by Brian Frederick

Collegiate sport has been reduced to little more than a shameless money grab. University presidents have now thrown off all pretense of preserving the historic tradition of athletic conferences in favor of the pursuit of lucrative television contracts (sometimes for themselves) for football. It’s long past time Washington starts asking whether the decisions of these university leaders are in the best interests of students, athletes, fans and taxpayers.

When it comes to conference realignment, the rich get richer and the rest plunge deeper into debt. The collegiate landscape has changed from time to time, but the current changes are happening so extraordinarily quickly and with such reckless disregard for the public good that they are bound to leave behind a swath of carnage, with some schools exacerbating already deep fiscal problems and some being forced to shutter their football programs.

The root of the problem is the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Under the BCS, power conferences are able to secure much more lucrative contracts, in part, because they (unfairly) have a leg up on the other conferences in the pursuit for the championship. Since there is no postseason playoff and only two teams can play for a championship, these contracts become the end-all of college football, and thus, college athletics.

The current round of realignment is serving to further stratify the existing arrangement of the haves and have-nots in college football. And there are increasingly few haves – forcing the have-nots to spend even more money to try to keep up. Guess where a lot of this money comes from? University subsidies and student fees. Problem is, many of those universities are themselves in dire straits and are cutting budgets and laying off educators. But the subsidies to athletics continue unabated. Again, where is the oversight?

The NCAA claims its “core purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.” Well, the former obviously isn’t happening with the unfair and corrupt BCS bowl system. (In the latest episode of bowl shenanigans, it appears that the Sugar Bowl may have been using Bowl funds for political contributions, despite claiming itself as a “public charity” to the IRS. The Fiesta Bowl fired its CEO, in part, for the same thing.) And the claim that the educational experience of the “student”-athletes is paramount is truly laughable, unless they by that they mean that the athletic performance of these young men and women is paramount. Think regularly traveling over 1,500 miles for conference matchups won’t affect these student’s academic work? In fact, it would seem that the only lesson college athletes truly learn is that they are not free to profit from their own hard work.

The NCAA is clearly unable to provide sorely needed leadership and oversight, particularly in football. When asked to explain whether the BCS amounts to an unfair monopoly, the NCAA punted, stating that the “BCS system does not fall under the purview of the NCAA.”Exactly. Instead, the NCAA simply exists now to allow colleges and universities the cover that they are engaged in a fair and honorable endeavor.

And so, university leaders are making short-sighted decisions with long-term ramifications for students, athletes, fans and taxpayers. Fans are always loathe to get the government involved in sports, but particularly in the case of college athletics, the government is already heavily involved, subsidizing most of these universities. It’s simply time that the government actually forced the supposed stewards of college athletics to start answering some questions about where this is all headed and why, when it is so obviously broken, no one can or is willing to fix it.

One congressman, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the New York Times: “Congress has the nexus to engage. These are tax-exempt organizations now making billions off of unpaid athletes. When it’s a regional league, it seems to make sense. When you’re taking schools practically from coast to coast and putting them in big-profit revenue leagues, we may be at a point where the N.C.A.A. has lost its ability to create a fair system for all to play in.”

Congress can and must act before realignment creates a situation so tenuous, the whole thing falls apart.

The public can now clearly see that the only thing ruling college athletics right now is football and the only thing ruling football is television money. So it’s up to the public to ask of these university leaders: which is more important — television revenues for entertainment or public subsidies for education? Because the two are diametrically opposed.

Brian Frederick is the Executive Director of Sports Fans Coalition. He holds a Ph.D. in Communication and lives in Washington, D.C. Email him at brian@sportsfans.org and follow him on Twitter here.

In an interview on a Tampa radio station yesterday, BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock was asked about the fact that the FCS (formerly D-1AA) has a postseason playoff and why that wouldn’t work in the FBS (formerly D-1A). Here was his response:

“The situation there is that they never had a bowl system, so their athletes don’t get that same kind of reward at the end of the year. And frankly, a lot of people are not real happy with those playoffs. The attendance at those games, as they play on campus until the finals, the attendance is less than regular season games. What they have is a series of one-day business trips. … A lot of people in that group would frankly like to try something different. I talk fairly often to coaches who either are in that system now or used to be and they say, ‘Mr. Hancock, please keep what you’re doing.’”

