UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON “COMPETITION IN
COLLEGE ATHLETIC CONFERENCES AND ANTITRUST ASPECTS OF THE BOWL
CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES”
* * *
TESTIMONY OF SCOTT S. COWEN
PRESIDENT,
Mr. Chairman, Representative
Conyers, and members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you today regarding the Bowl Championship Series and its impact on NCAA
Division I-A athletics. It is my sincere hope that this hearing, and any
ensuing discussions it might engender, will cast new light on an issue that has
far-reaching consequences for not only those universities that are not part of
the Bowl Championship Series alliance but for college athletics as a whole.
As a university president, I am concerned with four issues impacting intercollegiate athletics: the welfare and academic performances of student-athletes; the impact of the BCS alliance on Division I-A athletics; the increasing cost of competition; and the widening gulf between intercollegiate athletics and the basic missions of our universities.
However, given the focus of this committee hearing, I will restrict my comments today to the BCS alliance and its impact on Division I-A intercollegiate athletics in terms of inequities and restricted access.
I am not a lawyer, so I must leave
discussions of technical antitrust issues to those whose training provides
expertise in that area. However, in the last year
So I do not come to you today advocating an antitrust lawsuit but as the president of a non-BCS university, living daily with the impact the BCS alliance has on Tulane University and the 52 other higher education institutions like us.
I also can talk to you as president of a university whose football team enjoyed a perfect 11-0 season in 1998 yet had no practical access to a major bowl game or opportunity to compete for a national title.
And I can talk to you as president of a university whose board of administrators very recently made a difficult decision to remain in Division I-A athletics despite the inequities and lack of access inherent in the current two-tiered system created by the BCS to govern postseason play in football. For more information on the Tulane athletics study and decision, I refer you to our university magazine, which is available here in print and can be found online at http://www2.tulane.edu/tulanian.cfm.
Each fall, I have the opportunity to address the Tulane Green Wave football team. I look out over the faces of young men who are continuing the university’s century-old football tradition, who are hopeful and excited and enthusiastic, and who come into a program that is among the highest-ranked academically in the nation.
I always tell them several things. First, I remind them they are in college to get an education that will help them become productive citizens and future leaders. Second, I tell them they are at Tulane to grow and develop as people, to cross that bridge from adolescence to adulthood. Third, I remind them that as athletes they are at Tulane to be as competitive as they can be.
There also are things I cannot tell them, however, and it both saddens and angers me to the core. I cannot tell them that, should they have a terrific season and play with all their heart and soul, they will have a realistic chance to play for a national title. I cannot tell them that the reward for the end of a long and successful season could be an appearance in a major bowl game. Because the truth is, when it comes to Division I-A football in a non-BCS school, no matter how well these young men play, no matter what kind of season they have—they will have virtually no realistic access to major bowls or championship play.
So
when Tulane had a perfect football season in 1998, we had no practical chance
for a major bowl or a championship run despite being one of only two undefeated
teams in the country. The other undefeated team was the
Football
is the only NCAA sport where this inequity exists; not coincidentally, Division
I-A postseason play in football is exclusively controlled by the BCS. In other
sports, all of which have a playoff system in place, all Division I-A teams
start out on a level playing field. Therefore, you can have
Do the non-BCS schools win a lot of championships in these other sports? Not necessarily. But the opportunity is there; the access is there. And when the underdog wins, it is a glorious thing.
My stance against the BCS alliance is based on four arguments, as follows.
Our country is based on the idea of equal opportunity for all, and our educational institutions are dedicated today to the principles of access, inclusiveness, fairness and consistency. It goes against everything we hold dear to allow—even encourage—a system that showers financial and reputational rewards on one member while unnecessarily denying or limiting the opportunity for another member to earn the same rewards.
The BCS system governing postseason play is inconsistent with all other NCAA-sanctioned sports, as well as the values and principles that guide our system of higher education. The BCS conferences define the ranking system that determines participation in the BCS bowls and national championship game, and automatically qualify their own members for six of the eight available major bowl slots, regardless of their BCS ranking.
