Q & A with the Brand behind the NCAA's success

A: It wouldn't be an NCAA tournament.

Q: At what point does it become that? A: When they (BCS) want it to become that. That's the key answer. It isn't our decision. We stand ready to assist and help. If it's one thing we do well is, we run championships well. We stand ready to help. Not to take over but to help.

Q: Frankly, NCAA control is not what the BCS commissioners want.

A: They're concerned about a number of issues such as revenue re-distribution. I've been on record saying that if they ask us to help, the revenue re-distribution issue is entirely off the table. That would not be a requirement for the NCAA to play a role.

Q: As a fan, is the BCS good or bad?

A: This last year I don't know how you could have developed a better scenario. That was a great college football (game). I don't like to use this term, but it was an instant classic.

Some of the other (seasons) early on weren't quite to that level. Some of it is luck, some of it is the system. I think the people that work the BCS are honest brokers. They're trying hard to get it right.

It's all about the 1-2 game and preserving the regular season. Actually, they pulled it off but they're also trying to preserve the regular season. Frankly, they've done a pretty good job with that.

Q: How can presidents rationalize a 12th regular-season game and at the same time say, 'No more January football'? Do you see any hypocrisy in that?

A: I wouldn't say it's hypocrisy. I would say there is some tension in the decision-making. We had two years of 12-game football before that because of the way the calendar worked out.

In a way that was a pilot or test case. Nothing seemed to go wrong. The student-athletes enjoyed it. The schools made a profit. The regular season was preserved ...

I think people overestimate the revenue that could be produced by a playoff. Think of the 12th game, how many schools are going to receive revenue on that compared to a playoff?

Without revenue re-distribution not many schools would get the revenue.

Q: Do you have any comment about the lawsuit regarding the true cost of attendance? (note: The Collegiate Athletes Coalition filed suit recently against the NCAA seeking more scholarship money for college athletes. The CAC was started by former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma and receives assistance from the United Steelworkers.)

A: You mean the Steelworkers? They've gone public saying they've provided the resources. They're looking to see if you professionalize college sports, they want to be the ... union.

They're not secretive about it.

Q: That says what to you?

A: That's an interesting side note. I agree we should go full cost of attendance but I disagree strongly on two counts.

This lawsuit only pertains to men's basketball and football. Not only do you have Title IX to deal with, but I think there is a significant unfairness to it. What about hockey and volleyball and softball and baseball?

Secondly, I strongly disagree with the way they want the decision made. This is a membership organization. We have, in fact, moved in serious directions. You can work during the summer, you can have a Pell Grant on top of your grant-in-aid which will actually give you more than full cost of attendance.

The membership understands the issues, they will make decisions. They are the appropriate decision makers, not the courts.