Points for effort, Mark Shurtleff (Attorney General of the State of Utah), but if your upcoming lawsuit against the BCS is as poorly written as your
editorial to the Arizona Republic, it'll get laughed out of court.
That said, you do make good points, and it needs to be stated as such, as long as we can correct the editorial and get it right.
The BCS, through the LA Times, also puts it's slant on the corrections, and they shall be addressed when they come up.
(Article reposted here under the Fair Use Act, for criticism and commentary purposes.)
SHURTLEFF: "Recent college-football realignments are leading to superconferences and adding to widespread cynicism that the Bowl Championship Series is indeed a monopoly. The Arizona Republic recently reported on how "the never-ending chase for more money drives college realignment.""
FALKNER: Put bluntly: Anyone with a brain can see where the current consolidations end up. What happened last year was the final real chance, and denied, that we can realistically expect there to be a playoff under the present system. It is a monopoly, and an absolute one -- as all the relevant players in college football, including and especially it's media partners (read: E$PN), are part of it and many probably cannot exist without it.
Remember, Mr. Shurtleff, that only about 14 of the top 106 schools in athletics (which we can pretty much assume means about 90% of the Football Bowl Subdivision in which the BCS operates) made money on their sporting programs in 2009 -- and most of them were the "usual suspects" in college football.
The bowl system (not just the BCS) exists only to enrich three sets of parties: The corporate sponsors, the cities in which they are held for hotel and tax revenue, and E$PN, which:
Under this scenario, and with the realization that CBS and Turner out-bid ESPN for the rights to the "March Madness" basketball tournament, one can easily discern that ESPN would lose upwards of a billion dollars if a college football playoff were ever realized.
This also gives ESPN significant leverage to ensure that "certain teams" from "certain conferences" get to play in the games, especially the one game that really matters at the end of the day, the BCS National Championship Game.
The reality, Mr. Shurtleff, is that ESPN and the BCS
OWN COLLEGE FOOTBALL. Lock -- stock -- and barrel. They own it.
And the process works for the parties who are to benefit. From ESPN's
own corporate site:
- January 1, 2011 -- the first day of the broadcast rights -- was the highest-rated day in the history of the network to that time.
- The BCS National Championship Game, all-but-scripted to have $Cam Newton and Auburn illegally defeat an Oregon team (which may have been illegally there themselves), was the highest-rated program in the history of the network with almost an 18 rating -- on cable!
- ESPN partners, for football, on regional networks including the SEC, the ACC, the Big East, the Universities of Oregon and (soon) Texas
The fact is that they now not only have a monopoly on the championship, they have a monopoly on the game itself. If your lawsuit is to succeed, Mr. Shurtleff, the entire structure of college football has to come down.
Most intelligent people know where this ends: About five 16-20 team superconferences, with all other teams thrown out of the 120-team FBS and into the lesser FCS division and the NCAA governance which comes with it.
SHURTLEFF: "Ever since the creation of the BCS Cartel, Division I-A college football has become more about money and less about the equal and fair competition expected by fans - and mandated in the NCAA constitution."
FALKNER: It would take only a cursory examination to see how laughable the NCAA is with respect to college football. My assertion is that the NCAA allows this to get their hands off of college football entirely!
I believe the final goal of the BCS is to break the member conferences from the NCAA (for at least football) so they don't have to deal, any more, with the pesky requirements or "lesser schools/conferences".
SHURTLEFF:"
The sport has devolved into an unsportsmanlike system dominated by lucre and favoritism. In a letter to the Department of Justice, 21 economists called the BCS a "mathematically dubious rating system," that shields major-conference schools from competition. It systematically denies thousands of athletes a fair chance to prove themselves the "Best in the Nation.""
FALKNER: And see above for the reasons why. Even though allowing all FBS undefeated teams a chance at the championship would actually make the BCS motto of "Every Game Counts" to be true, the fact is that the money involved in the preservation of an arcane and certainly illegal bowl system (which see all the allegations behind the Fiesta Bowl, which the BCS has chosen to allow to continue to be a part of the BCS process) is too great and would probably smash the entirety of a religion called "College Football" (and a ripple effect into it's demi-gods in the National Felon League) if the laws were upheld.
The fact is that the national championship is a marketing pawn which the BCS and ESPN hold out to certain athletes, teams, and conferences to allow them leverage in certain situations. A perfect example of this is ($)Cam Newton, now putting up unheard-of numbers as a rookie quarterback in the NFL.
If the NCAA were even half-serious, they probably could've expelled Newton from Auburn University and taken them from the National Championship Game. But that would've allowed a team outside the known "preferred schools/conferences" to play for the title, Texas Christian University, who was relegated to play Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.
