Here are my (unbiased) notes of the testimonies from the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights hearing on “The Bowl Championship Series” that was held today (July 7, 2009). My (biased) thoughts are below. And yes it is hard to argue I have a life after watching the entire thing.

Mr. Kohl (Master of Ceremonies)

• Badgers fan, my condolences sir

Orrin Hatch (Senator, windbag, beacon of hope)

• Congress has investigated the BCS before.
• Hatch chaired a hearing in the full judiciary committee in 2003.
• Progress has been made since now the BCS includes “non-preferred” schools.
• Hatch believes nearly half the schools in college football are at a competitive and financial disadvantage.
• The BCS violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
• Over the lifetime of the BCS preferred conferences have received 90% of the total revenues.
• There are two separate bowl markets: (1) the BCS Bowls (and National Championship) and (2) the rest.
• The BCS limits the number of teams from non-preferred conferences.
• Utah, BYU, Boise State and TCU were all ranked higher than one BCS participant (Virginia Tech, curses to you Hatch!).
• 13-0 Utah was excluded from national championship consideration before the 2008 season even started.

Michael Young (Utah President, Black-Belt Lawyer)

• BCS embraces favoritism over fairness in three critical areas: (1) champions of 6/11 privileged conferences receive automatic births in the BCS, (2) only college sport that eliminates half of the teams from contending for the championship before the season begins and (3) the revenue inequities under the BCS are stark.
• Frequently states Utah’s and the MWC’s record against the automatic-qualifying (AQ) conference schools.
• Non-AQ schools are second class citizens.
• System designed to channel monies to certain universities based on an agreement not on achievement.

Barry Brett (Antitrust Lawyer, sports fanatic, Jedi)

• The BCS is a cartel.
• Playoff would produce twice the revenues as the current BCS system.
• Coined the phrase Fictional National Championship; is this guy a closet blogger?

Harvey Perlman (Chancellor of Nebraska, former member of the Bill Callahan book-club)

• Athletes are also students.
• Not every school is equal on or off the playing field.
• Any system to determine a national champion must include and come from an agreement of those universities that consistently field the top teams (6 BCS + ND).
• Before the BCS non-AQ schools rarely played in bowl games.
• With the BCS they are exposed to a national audience.
• Revenue from BCS is a fraction of the overall revenue.
• Nebraska’s athletic budget is $75mm, one Big 12 team in the BCS only accounts for 2% of that budget ($1.5mm).
• An additional home football game would be equal to double the revenue from the Big 12 BCS split.
• Nebraska has become a football power without any distinct advantages, built their success on hard work and creativity.
• Any non-BCS school has the same, if not better, opportunity to reach as high of a level of success.

Williams Monts (Antitrust Lawyer, represented post-season college football for last 18 years, looks like he could have played linebacker for Nebraska in the early 80s)

• Argues that the BCS is a joint venture under Section One of the Sherman Act.
• National Championship Game wouldn’t happen without the agreement of the conferences.
• BCS has helped to create the most competitive regular seasons in all of American sport.
• Refutes the two alleged anti-competitive effects: (1) denies access to BCS Bowls and National Championship (2) revenues are not split equally.
• Purpose of antitrust laws are not to protect producers, but consumers (bowl organizations, television networks and ultimately the fans).
• If the BCS disappeared nothing would take its place and the old system in which conferences would compete against each other for most attractive bowl slots would return.
• Exclusion fails because BCS Bowls could, today, guarantee a birth to non-AQ conference or select one with an at-large, they’ve chosen not to do so.
• BCS enhances fairness by guaranteeing non-AQ schools a birth under certain circumstances.
• Revenue splits are not the concern of antitrust.
• Assuming the BCS is found to violate the Sherman Act, no court has the power to negotiate an alternative system and furthermore the same conferences and universities will be hesitant to create a playoff under similar guidelines since it is unlawful to do so.

This is what I took away from watching the hearing. There’s no middle ground between the two sides. One side’s point is the other’s counter; without a common ground a compromise isn’t going to happen. The anti-BCS (Hatch, Young, Brett) arguments center around antitrust (obviously) and past performances. Since the only things I know about antitrust are what I read on Wikipedia this evening I will leave that to the lawyers to argue. As a fan I agree, the recent on the field successes of the Mountain West Conference against BCS schools cannot be denied. However, as a whole, no other non-BCS conference can tout similar success. Instead of arguing for all non-BCS conferences, I feel the MWC would have been better off pursuing a self-serving agenda.

Monts’ scenario describing what would happen if the BCS is found to violate the Sherman Act really hit home with me. Until now I didn’t fully understand what the repercussions of ruling the BCS as unlawful would be.

In the end the hearing was what I expected. However, I don’t think it was a waste of my or Congress’ time. It put the major grievances against and defense for the BCS on the record. I wish there had been more discussion about a playoff or plus-one system to replace the National Championship Game.

Fairness is at the heart of the BCS debate. Is it more fair than it’s predecessors? Yes. Can it be more fair? Yes.