, sir. Could I clarify one point? 

Mr. BARTON. Sure. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. In terms of looking at the revenue distribution, 

the other way to look at it is the 10 teams that play in the five 

BCS games, each receive the same amount of money regardless of 

which conference you are coming from. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

Mr. BARTON. That is another point. Each member conference gets its $18 million, which they distribute as they see fit within their 

conference? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Correct. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, the team that actually plays in the BCS 

game, the Orange Bowl or the Sugar Bowl or whatever, do they 

get—in addition to their share of the $18 million, do they get 10 

to $15 million for actually playing in the game? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. No, sir. It is up to the conferences how—each 

conference is probably a little different. But each conference distributes its money to its membership in the way it chooses. 

Mr. BARTON. The Alamo payoff to each team is how much? 

Mr. FOX. $2.25 million. 

Mr. BARTON. Each team gets $2.25 million. The Fort Worth 

Bowl, each team gets $525,000. But like the big BCS bowls, each 

team gets like 15 or $16 million. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. 18. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, that 18 million, in addition to the other 18 

million, the second 18 million, the participating team also has to 

share that with its conference members. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. There are not two 18 millions. There is one 18 

million. 

Mr. BARTON. I am confused. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. I am sorry. 

Mr. BARTON. But to go back to my Alamo Bowl friend. You give to each participating team $2.25 million. Right? 

Mr. FOX. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. To the team. That goes to the team. That doesn’t 

go to the BCS, that goes to the team? 

Mr. FOX. It goes to the conferences, and then they have a revenue distribution. 

Mr. BARTON. But the Orange Bowl gives each participating team 

$18 million? Is that right? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. They give each conference $18 million. 

Mr. BARTON. So when Mr. Rush was talking about the 18, that 

money comes from the bowl to the conference. And there is not an 

additional amount of money that goes to the team that actually 

plays in that game? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. That is correct. 

Mr. BARTON. So it is technically possible that, at the bowl level, 

that Mr. Fox’s—a team could actually lose money going to his bowl 

because he doesn’t get $2.25 million; he gets his share of that. And 

if he takes 100 football players and 20 cheerleaders and 200 band 

members and the athletic department and whoever else gets to tag 

along, it could actually cost the school money to go play in his bowl. 

Is that fair? 

Mr. FOX. That is a fair assessment. And I think that is incumbent upon the current system that we need to make those business 

decisions to see if it makes sense. I know in our case I don’t think 

any of the teams ever lost money. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I have got a lot more questions. But 

Mr. Green has been very patient. I am going to suspend and let 

Mr. Green ask some questions, and then I would ask unanimous 

consent that you could come back to me. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Mr. RUSH. There will be a second round. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, we all represent as alumni from our individual 

schools, and I will remind my colleague at Texas A&M that it took 

years for the University of Houston, which is a very urban university, to get into the Southwest Conference. And after we were winning it enough, the Southwest Conference was destroyed. And 

which impact—— 

Mr. BARTON. That was the problem. We just wanted you in the 

conference. We didn’t want you to win any games. 

Mr. GREEN. That’s right. I understand that. But when we were 

winning, then all of a sudden the Southwest Conference became no 

more and that impacted a number of schools, including large urban 

universities. You are not in a big conference, you are recruiting. 

Obviously, the invitation is the bowl game. And it comes down to 

money. 

Mr. Swofford, you are the Commissioner of the Atlantic Conference, the ACC, which in recent years hasn’t been powerhouse 

football, college football. Last year, the ACC’s conference champion 

was Virginia Tech, which was ranked 19 in BCS standings. Two 

conferences, these champions do not automatically qualify for BCS 

bowl games, have much better records than AC teams last year, 

the Mountain West Conference that had three teams that finished 

in front of Virginia Tech, University of Utah, Texas Christian University, and Brigham Young University, while the Western Atlantic 

Conference, the WAC, had one team, Boise State University. Despite the disparity in team records, the ACC received 18 million in 

guaranteed BCS money for its schools, while the Mountain West 

and the WAC each received 3.8 million. 