One
of the great ironies of this discussion of “haves” and “have-nots,” as the BCS
and non-BCS schools are commonly referred to, is that the requirements of
Division I-A membership are the same regardless of the group to which you
belong. Both BCS and non-BCS schools must meet the same NCAA requirements. It
seems we can have consistency, fairness and a level playing field when it comes
to membership requirements for Division I-A, but not when it comes to access
and equity in Division I-A football.
The BCS has created a system of limited access that does not offer a level playing field or means of fair play, and it is a system that lies outside the boundaries of what intercollegiate athletics has traditionally considered a right and just means of determining a national champion.
Limited access results from the fact that six of the eight BCS bowl slots are automatically given to the champions of each of the BCS conferences. The two remaining slots are filled based on the results of a ranking system developed by the BCS conferences. A careful analysis of the components of this ranking as well as the overall rules for BCS eligibility make it virtually impossible for a non-BCS school to ever qualify for a BCS bowl, much less the national championship.
One of the most frustrating aspects of these limitations is that they are unnecessary if, in fact, determining a definitive college football champion is the primary goal, as the BCS claims. There are other ways to accomplish this without excluding or limiting access to half of the Division I-A schools—the half who do not belong to BCS conferences.
In fact, I would contend that the only true reasons for the restrictions and limited access in the BCS arrangement are financial ones—namely, ensuring that the lion’s share of the TV revenues and the scheduling benefits remain only with BCS schools.
In short, this is an arrangement that is restrictive, limits access to postseason play in football, and is unnecessarily causing a widening financial gap between BCS and non-BCS schools that is having a cumulative negative effect on all college sports, not just football.
The BCS alliance has led to an ever-increasing financial gap between the BCS and non-BCS institutions. The financial disparity caused by the BCS can be described by merely stating that the 63 BCS schools earned approximately $500 million since they began their first contract five years ago, while the 53 Division I-A non-BCS schools shared earnings of $17 million.
This gap exists despite the fact that the BCS and non-BCS schools need each other in order for intercollegiate football to succeed, and when given a fair opportunity for BCS and non-BCS schools to play against one another, they are quite competitive.
Ironically, some BCS schools have suggested that they might consider leaving the NCAA to form their own association if the non-BCS schools push too hard on this issue. This is anathema to the values of higher education and is not a practical solution for any of us.
The BCS arrangement and its negative impact extends far beyond this disparity in financial distributions, however. Let me give you a few practical examples.
• Student Recruitment. BCS schools have an obvious advantage over non-BCS schools in terms of recruiting the top student-athletes, who obviously want to play at schools where they have the best chance at success both on and off the field. On the field, that means having access to competition for a national championship and playing in the most attractive postseason bowls.
Non-BCS schools can sell their prospective student-athletes
on a good education, but they can hold out little practical hope of a national
championship or even the reward of playing in one of the four biggest bowl
games. Thus, many of the top student-athletes continue to choose BCS schools,
while the non-BCS schools suffer because they do not have greater access, much
less the same access. The strong get stronger, and the rest of us try to keep
up.
• Recruitment and Retention of Coaches. Just as the top student-athletes want to go where they can perform consistently at the highest level of competition, so do coaches. Success for any coach is measured not only in the win-loss column and the dollar figure on a contract but also in terms of competitiveness and the ability to achieve recognition at the highest level.
Because of the
artificial barriers the BCS has erected to limit access to bowl games and
championship competition, our non-BCS schools have become virtual training
grounds for future BCS coaches. Once a talented football coach achieves any
level of success in a non-BCS school, he will inevitably take the first
opportunity to move into a BCS setting, and each season we see such a
migration. After Tulane’s 11-0 season, our football coach, Tommy Bowden, went
to Clemson, a BCS school. In 2001, Bobby Johnson left a successful team at
(Ironically,
• Facility Improvements. I talked earlier about the revenue-sharing among BCS schools that brought those schools $500 million in the past five years as opposed to the $17 million received by non-BCS schools. $500 million will help build a lot more stadiums, create more state-of-the-art practice facilities, purchase more top-of-the-line equipment, and fund more upgrades to existing facilities and services for 63 BCS schools than will $17 million for 53 non-BCS schools. Non-BCS schools must scramble within their own limited budgets to fund these improvements without that revenue, or allow their facilities to be outpaced and fall behind the competition.