So the BCS is arguing that a postseason playoff would be bad because home games wouldn’t sell out. HA! As though a playoff match-up between Alabama and Ohio State at the Horseshoe in Columbus wouldn’t sell out because it’s during or after finals. Please.

Moreover, even if they didn’t sell out, at least teams wouldn’t have near the ticket absorption problems (see Connecticut-Fiesta Bowl) or travel costs they would in bowl games.

Finally, notice how the BCS is framing the playoff games as a “series of one-day business trips.” Again, HA! As though the players are viewing playing postseason win or go home match-ups as though they’re travelling to Indianapolis for a sales conference. Please.

Every other NCAA sport has a playoff and there are no complaints. Apparently, the BCS thinks the point of college football’s postseason is to give kids a vacation for a week in the winter. Which sounds great if you’re in Miami or LA, but Detroit? DC? Boise?

It’s long past time for a college football playoff.

Last year, Dallas Mavericks (and fan friendliest) owner Mark Cuban became inspired to change college football after reading “Death to the BCS.” Cuban set up a company called Radical Football and began investigating ways to make money off college football’s mess of a postseason.

Well, Radical Football has finally put forward its first proposal. It’s an NCAA proposal, actually, number 2011-87. Basically it calls for the creation of a four-team invitational during the two weeks after the regular season when most conferences are holding their conference championships. Teams from those conferences who do not have championships (including Big 12 and Big East) as well as the independents (including Notre Dame and BYU) would be invited based on the final rankings of the regular season. (And teams could opt out.)

It’s a great idea and would no doubt add some more excitement to December. It’s not a full-fledged playoff, which Sports Fans Coalition is fighting for, but it’s a solid start towards change. Fans will love it and the games could end up being more exciting than the BCS bowl games. Most importantly, it should show university presidents how reforming the current system can be profitable.

Best of luck to Radical Football in this endeavor. We fully support their efforts. Read Andy Staples’ column on the new proposal here.

Since the Justice Department sent a letter to the NCAA asking it to explain why it doesn’t have a postseason playoff and whether the current BCS system may be violating antitrust law, there has been overwhelming support for BCS reform and the DOJ’s involvement. What follows is a list of what journalists, political figures, educational leaders and others are saying, just in the last week, about the need for reform.

ESPN’s Michael Wilbon
Pardon the Interruption
Quote: “Kornheiser: Do you think 24 this could lead to change in the current BCS format? And do you honestly think the government should be involved in college football? Wilbon: I hope it will and apparently it will. Those are my two answers. I will read you something from a Sports Illustrated piece recently that talks about the Utah attorney general alleging serious antitrust violations …that are harming taxpayer funded institutions to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That sentence right there is why the government can and should get involved and BCS, it’s going bye-bye. They’re bogus. Every other sport in every other division has playoffs. Robbing taxpayer institutions to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, don’t tell me you can justify that.”

Author and YahooSports.com Columnist Dan Wetzel
Justice Letter Could Signal Big Trouble for BCS
Quote: “The BCS is a financially underperforming system that costs mostly public colleges and universities hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue while directing tens of millions in student fees and taxpayer funds to third-party bowl games. The money alone makes it a concern for any taxpayer. Then there are the current corruption charges against the bowl business – the Fiesta Bowl is under fire for out-of-control spending and potentially illegal campaign contributions.”

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch
Title:  Sen. Orrin Hatch: Justice Department moving forward on BCS
Quote: “My understanding is they are going to go forward and this is the first step. Look, 87% of the BCS money goes to the privileged conferences. That amounts to billions of dollars. Only about 12% goes to the non-privileged conferences. It is very unfair and violative of the anti-trust laws. I think the Justice Department is totally responsible in going into this and looking at it, and I don’t see how they can’t conclude anything but that this is violative of the antitrust laws.”