Why should the ACC conference be guaranteed so much as compared to the Mountain West and the WAC? And again, the University of Houston is not a member of either of those conferences. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Congressman, I think it goes back to what I said 

earlier in terms of the marketplace and how the BCS came together and the ACC’s market value at the time, which has probably only been enhanced with the addition of Miami and Virginia 

Tech and Boston College. And I think you would say the same 

thing about the other conferences that are automatic qualifiers. 

You can always take one year in the standings and say this, that, 

or the other. The previous year the ACC champion again was Virginia Tech, and then they were ranked number three in the BCS 

standings. So there are three schools in our league that have 

played in the national championship games, some on multiple occasions. So you can take any one year, and it looks good or it doesn’t 

look as good in terms of various conferences’ champions. 

Mr. GREEN. I know that inter-conference records, Mountain West 

actually had a better percentage in college football in 2007–2008 

with a 55 percent win rate against teams in the automatic conferences, while the Southeastern Conference, the SEC, had only a 

45 percent winning percentage. 

Does the BCS have some type of leveling that looks at not 1 year 

or 2 years, but looks at over a period of time at the winningness 

of different conferences? Is that part of the BCS standards? 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Yes, sir. The automatic qualifying standards are 

based on 4-year cycles. 

Mr. GREEN. Another question. During the regular season, your 

key argument for the BCS is it makes college football regular season exciting and relevant, and you cite college basketball and note 

that fans don’t pay attention to the regular season until March 

Madness and the NCA tournament. Do television networks have a 

broadcast—that broadcast the regular season games have a vested 

interested in the BCS in order to keep the ratings for their regular 

season games high? In your contract negotiations, does Fox and 

ESPN retain—did Fox and the ESPN retain the BCS? In other 

words, is that one of the reasons why the season record is important, that they keep the ratings up during your regular season? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Well, you know, I don’t think Fox or ESPN when 

we have television negotiations with those entities, which we had 

last fall, they did not try to be a player in the structure of the post 

season. I think obviously they are interested in the regular season 

being as strong as it can be, but they have not had a role in determining what the post season would be at all. 

Mr. GREEN. I would just give the contracts, the NFL which has 

a playoff program, it doesn’t seem like their regular season suffers 

because they have a playoff system. Why is football different, college football different? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Well, I think it relates to the fact that since we 

don’t have a playoff, every game in the regular season is critically 

important in terms of the post season and whether you will qualify 

for the national championship game or a BCS game. Or, as you 

move into the later stages of a season, sir, a team might know it 

is not going to be in the BCS game or the national championship 

games, but those last games they have something to play for if 

there is a bowl and an opportunity to compete in a bowl. So I think 

the bowl system as a whole, not just the BCS system, contributes 

to how valuable the regular season is and how interesting and fun 

that it is for the players and fans. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, you have been real gracious. I have 

one more question of Mr. Fox. And coming from Houston with 

which you would call one of the smaller bowls, and I know although ours is smaller that the Alamo, you claim that smaller 

bowls, the bowl association itself for college football adopts a playoff system. And I appreciate the economic impact for those games 

on the host communities; and, however, I don’t see why a sevengame playoff system with eight teams is any more detrimental 

than the bowl association, than the BCS which is a five-game with 

10 teams. Either way, the vast majority of the bowl games are basically exhibition and they always have been. 

Mr. FOX. To address that, obviously, there are a number of different models being put forward as far as a playoff is concerned. 

But any time you go to a playoff format, you are automatically distinguishing basically the NCAA tournament versus an NIT tournament, if they exist at all. Right now, the NIT is subsidized by 

the NCAA to provide those opportunities. In the bowl system, it is 

the communities that are stepping forward to underwrite those opportunities. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

And if you look at—I think a point to go back to on the conference championship games is a good point. Why are they down? 