If the non-BCS schools do fund the improvements themselves, what suffers as a result? Do academic programs get slashed to pay for athletics? Should faculty salaries be frozen and our non-BCS schools risk an exodus of their best faculty to other schools? Do tuition costs have to go even higher? Do they have to eliminate the so-called “Olympic sports” so dollars can be reallocated to football? These are the difficult, yet realistic, tradeoffs we must consider. Obviously, these options are not in keeping with the mission of any institution of higher education.
The other option is for the non-BCS schools to allow our facilities to stay the same year after year, the result being an even greater erosion in the number of student-athletes who want to play for us and the coaches who want to stay. It’s a vicious cycle, and one in which the non-BCS school comes out a loser no matter what option is chosen.
• Scheduling. The BCS system also
reinforces the two-tiered system in Division I-A football in terms of
scheduling. Few BCS schools are willing to play straightforward home-and-home
series with non-BCS teams. So in order for a non-BCS school such as
• Public Perception. The cumulative negative effects of the BCS and its two-tiered system in Division I-A football can be seen very clearly when it comes to the court of public opinion. Non-BCS schools are, quite frankly, seen as inferior and less competitive than BCS schools. Because they never get to play in the “big games” and are hindered by scheduling, recruiting and coaching limitations, non-BCS schools are viewed by the public, the TV networks and by prospective student-athletes as being less competitive and, thus, less desirable. Even Jim Delany, commissioner of the Big 10 and one of the architects of the Bowl Championship Series, was quoted in a July 22 Knight-Ridder news service article that an unintended consequence of the BCS was the media’s repeated use of the term “BCS” to refer to the conferences affiliated with the four major bowls and to all Division I-A sports programs, not just football. In that article, Mr. Delaney acknowledged that the concerns of the non-BCS schools constituted a valid complaint.
Despite these obstacles created by the BCS arrangement, data indicate that the non-BCS schools are increasingly competitive with many BCS schools. Given this, can you imagine the competitive parity possible in the absence of these BCS-generated obstacles?
• Impact on Bowl System. As a
two-tiered system of programs has resulted from the presence of the BCS
alliance, so, too has there grown an even larger two-tiered system of football
bowl games. The Rose, Sugar,
At the same time, in a desperate bid to draw a share of the wealth and visibility, more bowl games are being formed—six new ones in the past five years—but most do not generate much net income for the participating schools. In fact, though revenue from all bowl games grew more than $22 million in the past five years, 95 percent of the net revenue went to the BCS schools.
These are just a few of the major negative impacts of the BCS
on non-BCS schools: student-athlete recruitment, coaching recruitment and
retention, facilities funding, scheduling, public perception and bowl impact.
The cumulative effect of these impacts are to hinder the competitiveness of
non-BCS schools, limit their access to equal and fair competition, and create a
perception of athletic inferiority—all of which feed upon each other in a
classic “Catch-22” situation.
LESS RESTRICTIVE, VALUE-CREATING
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
My last, and perhaps most
important, issue with the BCS arrangement is that there are better approaches
clearly available to guide postseason play in football—approaches that would
create greater value for all Division I-A schools, the networks and the fans
while being less restrictive, more competitive and consistent with how we
handle all other NCAA sports.
One of the reasons the BCS was formed five years ago was to provide a way for a national championship game to take place in Division I-A football, with a decisive national champion at the end of each season. How could that goal still be achieved, yet within a setting formally sanctioned and operated by the NCAA?
I
would argue that a playoff system is one option that should be seriously
considered in college football just as it is in all other NCAA Division I-A
sports. An eight- or 16-team playoff system could open access to all
contenders, generate excitement and could incorporate the current bowl games
into its structure.
I realize that many of my colleagues on both sides of the BCS fence oppose a playoff system in football for various reasons.
