The NCAA News - News and Features

June 2, 1997

Senate urges resolution of bowl conflict

BY SALLY HUGGINS
STAFF WRITER

An effort to mediate the controversy concerning the college football bowl alliance resulted in more than three hours of testimony and an admonishment to resolve the conflict so the federal government does not have to intervene.

The Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition convened a hearing May 22 in Washington, D.C., to provide a forum in which parties involved in the dispute could state their positions and hear the positions of others.

Testimony came from student-athletes, coaches, conference commissioners from alliance members and nonmembers, a representative of a nonalliance bowl, a writer for Sports Illustrated, a sports law professor and the NCAA.

Subcommittee chair Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said the subcommittee -- which is basically an oversight body -- anticipates no further action unless the involved parties are unable to reach an agreement. But he cautioned that federal intervention remains a possibility.

"Some have suggested the federal government should not be involved in this issue," DeWine said. "But it is the responsibility of this subcommittee to promote fairness and free competition. Further, when we see millions of dollars changing hands, the issue is no longer just about sports -- it is about big business.

"Those of us on Capitol Hill have an obligation to exercise our oversight jurisdiction to examine the anticompetitive or procompetitive effects of this type of arrangement."

Another subcommittee member, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, said the subcommittee does not have to produce legislation but can instead provide a forum to discuss a variety of competition issues. Kohl noted that the bowl alliance concept makes sense as a means to moving college football closer to determining a true national champion, but he added that amateur sports in America is big business.

"So it's not surprising that postseason bowls are as much about ratings as rankings, as much about sponsorship as sportsmanship, as much about the bottom line as the line of scrimmage. That may not be right, but it is reality," he said.

Having said that, he encouraged the conferences, the alliance and the NCAA to resolve the issue among themselves.

"Don't look to the government or the court system to resolve this issue: It is not a matter for litigation or legislation," Kohl said. "Instead, just sit in a room by yourselves, without any lawyers, lock the door, and have a reasonable discussion. And try to come up with something, if possible, that benefits the American public."

Letter prompted hearing

The subcommittee hearing was scheduled after four senators -- representing Utah, Wyoming and Kentucky -- wrote a letter alleging antitrust implications regarding the bowl alliance. Complaints concerning the alliance became more pronounced after Western Athletic Conference member Brigham Young University, which appeared to meet the criteria set by the alliance for an at-large selection, was passed over for lower-ranked teams. Brigham Young was ranked fifth in 1996.

"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 non-alliance teams and bowls," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told the subcommittee. "My message today is very simple -- the opportunity to compete in college football should be based on merit, not membership in an exclusive coalition."

Roy F. Kramer, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference and chair of the bowl alliance, and James E. Delany, commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, which recently became a member of the alliance, defended the alliance as the best system available to produce a national championship.

Kramer said the alliance was a result of negotiations and compromise by the conferences that are members of the alliance. While the arrangement is not perfect, he said, it represents a great improvement over what existed before.

"Is the alliance system perfect?" Kramer asked. "No. Are there changes that could be made in the future? Perhaps. But I would emphasize that, for the first time in history, the major bowls are open to every Division I-A football team in the country.

"We strongly believe that this alliance, whatever its imperfections and despite the criticisms, provides the best and most open opportunity for all Division I-A institutions to play in the most attractive bowl games. In fact, based on the history of the bowl games, we do not believe that point can be seriously disputed."

Conferences sought guarantees

Delany said conferences such as his gave up certain berths in bowls with which they had longstanding traditions to create the alliance and make a national-championship game possible.

It took two years of discussions for the Big Ten to agree to give up its guaranteed berth in the Rose Bowl -- a tradition of more than 50 years -- and make the possibility of a national championship a reality, Delany said. Beginning in 2002, the Rose Bowl will enter the rotation to host the No. 1- and 2-ranked teams for a "national championship" game, regardless of whether one is a Big Ten team.

In exchange for relinquishing its guaranteed berth in the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten wanted the guarantee of at least a berth in one of the alliance bowls -- which are considered the premier bowls.

The situation was the same for the SEC and the other alliance conferences, Kramer said. Those conferences wanted at least a guarantee that they would play in one of the top bowls if they gave up their rights to the bowl with which they had their traditional alliance.

The alliance was created in 1994 out of the old bowl coalition after complaints arose similar to those circulating now: that the bowl system was a closed club. Two "at-large" positions were created at that time and were touted as being open to all Division I-A teams that met certain competition and won-lost criteria. Outside teams were not guaranteed one of the at-large berths; rather, the guarantee was that they would be considered.

"The issue is selectivity," Kramer said. "Whatever system we put forward, there will be a line where some people are left out. We are trying to improve that system by offering an opportunity that has never been there before."

The alliance recently proposed changing the criteria for at-large berths to guarantee that any team ranked No. 6 or better would receive a bowl alliance invitation, he said.

Karl D. Benson, commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference, said the WAC did not believe a guaranteed slot for a No. 6 ranking or above was adequate and countered with a suggestion for a No. 8 ranking or above. Benson said the WAC had proposed in November 1996 that the alliance include teams ranked 12th or better but heard nothing from the alliance. In January, the alliance submitted a proposal concerning financial issues. However, it did not address the access issues that the WAC finds most important.

Asked by subcommittee members about the status of negotiations between the bowl alliance and the WAC, Benson said the presidents of WAC institutions will meet June 1-4 and will review the proposals at that time.

NCAA involvement

Cedric W. Dempsey, executive director of the NCAA, presented information about the history of the NCAA's involvement in Division I-A postseason football and the reason an NCAA championship does not exist.

Subcommittee members indicated that they saw an NCAA championship in Division I-A as a way to resolve the access issue and questioned why it is the only sport the NCAA sponsors in which it does not provide a championship.

Dempsey explained that while a national championship has been studied by the NCAA, the membership has not supported the concept. He noted that the new Division I Board of Directors again will examine the issue when it formally comes into existence in August.

"The presidents are committed to trying to find a solution to this, recognizing that all parties can never be satisfied with something as emotional as what we are talking about," he said. "But the presidents are committed to trying to find the best solution possible for intercollegiate athletics."

Gary R. Roberts, a law professor at Tulane University and president of the Sports Lawyers Association, addressed the issue of antitrust implications of the alliance. He was invited by the subcommittee as a sports law expert. Roberts, who is also Tulane's faculty athletics representative, said a case could be made that the alliance violates antitrust laws but noted that a lawsuit likely would go to a jury trial.

Roberts said that although it is easy to envision a scenario in which a jury would rule that the alliance violates antitrust law, a serious legal challenge is unlikely because of the political and economic power of the members of the alliance.

"Despite the fact that a strong antitrust challenge could be made against the alliance, and that it is a perversion of what intercollegiate athletics is supposed to be about, a serious legal challenge is unlikely," he said.

Sen. Robert F. Bennett, R-Utah, told Kramer that trust between the alliance and the conferences outside the alliance is an issue.

"You said 'trust us' and we did and you failed," he said, referring to the alliance's arrangement for at-large teams. "That's why we don't trust you now. I agree the old system was a mess. I agree you made an effort, but you need to go back to the drawing board."

Student-athletes representing Brigham Young and the University of Wyoming -- as well as a representative of the president of Wyoming -- joined Benson in disputing Kramer's contention that access is open. Wyoming did not receive a bowl bid despite a 10-2 record.

"The WAC was always made to believe that it could play its way into one of the alliance bowls if one of its teams had an outstanding season," Benson said. "But on December 8, the WAC and college football fans throughout the country found out that those sought-after at-large berths were only a dream, and it appeared that they were reserved only for 'members of the club.' "