Obviously, somewhat economically related in this recent state of 

the economy. But also you have a one-week turnaround under most 

situations where teams don’t know they have qualified for a championship game until one week out. Well, their fans with a one-week 

turnaround and a tough challenging economy are going to have a 

tougher decision whether to go to that destination. I know we 

hosted a championship game in San Antonio 2 years ago. We had 

number one Missouri versus number eight Oklahoma. Arguably, 

both teams in a footprint. Should be an easy sellout. Correct? We 

didn’t. We sold 60- to 65,000. Missouri is number one. If they win 

that championship game, they are going on to the national championship game. So there is always that next game. The fans have 

a chance to wait and hold off for the next game. The same could 

be said with the playoff. Are they going to travel 15,000 strong on 

four successive weeks? I doubt it. 

Mr. GREEN. The last thing. What if we had a rotating? For example, the Alamo Bowl would rotate into the playoff system, where 

you would have a rotating bowl system? I don’t know if that has 

even ever been considered by BCS. 

Mr. FOX. That is effectively what the BCS is now, is you have 

five games all rotating the championship game. 

Mr. GREEN. But it is not, there are a lot of bowl games but there 

is only a certain number that are allowed to be there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair recognizes himself for some additional questions. 

Mr. Bleymaier, it has been stated earlier that one of the most exciting games in recent years was the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, and your 

school Boise State’s dramatic defeat over the University of Oklahoma. A fine game, well coached, well played. The game has become an instant classic and replays were on sports highlights all 

over the place repeatedly. So can you comment on how big bowl 

games affect your school from an economic standpoint and also 

from a recruiting standpoint? 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That game was obviously 

one for the ages and put Boise State on a national stage equal to 

the long-time college football powers. You can’t buy that kind of exposure, you can’t buy that kind of prestige. Our enrollment applications at the university skyrocketed within a week of the Fiesta 

Bowl victory. So that exposure, like I said, is priceless. 

In addition, with our revenue split through the five conferences, 

the nonqualifying conferences, Boise State received $6 million that 

year. And—well, the conference received $6 million; Boise State received 70 percent of that, which is approximately $4.2 million. We 

have been to nine bowl games in the last 10 years. That is the only 

year that we netted any revenue. It has been talked about that 

these bowls make money. And some bowls do. But there are also 

probably around a dozen or so more that don’t make any money at 

the end of the day, as Mr. Barton was talking about, when you factor in the expenses that the teams have and the requirements that 

the schools have to buy tickets. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

I am involved in our bowl in Boise, and I can tell you it may on 

paper look like there is money being made, but in reality money 

is not being made. The conferences are subsidizing those bowl 

games. 

So the bowl system is great and I support it, and we are glad 

we have one in Boise. I don’t see how adding two more games in 

any way is going to negatively impact the bowl system. In fact, the 

bowl system continues to grow. When we created the Humanitarian 

Bowl in Boise, Idaho 12 years ago, I believe there are 20 bowl 

games and we went to the committee and added another one, and 

there was talk at that time: There are too many bowls; we don’t 

need any more bowls. Well, we were approved. I think there was 

21 or 22. That continued, and now there is 34. And there is talk 

of creating more bowl games. 

So even if a playoff is not in the offing here, I predict there is 

going to be more bowl games in the future. Do I think that is necessary? No. Personally? Six-and-six teams do not warrant going to 

a bowl game. As an athletic director at a school, I don’t think we 

need to be rewarding student athletes for winning six games and 

losing six games, or, for that matter, winning seven games and losing five games. To me, a post-season experience, you ought to earn 

it on the playing field and it ought to mean something. It ought to 

be special. I don’t think having six-and-six teams in bowl games 

are special, and I don’t think a playoff in any way will lessen the 

regular season. In fact, I think it will enhance regular season 

games. Right now, because there is only two teams that are going 

to play in that national championship, I think it hurts the regular 

season. 

