BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock then received a letter dated March 9, 2010 from Hatch and Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) in reference to the legality of the BCS. The letter requests information about the inner-workings of the BCS such as what criteria is used in the computer rankings and what is used to determine which conferences receive automatic bids to play in a BCS game.

The letter also references the BCS's new $500 million television deal and points out that it is "a significant increase over the BCS's recently expired contract." It also points out that under the current contract, teams from privileged, BCS conferences "received more than $600 million over the course of the previous BCS contract, while teams from non-privileged conferences collectively received just over $80 million."

The senators want to know if, since the college football landscape has changed and greater parity exists today than in years past, "distribution under the new contract will reflect these changes in the competitive landscape and whether it will be flexible enough to reflect any such changes during the course of the agreement."

But the dynamic, bipartisan senator duo's written smack down isn't done just yet. They go on, "in an article published in the Fort Worth Texas Star-Telegram, on December 24, 2009, you stated, under the BCS agreement, '[t]he gross revenue for each conference that sends one team to the BCS is approximately $18.5 million.'"

The duo continues, "However, news accounts indicate that both the Mountain West Conference and Western Athletic Conference, both of whom are non-privileged conferences which sent one team to the BCS received only a fraction of the revenue paid to the six privileged conferences that also sent one team. It is also our understanding that this disparate distribution of revenues between privileged and non-privileged conferences sending one team to a BCS game has occurred in each of the four previous instances in which a team from a non-privileged conference has qualified for a BCS game."

The letter goes on to ask more questions about the BCS, its legality and how the BCS represents itself to the public. In fact, the senators close their letter, "ultimately, our current concerns are not only with the current system employed by the BCS, but that the BCS's public representations do not accurately reflect the practical manner in which the system operates."

Your move, Mr. Hancock.

The letter can be seen in its entirety HERE. Just scroll down and click on the PDF file containing the full letter.

Pouring more fuel on the fire, Hatch released a statement that includes the following:

"Legal and antitrust concerns aside, I think it's clear that the BCS is fundamentally unfair and harmful to schools, students, college football fans and consumers throughout the country," Hatch said in a statement. "At the very least, I think the architects of the BCS should provide the public with more information to dispel the notion that the system is explicitly designed to favor certain teams while disfavoring others."

Hancock has stated that he looks forward to reading through the letter and addressing all of the senators' questions and concerns.

At what point does the BCS just give it up? The lower tiers of college football can run a playoff system why can't the FB$? Of course, there are other factors to consider besides logistics. But really?

With any luck, urging from Washington will help to move this along. And since I don't like to point out a problem without offering a solution, check this out. - Danny Hobrock

Danny is a sports journalist primarily covering college football and professional baseball. His work for Xtra Point Football has garnered national attention and is critically acclaimed. Danny is the former editor of a political and current events website and the editor of our college football content.

• For player profiles and complete coverage of this Year's NFL Draft, visit our NFL Draft Prospects Home Page with new profiles being added each week.

If you haven't voted in our polls on the site yet please do so. We are trying to get a feel for how our readers are looking at Football so we can write about things they want to hear. The poll questions are:

"Do you think the NCAA should have a Playoff to determine the National Champion rather than the BCS / Bowl System?"

and

"Should the NFL adopt the NCAA method of Overtime or continue to flip a coin for possession and have sudden death?"

Have a Fantasy Football or Rotisserie baseball question? Want to know who to pick up, who to activate and who the hot prospects are? Ask Dr. Roto. Let Dr. Roto guide your team to a league championship.

Comments (3)

letter to BCS
written by David Jillson, March 11, 2010

With all of thhe problems this country faces, a large part of them brought on by you and your fellow senators, why are you wasteing your time looking at how the BCS works. You can't balance the federal budget--why do you need to oversee what the BCS is doing with their money? Stick to what you were elected to do.
Dave & Marti Jillson

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Right thing to do
written by dps, March 11, 2010

Senators should be concerned about the BCS even in the midst of troubled times like these. Hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue are being siphoned away from deserving public schools because of the bias of the BCS. It's the equivalent of ludicrous bonuses going to AIG executives in the midst of a recession. Why shouldn't our public representatives be concerned with injustice? Why does it matter that it's on a playing field and not in a Wall Street office? Senators have a responsibility to enforce the law and fight corruption wherever that may be. While there are greater issues like health care and the two wars our country is currently engaged in pressing for the senate's attention, that does not mean that Senators should ignore other issues like the fraudulent practices of the BCS. In fact, that idea plays right into the efforts of the BCS. They would like nothing more than for the public to bail them out by calling on govenment to focus on other matters for the time being. If not now, when?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Yes, We need and will earn a multi-game playoff
written by Brandon Kennedy, March 11, 2010

I, like hundreds of fans have a proposal to afford a multi-game playoff for the BCS and because of that I am traveling around the Nation asking students and student athletes to read my proposal and (1) Decide if my proposal is feasible and (2) If they would like to join the KP Coalition and see the Kennedy Proposal instituted. Below is my abstract; however, the proposal can be read in full pdf format at http://www.kpcoalition.com/pag...y-proposal

The Kennedy Proposal is a ten team, 13-game, double elimnation tournament. Four teams, matching seeds (7) vs. (10) and ( vs. (9) will compete on the second saturday in December. The winners will advance and continue as in eight team model. The eight teams that do not advance to the National Championship will compete in tradtional BCS bowls. The first of five BCS bowl matchups will occur on New Year's Day and conclude in the second week of Januaury with the BCS National Championship Game. The Non-BCS bowls will continue in their present form.

If I have engaged you, the reader, enough to read the Kennedy Proposal, I ask that you try to draw my proposal on a piece of paper before you see "the Tournament" diagram.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment