College football still haunted by BCS, unfair title system

Things are never what they seem:

Black sheep dwell in every fold;
All that glitters is not gold;
Storks turn out to be but logs;
Bulls are but inflated frogs.

Gilbert and Sullivan's famous lyrics are much like college football. The game is drawing immense crowds, fans are hyperventilating, even when the economy is tight, the money is flowing and it's America's pastime no matter what "they" say. Ah, but things aren't always what they seem, especially with that bunch of hypocrites who run the Bowl Championship Series, university presidents.

Some might argue Boise State isn't getting an equal opportunity to play for a national title. (Getty Images)

These scholars direct impressive institutions of higher learning dedicated to the public interest. It's another matter with college football. Angel wings turn into horns and Dante's Inferno is their operating manual. They have stealth meetings. There's no oversight or appeal. And, there are only barebone reports of what they did and why. What we have here sports fans is an athletic OPEC and something is being done about it.

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights will hold BCS hearings. Already Joe Barton's House Committee's hearings vowed to impose a playoff to decide the national championship instead of the present three-ring circus used for the rankings. The Senate hearing is deadly serious about the BCS and violating antitrust laws. The BCS has created an immense economic windfall through billion dollar media contracts. Meanwhile, because of arrogance, fear, bias or convention, the chosen six plus Notre Dame, because it's Notre Dame, are the only ones on the money bandwagon.

It's an issue that has come back to haunt college football for essentially the same reasons. In 1984, the NCAA had contractual network agreements to televise its games. Its members were warned that if they didn't participate harsh penalties would follow. Georgia, Oklahoma and Texas didn't knuckle under. In the case of NCAA v. Univ. of Oklahoma the Supreme Court held that the NCAA was a cartel. The court said its plan was an unreasonable restraint of trade because of price-fixing and control and was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Gene Egdorf a Houston antitrust attorney and registered sports agent with the Lanier Law Firm put the case in today's perspective: "In the 1984 case, the NCAA rules failed to promote competitiveness and that consumer preferences were not respected. Twenty-five years later the same disregard is being shown to consumers in how the NCAA and BCS determine its Football Bowl Subdivision national champion."

Who are these consumers? The BCS shuts the door of opportunity for teams outside the magic circle to compete for the millions of dollars at stake. Today, capital investments are the bricks and mortar of winning programs: new stadiums, first-rate conditioning and workout facilities, academic support programs and superior coaching staffs. It's a powerful package that attracts outstanding athletes. That's not all. It's impossible to put a dollar value on the publicity a university gets when its team plays in prime time.

Here's something else about lost opportunities from the coaches' point of view. Coaching a BCS team is the only way a head coach can win the national title. Think about that and here's a classic example. Once upon a time Bernie Machen, the current president at Florida, was president at Utah. Urban Meyer was the coach at Utah and made the Utes a national power. When Machen moved from Utah to Florida, Meyer followed. If Meyer had stayed at Utah, would he have coached at national champion? Not under today's BCS rules. As it is, he's been in the limelight two of the past three years and is a favorite to win another title in 2009. It's all the more reason for change.

The Masters of the BCS have brought this on themselves. They've pacified the critics holding out the prospects of a playoff by reviewing various proposals that they have no intention of accepting. The latest to bite the dust is one from the Mountain West Conference. Two years ago, the non-BCS conferences were thrown a bone. The extra BCS spot was quickly created and earned by Utah. It got its $18 million by winning the rules lottery.

The Utes were there only because the MWC threatened to take the BCS to court. The reality is Boise State went 12-0, won the Western Athletic Conference and finished the regular season ranked ninth in the BCS. For this the Broncos earned a trip to the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl and collected $750,000. As they say here in Texas: "Bubba, that just ain't right."

I say let's get on with the debate, but there's only one question to be answered. Is college football better off under the thumb of an oligarchy or deciding a national champion in an atmosphere of fairness and competition? I choose the American way. Speaking of which, I'm one of those old-fashioned former players who think there's more to college football than money and power. I can't recall anything being said about how college football teaches much-needed discipline, the rewards of hard work, setting and achieving goals and the benefits of physical fitness and performance. In a word: character. I don't get those vibes from the BCS or its leadership. The way I see it, they preach the gospel of pragmatic unfairness that's based on greed.

I get a strong indication of where the BCS issue is headed in part by the opinion of respected writers such as Mr. College Football, Tony Barnhart. He'll join the writers' wing of the College Football Hall of Fame this year. My sense is he supported the BCS because it's the only game in town. As he recently pointed out however, the BCS always is defensive. It never argues that it's good or bad, only that it's not perfect and most of all, legal. Tony is changing his tune, because he understands that just because it's legal doesn't make what the BCS is doing right. In today's communications and political climate legality isn't enough. The BCS either will change or it will be done for them.