Last year, when USC lost to Oregon State in September, basically they were out of it. So for USC, their season is over. That 

doesn’t help with their remaining games on their schedule to bring 

interest or excitement into their communities. But by expanding 

this to more teams, that is going to enable more programs to remain involved and remain in the hunt for the gold ring at the end 

of the season. And that, in my opinion, is going to heighten interest 

in the regular season, totally contrary to what has been mentioned 

earlier. 

Mr. RUSH. Can you address how this affects your recruiting, 

knowing that under the current system it is almost impossible to 

participate in a championship game. 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, high school student 

athletes, they want to play on national television. They want to 

play for a national championship. And when you are going into 

homes and you are trying to woo a student to your university, if 

you don’t have the opportunity, as good an opportunity or a fair 

and equitable opportunity at the start of the season as a number 

of other schools, those schools are going to use that against you in 

the recruiting process and say, why would you consider Boise 

State? They are never going to play for a national championship. 

They were lucky to get into the Fiesta Bowl in 2006, and they probably won’t qualify in the future. But if you come to our school, you 

are guaranteed as an automatic qualifying institution, regardless of 

what your record is, an opportunity to play in a BCS game. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

That is prestige, that is exposure, that is national television. It 

definitely hurts us in recruiting if we are not able to offer that 

same opportunity from day one that other schools do. 

Mr. RUSH. Thanks. The Chair has exhausted his time. The Chair 

now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request to put in the record two statements by Congressman 

Simpson of Idaho and Congressman Miller of California. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. RUSH. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. You will be happy to know, Mr. Chairman, and our panel, I have a plane to catch so I am not going to 

be quite as loquacious this round. 

I am going to start off with Mr. Fox at the Alamo Bowl. And I 

am not picking on you, Mr. Fox. You just happen to be representing the bowls that are not the major big bowls and you are 

here. So this is not a knock on the Alamo Bowl. I love the Alamo 

Bowl. I like going to the Alamo Bowl. I have got relatives in San 

Antonio and I really enjoy your city. 

The Alamo Bowl, like all these other bowls, is a nonprofit entity. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. FOX. Correct. 

Mr. BARTON. And I would think most of the people that participate are volunteers? 

Mr. FOX. Very much so. 

Mr. BARTON. Probably some paid people, just an executive director or somebody to manage it on a day-to-day basis and organize 

all these activities. But the majority of your folks are community 

citizens who just volunteer because it is fun and they like to help? 

Mr. FOX. Absolutely. We have got a full-time staff of six and 

probably 500 volunteers. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, you say that your money that you raise, your 

revenue source is the ticket sales. You don’t get—do you also get 

some of the television money? 

Mr. FOX. The primary funding streams for a ball game really are 

ticket sales, TV revenue, and sponsorships in general. 

Mr. BARTON. General sponsorships. OK. How much of that 

money percentagewise actually flows through to the charity that 

you choose to raise money for? 

Mr. FOX. Really, if you look at it, the biggest charity that we 

have are the two participating institutions. They are getting over 

75 percent of that $2.25 million that I was talking about. That is 

the primary charity. After that, now we do some things in our local 

marketplace, scholarship programs to local high schools, seniors 

going to higher education, those type of things. But right off the 

top, you are at least 75 percent. 

Mr. BARTON. But that is going to the schools. I would quibble 

that a contribution or an allocation to the team that is participating is not a charity, but I am not going to argue. If that is the 

way college football defines itself, then I am not going to argue that 

point today. 

How much of the money goes to classic charities, boys and girls 

clubs, scholarships, underprivileged children? I don’t know what 

else in San Antonio, or at least do you give not to the schools? 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

Mr. FOX. Several hundred thousand dollars will go out to local 

organizations, whether it is boys and girls clubs, whether it is the 

Kids Sports Network. You name it, there are a number of different 

organizations who benefit from the bowl as well, besides the institutions. Obviously that is the primary donor, if you will. 

Mr. BARTON. But the primary reason that your bowl and all the 

other bowls exist is to generate money for the local community. 