And that's nothing compared to what they had to deal with the Sugar Bowl for with Ohio State and known ineligibilities which should've prevented Ohio State from playing in the game, forcing Michigan State to play TCU and Wisconsin probably to have taken Ohio State's place in the Sugar Bowl.
But the money and power are too important to the process, Mr. Shurtleff. Each BCS game costs ESPN $25,000,000 for just the rights to air it. You don't think that gives them leverage to ensure "certain results"?
SHURTLEFF:
"The BCS gives unfair competitive advantage to teams in six elite Automatic Qualifying (AQ) Conferences so they can get richer at the expense of the rest. Since 1998, the non-AQ teams have been allowed to play only seven times in the 114 slots open in the 57 BCS Bowl games - receiving only 14 percent of the $1 billion payout."FALKNER: In fact, those schools become the only relevant schools to the process, with certain "non-automatic qualifier" clauses to try to placate the other five conferences who have basically been extorted into signing on to this farce.
Said bluntly:
A NON-AQ SCHOOL WILL NEVER PLAY FOR THE BCS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.In fact, there are those who maintain that, if the process in-place were to get to the point that such a school might play,
most people in the know are certain that the BCS formulas will be quietly changed to prevent this from happening.
Last year, for the first time, ESPN gave a "pre-season BCS ranking" by letting everyone know that
Boise State University would be the #1 team in the country if the BCS were out one week prior to the actual opening BCS rankings.
By the time they eventually lost to Nevada, however:
- A "non-AQ" team had passed them in the rankings, the aforementioned-Texas Christian University, locking up the one guaranteed non-AQ slot the BCS chooses to give to keep people quiet -- even though, until the Nevada loss, Boise State had won every game on the field.
- Several other teams were suspiciously passed over them, including both Oregon, whose only real comparable win was over Stanford.
- In fact, given the BCS' rules, Boise State University would have gained NOTHING by defeating Nevada. The BCS had totally succeeded in locking out Boise State from even a BCS bowl, even had they gone undefeated. The four non-champion slots would've gone to: TCU (non-AQ automatic), Stanford (for being in the top four and not a conference champion), LSU (for being the 2nd-place team in the best conference, which the host bowl of that conference would take), and Ohio State (as a money issue for the BCS).
SHURTLEFF:
"University of Florida President Bernie Machen said, "When I was at Utah, our athletics budget was around $20 to $22 million per year. Our budget here is $85.5 million . . . and the major difference is the bowl revenue and TV revenue . . . but all SEC schools got the same amount of money that we got. And Utah could beat a lot of SEC schools. That's the unfairness.""
FALKNER: But again, the whole idea is never to let that happen. If it did, it would disintegrate the entire structure of college football as it presently stands!
SHURTLEFF: "Not only is the system unfair, it is also illegal. Most NCAA Division I-A schools are taxpayer-funded institutions, and state attorneys general have a duty to protect and defend them against violations of the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled antitrust laws apply to NCAA athletics. Those laws prohibit a monopoly from restraining full, fair and free competition."
FALKNER: Football, as it is administered in this country, is illegal on every level. From the kids being paid with drug and gang money in Florida to the massive illegalities all over the NFL, these "monopolies" are what preserve this "National Religion" we are all to lie prostrate to from Friday night to Monday night over the fall and early-winter.
You also probably would've done better if you'd actually explained HOW the system is illegal, in what laws it actually breaks? Sherman Anti-Trust Act??
The BCS and LA Times reporter Chris Dufresne responded to that.
DUFRESNE/BCS: "Shurtleff failed to mention Utah joined the "illegal" Pac-12 this year just in time to reap the benefits of the league's new $3-billion television contract. "
FALKNER: Umm, not quite, Chris. Unless you wish to state that the existence of the Pac-12, as a whole, is tied to the BCS exclusively, the conference's existence as a 12-team entity would not be illegal.
However, it would be easy to show how the present BCS system forces schools to enter into (and change! -- which see TCU now looking like they're headed to the Big XII to save that conference from ESPN's Longhorn Network!) these superconferences, and why we'll probably end up with about 20-30 fewer FBS schools in short order.
SHURTLEFF: "The BCS unreasonably limits access to participation in the national championship and other lucrative bowl games to protect revenues and market shares of the six preferred conferences, the bowl hosts and television networks. The recent Fiesta Bowl scandal revealed gross excesses."
FALKNER: Not entirely true. In fact, the BCS does now have a mechanism which effectively allows one (but usually only one) "non-AQ" school to play.
However, what the BCS DOES unreasonably limit access to participation in is the National Championship itself -- and, at the end of the day, that is the sole stated purpose of the BCS -- to force, each year, the only and sole top-level college football national championship to be decided on the field.
In fact, it is well-known knowledge that the "revenues and market shares" of the best schools are what determines who plays in the open spots in the other (lesser) games.