Some, for example, believe a football playoff system would lengthen the season too much and impinge on student-athlete welfare. Student-athlete welfare is an issue across all sports, but somehow it never becomes an issue when talking about baseball or basketball, where the seasons are longer and the sport is more intrusive on the lives of the student-athletes, but only in football. This logic is inconsistent. This argument also does not take into account that until recent years, football seasons only had 10 or 11 games where we now play 12 or 13. By shortening our regular season, we could devise an effective playoff system without undue hardship on our student-athletes. Any revenue lost from a shortened season would be more than offset by the incremental value inherent in a playoff system.
Others argue that a playoff system would disrupt the historical relationship between college football and the traditional bowl games. In the past two months since Tulane underwent its athletics review and I began looking at the problems inherent with the BCS system, I have received more than 30 proposals for how to set up a workable playoff system for college football. Virtually all of them incorporated the existing bowls.
Some opposed to a playoff argue that a playoff system would be too commercialized for college football, often characterizing this commercialization as “NFL-like.” But in a day when all bowls carry the name of a corporate sponsor and come attached to highly priced network affiliations, I fail to see how a playoff system would increase the commercialization of college football. In fact, the big college bowls are already extremely commercialized, much more so than the NCAA basketball playoff system. If football had a similar system sanctioned and run by the NCAA, I suspect the football championships would be less commercial than they are today.
Finally, the pro-BCS, anti-playoff proponents present an argument we’ve heard before: that the networks don’t have an interest in a playoff that could end up featuring two non-BCS schools playing for a championship. Not only would they be interested—they would be vying for the opportunity to air it. In fact, in a recent interview, former CBS Sports director Neal Pilson estimated in a recent CNN commentary that a playoff system would spark a bidding competition between at least two networks and be much more profitable than the current BCS arrangement with ABC Sports.
Obviously, the fact that we are here today looking at the issues surrounding the BCS alliance means that there is disagreement within Division I-A schools as to this system’s efficacy and fairness. Those who support the BCS system, including, of course, BCS schools, have a number of arguments and questions they present to make their case.
• Why now? BCS supporters want to know why, all of a sudden, the system is coming under such scrutiny. The current dissatisfaction with the system, however, has been building since the BCS was organized five years ago. It has taken five years to see the direction the BCS was going to be taking college football and now, clearly, it is not a direction that is healthy either for college football or Division I-A athletics in general.
Many will argue that the same teams were already going to the big bowl games prior to the formation of the BCS, and that all the BCS did was to set up a system whereby a definitive national championship game could be played.
This is not quite true, however. It is true that prior to the formation of the BCS there were always so-called “Big Football Schools,” perennial champions where success fostered continued prosperity. And it is true that most of these schools are in the BCS conferences and continue to compete very successfully.
The difference is that each year prior to the formation of the BCS, the Big Football Schools began their seasons on the same footing as every other school—at 0-0, with no built-in advantages beyond their own potential. Once the BCS and its ranking system were developed, that equity disappeared. Now, all schools start their seasons at 0-0, but 63 have more opportunities and access than the other 53.
The gap is continuing to widen between the BCS and non-BCS schools because of the significant increase in available revenues since the BCS formed, because a national championship is involved, because most of that revenue is going to BCS schools, and because the BCS conferences defined the rules of engagement with virtually no consultation with other Division I-A presidents.
Bottom line: The BCS is quite different than the old bowl system!
•
Who wants to see Tulane vs. BYU in a
national championship game? The implication behind this question is, of
course, that non-BCS schools such as Tulane and BYU do not generate any
interest outside their own ranks. Beyond the arrogance of this question, I
would answer, “You might be surprised.” Look at the excitement generated by
underdog
• The networks would not want to broadcast a championship game featuring a Tulane or a BYU. This, of course, is nonsense. The networks will always be interested in a national championship game if there is a level playing field and the participants have earned the right to be there. Nothing sells better on TV than a good underdog story, and the networks know how to tell that story very well.
