The NCAA News - News and Features

March 31, 1997

Bowl alliance raises antitrust questions

BY SALLY HUGGINS
Staff Writer

Alleging that the football bowl alliance violates antitrust laws through restrictive agreements, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has asked the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate.

"There is substantial evidence that the most powerful conferences and the most powerful bowls have entered into agreements to allocate the postseason bowl market among themselves and to engage in a group boycott of nonalliance teams and bowls," McConnell said in comments March 20 on the Senate floor. "The effect of these agreements is to ensure that the strong get stronger, while the rest get weaker.

"We are calling on all interested parties to break the barricade. We are challenging the NCAA, the bowl alliance commissioners and the alliance bowl committees to take action to bring about genuine competition to college football and the postseason.... The opportunity to compete in the postseason bowls should be based on merit, not membership in an exclusive coalition."

The bowl alliance is confident that it has not violated antitrust statutes and is formulating a response to the issues raised by McConnell, said Roy F. Kramer, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference and chair of the alliance.

"We've had excellent legal advice with regard to any issues raised and we are confident we are in compliance," Kramer said. "In consultation with our attorneys, we are formulating a full response to all of the issues he raised."

This is not the first time McConnell has asked the Justice Department to examine the alliance of postseason bowls. In 1993, when the University of Louisville automatically was excluded from the more lucrative New Year's Day bowls, McConnell claimed the alliance agreements constituted a group boycott and thus a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

After the Justice Department agreed to review that matter, the alliance entered into a revised agreement whereby the 1997 New Year's bowls would be open to any team in the country with a minimum of eight wins or ranked higher than the lowest-ranked alliance conference champion on an at-large basis.

In the complaint lodged March 14 in a letter to the Justice Department, McConnell -- joined by Sens. Thomas Craig and Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming and Robert F. Bennett of Utah -- claimed that contrary to its pledge, the alliance had continued its boycott of nonalliance teams when it selected teams for the 1997 bowls.

During the 1996 football season, Brigham Young University and the University of Wyoming, both members of the nonalliance Western Athletic Conference, met the alliance criteria for at-large selections. Wyoming finished the season with a 10-2 record and was ranked No. 22 in the country. Brigham Young was 13-1 and was ranked fifth. Neither team was offered a berth in an alliance bowl.

The alliance has contended that meeting the criteria for an at-large berth makes a team eligible to be selected but does not guarantee selection.

Karl D. Benson, WAC commissioner, said the request by the senators was made without involvement by the conference but that the presidents of WAC institutions had been examining the issue since the bowl selections were made late last year excluding the two conference schools. The presidents have not reached a decision on whether to pursue any action.

"The WAC presidents and ADs are obviously interested in the senators' request and will be watching closely any action by the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission," Benson said. "From the very beginning, the WAC has stated that access is the critical issue. It's important that all of college football be run in a fair and equitable manner. The 1996 bowl selections make one question whether it is."

The WAC and other conferences not included in the alliance have suggested that the alliance be expanded to include other Division I-A conferences. Conferences not included in the alliance are the WAC, Big West, Mid-American and Conference USA.

Kramer said that he does not see the makeup of the alliance changing in the immediate future.

"We have had ongoing discussions on various matters but as far as significant changes in the original agreement, those discussions have not taken place," he said.

McConnell has contrasted the postseason Division I men's basketball tournament with the Division I bowl games.

"College football has no room for a Sweet
Sixteen that includes teams like St. Joseph's and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga," he said. "The opportunity to be in college football's Elite Eight and Final Four is essentially determined before the season begins. The basic message is that if David wants to slay Goliath, he'd better do it during basketball season. He won't be allowed to play Goliath when the football season rolls around.

"College football has no room for the underdog. In fact, as evidenced by the 1997 New Year's bowls, college football doesn't even have room for top-ranked teams -- unless those teams are members of the exclusive bowl alliance."

McConnell has suggested that the NCAA become involved by creating a postseason football playoff as exists for basketball. The WAC presidents also have asked the NCAA Presidents Commission to encourage the Division I Board of Directors to examine a football playoff when the board officially comes into existence in August.

At its January meeting, the Commission agreed to ask the Board of Directors to review the present bowl system, examine the NCAA's oversight role, and determine and submit any proposed changes in that role by January 1, 1998.

The issue of monetary repercussions from the alleged antitrust policies of the bowl alliance also was raised by the senators. McConnell said the eight participants in the 1997 bowls shared an estimated $68 million while the 28 nonalliance bowl participants divided approximately $34 million.

"In short, the market has been divided such that eight teams rake in 70 percent of the postseason millions, while 28 teams get nothing more than the leftover 30 percent," he said.

"We are not asking for special consideration for any one team," Thomas told the Senate. "We would like to see genuinely open competition restored to college football postseason bowls. Postseason play should be about recognizing achievement. Letting the best teams play is in the best interest of our student-athletes and our schools."