When the Bowl Championship Series was created in 1998 to finally distinguish a true national champion for college football, fans and critics across the country were satisfied. Some called for a playoff system while others wanted things to stay the way they were. But finally there was a standardized system that could remove the confusion over is really No. 1.
Then the attacks started coming. No one knew how the ratings system worked. People thought the mathematics were fuzzy and the formula for determining the ratings was from another time and dimension. Many people believed the NCAA just picked teams out of a hat and assigned random numbers to them.
But the BCS provided a national championship game that crowned a national champion; a national champion from either the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, ACC, SEC or the Big East. In fact, since the BCS format was started, the only team to appear in a BCS bowl game not from one of the big six football conferences was Notre Dame, and Notre Dame is guaranteed a BCS berth if they win more than nine games in a given year.
Now the attacks are coming again. Not from fans and critics, but rather from school presidents and U.S. representatives. Cries of foul play, monopoly and anti-competition started surfacing during the weeks leading up to the start of the 2003 season.
Rewind to middle-to-late July of 2003. U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. announces that he will hold a congressional hearing to explore the application of antitrust laws to college sports, including the role of the BCS. Sensenbrenner has the support of U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who serves on the House Judiciary Committee alongside Sensenbrenner.
Earlier this month Conyers sent a letter to Sensenbrenner concerning his views about the BCS. In the letter, Conyers discussed how most of the proceeds and power have been going to the 63 schools that are part of the six major conferences and the BCS. Conyers also said the BCS creates an unfair system that favors BCS teams and keeps other universities from participating in the major bowls and receiving large payouts. In the 2002-03 season, BCS revenues totaled $109 million. Only $5 million of that went to non-BCS schools.
Now fast forward to a few weeks down the road. Earlier in the summer Tulane President Scott Cowen, along with 40 non-BCS school presidents, scheduled a conference call with Myles Brand, the president of the NCAA. The conference call was scheduled in order to discuss with Brand the future of BCS and how the non-BCS schools meshed with that future. Following the conference call, Cowen, along with 44 school presidents from non-BCS schools-schools from the following conferences: Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and WAC-formed the Presidential Coalition for Athletic Reform.
The Coalition goals were to improve access to post-season football for all teams, reduce the financial requirements to stay in Division 1-A and raise academic requirements in college athletics. After the coalition was formed, the presidents accepted an invitation from representatives of the BCS to meet in early September to discuss what can be done to make both sides happy.
The presidents in the Coalition were willing to stand up for what they believed in and began pushing for change. Cowen said, \We believe that the Bowl Championship Series is anti-competitive and has characteristics of a cartel."" The coalition was hoping for a play-off style postseason that gave all Division 1-A schools access to the post-season.
The Monday before the conference call happened, however, the six major conferences ruled out an NFL-style playoff. Cowen was slightly angered by the fact that some options had already been ruled out before the meeting. ""We want a level playing field. There's not a level playing field in college football. We're not looking for some handout. We're looking for access,"" Cowen said.
Which brings us back to early September. On Sept. 4, the congressional hearing was held concerning the BCS and anti-trust issues. The BCS was roughed up by both Sensenbrenner and Conyers. Sensenbrenner likened the BCS's method of determining a champion to ""throwing the baby out with the bath water"" and urged for a change.
Conyers said that the BCS's conglomeration of money and power is not only hurting college football but also that the ""exclustion of non-BCS schools from major bowl games is resulting in those schools having lower athletic budgets, inferior athletic facilities and rising defecits.""
Surprisingly, the biggest proponent for change is adamently against congressional involvement. Cowen would prefer to keep BCS issues out of the hands of Congress and allow to the university president's to decide
On Monday, Sept. 8, the Presidential Coalition for Athletic Reform met with BCS representatives in Chicago. The two sides met for four hours and emerged hopeful that a resolution could be reached in the coming months. Cowen said that he feels optimistic as he sees willingness in BCS representatives to at least consider revising the post-season format.
In the end it all comes down to money. The current BCS system expires in 2005 and the ""Big Six,"" the six major football conferences, benefit from the way the current system works for them. All the non-BCS schools want is a little more from the honey pot. The BCS system works (most of the time), it produces what fans want-an undisputed national champion. But who knows what could happen if the field is widened to accomidate more teams. We will all have to find out when all the sides meet again on Nov. 16 in New Orleans.