And you do pay expenses or pay a contribution to the schools that 

actually play the game, which is a good thing. But you are pretty 

up front that it was an event, it was a series of activities. You are 

trying to get people to come to San Antonio to have a good time 

and spend money. 

Mr. FOX. Absolutely. When you look at it—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am good with that. I have gone to San Antonio 

and had a good time and spent money, so I am OK with that. 

Now, why couldn’t you do the same thing and be a part—the 

Alamo Bowl be a quarter final game or something like that? Why 

would that not—why would fewer people come, spend less money, 

and you not be able to do all the good deeds that you do with the 

money you generate if it were a part of a playoff system? 

Mr. FOX. One of the challenges with the playoff system, quite 

honestly, is the fact you are having—it doesn’t matter what format. 

Let’s say you are a 16-game format. You have got 15 games, you 

have got four successive weeks. If in your original statement when 

you talked about A&M and Texas Tech and San Antonio were to 

sell out, absolutely. But in a quarter final matchup, we might have 

the University of Washington—— 

Mr. BARTON. And the Red Raiders would spend lots of money. 

Now, the Aggies are frugal. We probably wouldn’t. But the Raiders, 

they will spend money. 

Mr. FOX. All teams are very generous in that perspective. But 

when you look at teams that are not in the geographic footprint, 

you come into a situation where you have a challenge of people 

traveling across the country. I brought up the issue, I think when 

you stepped out, about the Big 12 championship game. You brought 

up the question, why championship game attendance is down. Obviously, the economy is one of the issues right now, but also a oneweek turnaround. When you have a championship game, teams 

often don’t know where they are going until one week out. Those 

fans have to make the decision, do I commit to the championship 

game now, in a week, or am I going to roll the dice; do we win the 

championship game to go on to the BCS game or another bowl 

game, which is 3 or 4 weeks down the road. 

Mr. BARTON. But with your current system, and I don’t know exactly, but the Alamo Bowl gets like the number six team in the Big 

12 and the number six team in the Big 10 or something? 

Mr. FOX. Somewhere between four and six, depending on how 

many teams are in. Yes. 

Mr. BARTON. So there have been some years that you were getting teams that were 7–5, 6–6. But if you are part of a playoff system, you are probably going to get teams that are 9–2, 8–3, hot 

team on a roll. You may be getting Boise State, who is coming in 

undefeated but not from a power conference. You know, it would 

seem to me that your actual product on the field in a playoff sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:33 Apr 26, 2012 Jkt 072883 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A883.XXX A883

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

tem is going to be a little bit—and my Aggies have been in your 

Alamo Bowl, so I am not going to say the current product is bad. 

But Penn State was a lot better the year they played A&M in the 

Alamo Bowl. You probably would be better off. Wouldn’t you? 

Revenuewise. I don’t see how you would—— 

Mr. FOX. Well, not necessarily, because you also could not be in 

that system. Keep in mind, if you go to a playoff there is no question that the bowl would be jeopardized. 

Mr. BARTON. It depends on how many, and it depends on what 

the BCS and the NCAA decide to do. You could have a playoff system with 64 teams and use every bowl that is currently in there. 

You could do that. You could have a playoff system where you had 

home field advantage to the higher ranked team. You could have 

a playoff system where you took the—I don’t want to say the better 

bowls, but the more established bowls—and certainly the Alamo 

Bowl would be one—and then have the other bowls, which tend to 

be the smaller, newer bowls, could still do their bowl games. And, 

you know, since most of the teams aren’t going to get to play for 

the national championship anyway, those bowls would still do all 

the events you are talking about. But if you are one of the playoff 

bowls, you are going to be a part of a system that your bowl may 

have the national championship team. It just has to win your game 

in the next tour, whatever, to make it. 

Mr. FOX. That is certainly part of a system that could be in place 

and could be discussed. Now, when you talk about a 64-team playoff is, what, 63 games? You could still be playing. 