• Non-BCS schools already have access to the BCS bowls, so what is the problem? As I have previously suggested, this is a case of the theoretical versus the practical. In theory, yes, non-BCS schools do have potential access to the BCS bowl games and the national championship. According to BCS rules, six of the eight slots in the four major bowl games automatically go to BCS members. Theoretically, then, the other two slots would be available to non-BCS schools. But the two slots also must be filled with schools ranked in the top six nationally according to the BCS’ own rankings. In practicality, the top six has never included a non-BCS school, nor is it likely to do so. The BCS ranking formula has an inherent, built-in bias, which makes it virtually impossible for a non-BCS school to be ranked in the top six. Add on top of all of this the special treatment given to Notre Dame in the BCS system, and you will never see a non-BCS team play for a national championship and perhaps never even qualify for a BCS bowl.
•
Non-BCS schools cannot compete with BCS
schools. My answer to that is, how can we know until we are given a fair
chance to compete? If, in 1998, both Tulane and
These are just a few of the counter-arguments often posed by those associated with the BCS. However, I can virtually guarantee that if you are willing to scratch the surface of the BCS’ counter-arguments, they are without merit.
So, what of the future? I did not
come here today to talk about the technicalities of antitrust matters, but to
put a human story and face behind the non-BCS schools and their experiences.
This is a story about access issues, about the creation of wide financial gaps
that create cumulative negative effects and complex problems. It is a system
that is unnecessarily restrictive, and one that creates artificial barriers to
limit access and, from where I sit, that feels like a real problem whether you
call it an antitrust issue or anything else.
The non-BCS schools are not asking for a handout. We’re not looking to take anything away from the BCS schools. We are not asking for revenue to be given to us that has not been rightfully earned.
What we are asking for is the right to compete. We are seeking the opportunity to try and earn a larger share of the pie. We are asking for greater access to the most lucrative bowl games and the national championship. We are asking for a level playing field. We are asking for every college football team in Division I-A to begin their seasons at 0-0 with realistic opportunities to play for a championship and have practical access to the same postseason bowls.
I do not think we are asking for too much.
A
group of 45 non-BCS university presidents already has started a constructive
and promising dialog, and in four days a meeting of 11 Division I-A presidents
with Dr. Myles Brand of the NCAA will be held in
However, if we cannot reach such a resolution, I hope that this committee will hold additional hearings toward taking substantive action that will resolve the matter.
Resolution of these inequities in intercollegiate football will lead to a stronger and healthier system of Division I-A athletics throughout the country as we again open the gates of access to all schools and all teams—equally and without bias.
It also will provide a crucial first step in overall athletics reform that will bring our priorities and systems of operation back in line with the original mission upon which the American system of intercollegiate athletics was founded.
NCAA Division I-A Universities
Non-BCS
Universities
Arkansas State University
Ball State University
Bowling Green State University
Brigham Young University
California State University – Fresno
Central Michigan University
Colorado State University
East Carolina University
Eastern Michigan University
Kent State University
Louisiana Tech University
Marshall University
Miami University
Middle Tennessee State University
New Mexico State University
Northern Illinois University
Ohio University
Rice University
San Diego State University
San Jose State University
Southern Methodist University
State University of New York at Buffalo
Texas Christian University
Troy State University
Tulane University
United States Air Force Academy
United States Military Academy
United States Naval Academy
University of Akron
University of Alabama at Birmingham
University of Central Florida
University of Cincinnati
University of Hawaii
University of Houston
University of Idaho
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
University of Louisiana at Monroe
University of Louisville
University of Memphis
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of Nevada, Reno
University of New Mexico
University of North Texas
University of South Florida
University of Southern Mississippi
University of Texas at El Paso
University of Toledo
University of Tulsa
University of Utah
University of Wyoming
Utah State University
Western Michigan University
Mid-American
Mountain West
Sun Belt
Western Athletic
Arizona State University
Auburn University
Baylor University
Boston College
Clemson University
Duke University
Florida State University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Indiana University Bloomington
Iowa State University
Kansas State University
Michigan State University
North Carolina State University
Northwestern University
Ohio State University
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University
Purdue University
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Stanford University
Syracuse University
Temple University
Texas A&M University
Texas Tech University
University of Alabama
University of Arizona
University of Arkansas
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Los Angeles
University of Colorado at Boulder
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
University of Maryland College Park
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
University of Mississippi
University of Missouri - Columbia
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
University of Oklahoma
University of Oregon
University of Pittsburgh
University of South Carolina - Columbia
University of Southern California
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas at Austin
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Wake Forest University
Washington State University
West Virginia University
BCS Conferences
Atlantic Coast Conference
Big 12 Conference
Big East Conference
Big Ten Conference
Pacific 10 Conference
Southeastern Conference
SPORTS DESK
The role of Division I-A intercollegiate athletics is
increasingly out of sync with the goals and values of
This was one of the conclusions reached last week by the
Even though some changes in the college athletics landscape are under way, they are not bold enough or happening fast enough. Tulane came close to being the first victim of the inequities and restrictions inherent in the N.C.A.A. system and the Bowl Championship Series alliance. And though we voted to continue our Division I-A programs, we believe other universities may not be able to do the same. It is not a matter of if programs will begin to fall because of the misdirected climate of college athletics; it is a matter of when.