Richmond Times-Dispatch’s Paul Woody
Justice Department’s look at BCS system long overdue
Quote: “One duty of government is to level the playing field so the rich and powerful do not always trounce the rights of the less powerful. Goodness gracious, Mr. Hancock, that is why the Justice Department is involved. And that involvement is long overdue.”

Harrisburg Patriot-News’ David Jones
BCS not a legit realm for antitrust feds? Why not?
Quote: “The antitrust wing of the U.S. Department of Justice has many bigger fish to fry. It has bigger fish, same-size fish and many smaller fish frying right now. That’s why 737 people work there. I’m not talking about in the Justice Department; I just mean in its antitrust division alone …. (The) BCS is one giant shell game. It’s run by four bowls and six conferences, who have slanted the scam in their favor. Anyone who has ever paid money into season tickets or seat licenses or bowl trips for a major-conference football program has been handing cash over to these hoodwink artists whether he or she knows it or not. The racket these bowls are running is almost as shameless as a ponzi scheme. It is an entrenched system. It will go on this way unless it is stopped. Only the federal government has the wherewithal to do the job.”

ESPN.com’s Andrea Adelson
Should feds mess with BCS?
Quote: “If university presidents are going to sit on their hands and do nothing, then somebody else should do the digging and investigate why this is the only postseason the NCAA does not control, and why this is the only NCAA sport without a playoff. Perhaps government involvement is the only way to spur change.”

Independent Mail’s Scott Adamson
Title: Government should look into how BCS, NCAA conducts business
Quote: “Gee willikers, Bill, the government can multitask, can’t it? And considering the shenanigans with the Fiesta Bowl — financial and otherwise — it has every right (and an obligation) to investigate what’s going on. And it’s a business that gets sweet tax breaks and uses a bowl system that features events run by non-profit organizations. As those party animals at the Fiesta Bowl showed, even non-profits can let their hair down and make the money rain. Moreover, tax dollars help foot the bill for NCAA programs — and don’t forget that federal funding is involved.”

College Football News’ Pete Fiutak
Title: The Feds, The Lawsuit, & The End Of The BCS?
Quote: “Basically, the Department of Justice has the same questions that most fans have had for more than a decade. Why the heck is there a BCS and why isn’t there some sort of a playoff? While this might not seem like some sort of a major national injustice, the BCS and college football bowls are multi-million dollar businesses. And when the outcomes of big football games affects the bottom lines of taxpayer-funded universities, and when some schools are getting paid more than others, questions start to get asked.”

San Diego State President Stephen Weber
Title: ESPN.com: Readers want BCS investigated
Quote:  “In a recent statement, BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said the government has more important things to do than to focus on whether or not the BCS is fair and equitable for all universities and student athletes across the country,” Weber said in a statement. “It was the type of self-serving statement we’ve come to expect from the BCS cartel … “Now, more than ever, with budgets for public higher education being threatened with drastic cuts, it is imperative that the monies being generated by Division I college football are distributed in an equitable way. Clearly the best thing for the ‘haves’ of college football is to keep the ‘have nots’ out of their pot of money. But for the student-athletes who compete on the field, the current system is an injustice. And for the hundreds of universities outside of those six conferences, it prevents them from serving their students at the highest levels … “I applaud the Department of Justice for looking into this unfair system and I look forward to the day when all Division 1 football programs can play on the same, level field.”

New Mexico President David Schmidly
Title: UNM President fires back at the BCS
Quote: “With state support declining, and all of us in higher education looking to alleviate the financial problems brought on by the current economy, to not investigate the legality of the BCS, and to not look at the potential revenue streams that can be afforded to all Division I FBS institutions through other postseason means is short sighted and irresponsible If there is a way to alleviate the burden on tax-payers, while potentially increasing revenues and finding a more equitable way to distribute those revenues throughout college football, then an investigation by the Department of Justice is well worth the time and energy, and I fully support it.”