Mr. BARTON. I am not advocating that. 

Mr. Swofford, I have been real nice to you. I haven’t asked a 

question this round. I can’t let it go. You know, you are the guy 

that is representing the BCS. What is the wisdom behind the original BCS to the four existing bowls? Well, way back when it took— 

there were more bowls than that because the Cotton Bowl was part 

of the original BCS. But the last, until 3 years ago you had the 

Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl, 

and the championship game rotated each year. Then, 3 years ago, 

all of a sudden you had a BCS championship game in addition to 

those bowls. Why didn’t you—if you are going to go to an extra 

game, why didn’t you make that the plus-one game and take the 

winner of the two highest ranked BCS bowls and put them in a 

real championship game? Why did you just create another game 

that is just another bowl game? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Well, first of all, the idea you just expressed was 

discussed at that time. It was also discussed a year ago on behalf 

of the ACC and the SEC, and there was not enough support within 

the group to move that forward. I think, really, when you go back 

to the origin of what is now the four games plus the national championship game which was added, as you said, for the past 3 years, 

and the double hosting model where that rotates to one of the four 

BCS bowls each year and they host both their bowl game and then 

the national championship game, what that did was actually open 

up access. 

Mr. BARTON. Open up access? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Yes. Because it gives two more teams the opportunity to play. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

Mr. BARTON. In a nonchampionship game. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. In the BCS games. And it did not add a game 

for the two teams that are playing in the championship game. And 

that was important to some people. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Bleymaier, does that make 

sense to you, what he just said? 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Mr. Chairman, yes, it does. It did provide more 

access, because remember there are six automatic qualifying conferences. With four games, there is only eight slots. So they are 

guaranteed six of the eight. So we only had two chances to get in. 

Mr. BARTON. But it didn’t give you a much better chance to get 

into the game. 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Absolutely. This isn’t really in reference to the 

national championship. 

Mr. BARTON. But the whole point of the BCS, theoretically, although we now know it is money, but at least to the fans it is to 

pick the championship, which you so eloquently pointed out. 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Right. And it was interesting, as Commissioner 

Swofford has mentioned, that this was discussed last year. It was 

discussed by the commissioners. It was never discussed with the 

athletic directors, who are part of the BCS committee, which I 

found very curious. But to your point, it didn’t do anything more 

for the national championship, but it did provide more access. 

Mr. BARTON. And it provides more money. It is one more game. 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. Right. 

Mr. BARTON. Another week out of the classroom. 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. It didn’t, because there is not a playoff. So it just 

basically added another bowl game. 

Mr. BARTON. It is the week after all the other bowl games. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. If I may, sir. Most of the second semesters have 

not started at the majority, large majority of the schools. 

Mr. BARTON. I am just being sarcastic. That is one of the reasons 

that we don’t have a playoff system theoretically. But we keep 

showing that that is really not the reason, because we keep adding 

regular season games, we keep playing Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and 

Thursdays. And now, the BCS has added another game in addition 

to the big four daddy bowl games. 

Mr. Thompson, if you had a vote, would you add—I think you 

have—your have put forward an actual playoff proposal which they 

are going to review. But if your vote was the current system or the 

four BCS bowls plus a playoff, the plus one, how would you vote 

on that? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would prefer our proposal with a playoff rather 

than a plus one. 

Mr. BARTON. I am with you. But if you weren’t given that vote— 

I mean, we have got them at least talking about a plus-one system. 

I would hope you would prefer that over the current system. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I agree with Commissioner Swofford and Mr. 

Bleymaier, that certainly the BCS format now has increased access. It in essence has created two additional spots. Not for the national championship, but it has created two additional spots. 

So to answer your question directly: Playoff. But if that is not an 

option, would you prefer the plus one? Certainly that is something 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

that should get strong consideration, continued consideration, as all 

proposals. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, this is my last question and I have 

to run to the airport. 