At Tulane, we had to take a hard look at our athletics division -- a clean program with one of the country's highest graduation rates for student-athletes -- not because it was in trouble but because it is a student-centered athletics program being run in a national athletics climate that revolves around entertainment and big money.
We had to perform this review because ours is a program that operates under
the increasingly burdensome N.C.A.A. Division I-A membership criteria that
threaten to siphon even more resources from the academic mission of our
university. And we had to look at our athletics programs and weigh the cost of
running them in light of the disparity in intercollegiate athletics being
exacerbated by the presence of the B.C.S. alliance. Tulane is a member of
Conference
In the end, the Tulane University board voted unanimously to remain in Division I-A athletics because we know that we are doing it the right way, and that the N.C.A.A. needs programs like Tulane's to remind it of what it was originally set up to do: provide a framework for college student-athletes to compete at the highest level while also receiving an education that will help them become productive citizens and leaders. With a football student-athlete graduation rate of 80 percent, Tulane led all colleges among those eligible for bowls last year in terms of graduation rates while also fielding successful teams -- attributes that certainly fit the original mission of the N.C.A.A.
But, somewhere, that original mission got lost. As a society we tend to glorify those teams and colleges that excel on the field even though they have student-athlete graduation rates that are deplorable. In recent years there have been glaring examples of ranked teams participating in postseason play that had student-athlete graduation rates of less than 20 percent. How can this performance be justified, much less rewarded through participation in high-profile events like bowl games? What kind of message does this send to our students and the public about what we stand for? The N.C.A.A. should be moving more rapidly to raise academic requirements before our universities lose credibility. Additionally, the current proposal by the N.C.A.A. president, Myles Brand, to enact incentives and disincentives for participating in postseason play based on the academic performance of student-athletes is a step in the right direction.
At the same time, the N.C.A.A. continues to enact legislation that increases the costs and requirements for Division I-A universities, while the B.C.S. group has resulted in an even wider gap between the financial haves and have-nots. For the have-nots to succeed, too often academics must take a back seat to fund additional spending for athletics programs, coaches and facilities. And institutions are continuously cutting Olympic sports to support football and are sending mixed messages as a result.
As university presidents, we have allowed this cost escalation and change in focus to occur, using the unsupported belief that these investments more than pay for themselves in terms of increased applications, national visibility and donor contributions.
But it is time to act. It is time for universities to take a hard look at their programs. It is time for the N.C.A.A. to take an even harder look at its priorities and mission, and it is time for all of us to think about the real purpose of higher education and where athletics fits into that purpose. Are we here to provide weekend entertainment for TV viewers? To exploit our student-athletes by focusing more on their on-field performance than their classroom achievement?
We are selling our students short, trading our futures for short-term success and throwing away our principles to participate in a system that no longer works. This week, I have invited many of my fellow university presidents to actively challenge the N.C.A.A., the B.C.S. and the current system of intercollegiate athletics in this country. Myles Brand has agreed to join us throughout our discussions; our inaugural teleconference is scheduled for July 22.
And I am calling on everyone else who cares about higher education in this country to help us, to step forward, to be heard and to demand change.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company