Fresno State President John Welty
Title:  Fresno State’s Welty joins challenge to BCS
Quote: “(Welty) said he is in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice investigating the BCS for possible antitrust violations. ‘Efforts of getting change in other ways haven’t worked,’ Welty said in an interview Friday. ‘It may be necessary to go that route in order to get change.’ ”

San Diego State AD Jim Sterk and attorney Len Simon
DOJ May Bust Up BCS, But Replacement Could Be Less Appealing
Quote: “I think something can be done to make it better than it is,” said Jim Sterk, San Diego State’s athletic director. … Attorney Len Simon, who teaches sports law at USD, was one of 21 signatories to a letter urging the Department of Justice to investigate the BCS on antitrust grounds. Simon says the current system is “terrible” and predicts that a playoff would fill the vacuum left by its demise. “The BCS is a cartel,” he said. “It’s an arrangement among six conferences to agree upon themselves to dominate the postseason college world and make it hard for anybody else to break in, no matter how good they are … “Most people who think about it understand it’s a flat-out, clear (antitrust) violation or it’s a difficult case for the BCS to defend. … The BCS rules are designed to inhibit competition and the worst thing is they’re not good for the fans.”

Antitrust Lawyer Dale Grimes
The Atlanic.com: Is the Bowl Championship Series a Cartel?
Quote: “Here’s how an antitrust lawyer would look at it,” said Dale Grimes, an antitrust lawyer at Bass, Berry & Sims. “If each conference would be better off individually to have a playoff system, but they’ve agreed to hang together to protect their interests collectively, that’s a cartel.”

BoardSource VP Deborah Davidson
Fox Sports: DOJ may come down on BCS
Quote: “I think the jig is up,” says Deborah Davidson, a vice president of governance research at BoardSource, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit agency that promotes good governance and author of a blog entry entitled “From Fiesta to Fiasco”. “We no longer have a situation where it’s fair to all in college sports, if we ever did. But now with what has come to light with the Fiesta Bowl – boys and toys – it begs the whole question as to whether these bowls should have nonprofit status in the first place.”

Utah AG Mark Shurtleff
AP: AG Hopes to File BCS Suit by Summer
Quote: “We believe we can prove it’s an illegal monopoly, a restraint of trade,” the 53-year-old Republican told The Salt Lake Tribune on Saturday. “It benefits the few at the expense of others.”

Hawaii AG David M. Louie
Hawaii could join Shurtleff BCS lawsuit
Quote: Shurtleff said he and Hawaii AG David M. Louie “talked at length” about the suit at a national attorney general’s meeting in March and “he (Louie) was very interested.”  Subsequently, Shurtleff said, “we’ve heard from his staff and we’re working on an agreement to be able to share information with them confidentially.”

College Professors
Department of Justice asked to investigate BCS
Quote: “Twenty-one college professors have signed a letter asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the Bowl Championship Series under antitrust law, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. The letter’s sentiments echo those of many BCS critics, who allege the organization is a cartel engineered by the leaders of the six conferences whose champions automatically qualify for the BCS’s big-money bowls. The arrangement harms the NCAA’s Football Bowl Series, or Division I-A, schools not in those conferences, and it harms fans who want to see a college football championship decided through a bracketed playoff, the letter states.”

SportsFans.org Executive Director Brian Frederick
It’s About Time the Justice Department Investigated the BCS
Quote: “It’s about time the Justice Department got involved. Why is college football the only sport with a postseason the NCAA does not immediately control? More importantly, why can’t the NCAA control college football? … We know that President Obama is in favor of a playoff. But there is now enough evidence that the current system is not only unfair and possibly illegal, it’s costing our states money. It’s time for the President to step in again to save college football from itself.”

In a Senate hearing today, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Justice Department sent a letter to the NCAA asking why college football doesn’t have a playoff.

Finally, we’re starting to get somewhere.

BCS Director Bill Hancock is quoted by ESPN.com stating: “Goodness gracious, with all that’s going on in the world right now and with national and state budgets being what they are, it seems like a waste of taxpayers’ money to have the government looking into how college football games are played.”

But given the potential money that is being left on the table by not having a playoff — money that could be helping states pay for the high cost of college athletics — it’s definitely an important policy concern.

Read more here.