If we move our bill and the President signs it, and I feel very 

confident that if Chairman Rush and Chairman Waxman want to 

move the bill that they are going to be successful, and I think Senator Hatch and other Senators are going to be successful in the 

Senate if they choose to move forward. So let’s say that our bill 

that is currently before this subcommittee becomes law, that you 

can’t advertise the BCS as a national championship game because 

it would be a violation of the Federal Trade Act, would you still do 

the BCS? Or would you actually change and go to a playoff? 

Mr. Swofford. Because you don’t have to change. Our bill doesn’t 

say you have to change the BCS. It just says you can’t advertise 

it as a national championship series. 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Congressman, I don’t know the answer to that. 

It hasn’t been discussed at any level in direct reference to the bill. 

And I am not a lawyer. I can’t really speak in that sense. So I 

think that is something that would have to be discussed. I would 

think the—well. 

Mr. BARTON. I would encourage you to start discussing it, because I think there is better than a 50 percent chance that if we 

don’t see some action in the next 2 months on a voluntary switch 

to a playoff system, that you will see this bill move. So it needs to 

be something that you need to start discussing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen. I have appreciated your testimony. It is enlightening. And while I don’t 

agree with all of it, it is certainly honest and sincere and I appreciate you being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And the Chair 

wants to just commend the gentleman as he leaves for his extraordinary work. 

I just have one question. It seems to me the issue right here is 

the fact that we have a national championship series that is not 

really a national championship series, and that the reason why the 

legislation, the reason why the involvement of Congress is that it 

is being advertised as a national championship series. And we 

think that, although this has a title, it is really a misnomer; the 

title is a very empty title because of the process and the procedure 

of selecting the national championship. And it seems to me that 

there might be—under the current law that there might be some 

fraudulent practices here, and that is the reason why we are there. 

Is this a meaningful title, the national championship title? Is this 

a meaningful title, in your opinion, Mr. Swofford? 

Mr. SWOFFORD. Yes, I think it is. If you look at the level to which 

college football teams aspire to being the BCS national champion, 

yes, I think it is. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Based on the ranking system, which I feel are 

confusing the computers and polls, yes, because, as Mr. Swofford 

said previously, it has in their opinion, the polls and the BCS 

rankings, said these are the one and two ranked teams. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

Mr. RUSH. OK. But now is there any other way of looking at— 

is there any other bona fide or better way of selecting the national 

championship? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I feel there is. 

Mr. RUSH. OK. Mr. Fox. 

Mr. FOX. I think the numbers speak for themselves. If the BCS 

has been in existence for 11 years and had a one versus two 

matchup and only nine times before that was able to happen, I 

think it has allowed that system to take place. 

Mr. RUSH. And Mr. Bleymaier? 

Mr. BLEYMAIER. I think that the national championship ought to 

be decided on the field like the other 88 NCA championships are. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair certainly thanks all the witnesses for your 

time and also for your forthrightness, for your participation. Let 

the record reflect that there will be an additional 7 days for any 

additional questions that might be presented to the witnesses via 

writing, in writing. And we would ask that you respond within another 7 days if there are in effect any additional questions. 

And, lastly, the Chair entertains a unanimous consent request to 

enter into the record the statement of Mr. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. And hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Abercrombie follows:] 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now concludes this hearing. The hearing 

today is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 72883A.049
84 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 72883A.050
85 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 72883A.051
86 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 72883A.052
87 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 72883A.053
88 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 72883A.054
89 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 72883A.055
90 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 72883A.056
91 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 72883A.057
92 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 72883A.058
93 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 72883A.059
94 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 72883A.060
95 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 72883A.061
96 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 72883A.062
97 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 72883A.063
98 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 72883A.064
99 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 72883A.065
100 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 72883A.066
101 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 72883A.067
102 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 72883A.068
103 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 72883A.069
104 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 72883A.070
105 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 72883A.071
106 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 72883A.072
107 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 72883A.073
108 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 72883A.074
109 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 72883A.075
110 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 72883A.076
111 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 72883A.077