But you can go undefeated and be openly denied a spot simply because they don't like your schedule. Since 1998 and the inception of the BCS, 11 schools had undefeated FBS regular seasons and were simply denied a shot at the title because they were not from BCS "preferred conferences".
In fact, in the most flagrant slap in the face, the third time in which two such schools were undefeated, the BCS chose to pair them off against each other, proving nothing in the final analysis.
SHURTLEFF:
"Four of the AQ conferences paid their chief executives $1 million or more. Despite BCS claims to the contrary, polls show it is disliked by nearly two-thirds of consumers. Also, Mountain West Conference games consistently generate more ticket sales, TV viewership and interest than the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East Conference - both AQ conferences."FALKNER: One might eventually have to question, when the next reconfiguration comes around, whether at least one of those conferences will remain an AQ conference. I would have to think the proposal to lift the two-team-per-conference limit (almost exclusively for the SEC!) would be at the Big East's expense.
But that's the point: Most anyone with a clue knows that the Big East is a BCS Conference In Name Only.
SHURTLEFF: "BCS administrator Bill Hancock repeatedly claims the system is fair. An unbelievable assertion, considering the following:
- Baylor, which has never played a bowl game, receives far more BCS revenue than 10-bowl veteran Texas Christian University."
FALKNER: Which was immediately AND CORRECTLY jumped upon by Dufresne and the BCS:
DUFRESNE/BCS: "Baylor has played in 17 bowls, including the Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Gator, Peach, Alamo, Copper, Gotham and Dixie."
FALKNER: That is true. However, Baylor has never played in a BCS bowl, which is probably what Shurtleff intended to say. So I will say it instead.
SHURTLEFF: "- In the 2010 season, 10th-ranked Boise State (one loss) from the non-AQ Western Athletic Conference was denied a BCS Bowl while three two-loss AQ teams got to play and score millions of dollars."
FALKNER: Again, the whole idea is to ensure that "certain teams" and "certain conferences" are permanently superior. The real issue you should raise is how Boise State, undefeated FOUR regular seasons in the BCS era, has never played (and will never play, even if -- and it should -- get a fifth!) for the championship.
Again, this is the Bowl CHAMPIONSHIP Series. The other lesser bowls are there for show. There's one that has the real prize.
And the same goes for Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, Utah in 2004 (sloughed off to a Pittsburgh team whom they slaughtered!), Hawaii in 2007 (though Georgia took care of that -- at least they got an SEC team to play, which Boise has never had in a BCS bowl), and TCU in each of the last two seasons.
SHURTLEFF:
"- Shockingly, the BCS scheme mandated Connecticut (four losses) play in the 2011 Fiesta Bowl, bringing its AQ conference, the ACC, $22 million."FALKNER: If your lawsuit is that poorly written, it will be laughed out of court!
DUFRESNE/BCS: "
Connecticut is a member of the Big East Conference. "
FALKNER: And was probably the only reason they got in the BCS in the first place.
SHURTLEFF:
"- In 2008, undefeated Utah of the non-AQ Mountain West Conference was denied a shot at the championship because the cabal required AQ one-loss teams to play each other."FALKNER: Dufresne and the BCS try to take some liberties with this one:
DUFRESNE/BCS: "
Shurtleff also wrote Utah, as the only undefeated team in 2008, was denied a shot at the title because "the cabal" required two one-loss teams to play. He said coaches voted Utah No. 4 in the BCS because "they had not seen them play." Shurtleff forgot to add that Utah Coach Kyle Whittingham voted his own team No. 5 in the final poll to determine which teams played for the title."
FALKNER: Which, of course, should disqualify Utah, because if the coach himself does not believe he can beat the top four teams, why should the BCS?
The problem being a couple of things: Utah was not the only undefeated team in 2008 (they weren't even the only undefeated non-AQ denied a place for the title), and the BCS is constructed to prevent there being more than two teams deemed worthy of the shot at the title.
SHURTLEFF: "- In the [2008] Sugar Bowl, Utah dominated Alabama even though the Tide were ranked No. 1 by the BCS the last five weeks of the regular season. The only undefeated team in the nation ended up being ranked No. 2 by the BCS and No. 4 in the Coaches Poll because coaches said they had not seen them play. Thank you, BCS!"
And that's how the system works. They get the shot, but because they are pre-disqualified from consideration for the One and True National Championship, they can get no higher than #2 -- which see Texas Christian last year.
SHURTLEFF: "A playoff system would be less restrictive, increase consumer preferences, reduce prices and provide substantially more revenues and other benefits to college football, the schools and taxpayers who support them."
FALKNER: The problem is that it would probably destroy college football, especially as ESPN has carefully created a lattice to seize ownership of the sport at it's major levels. It even has regional networks for most of the non-AQ conferences too, and the loss of the BCS to a playoff system would cost ESPN untold hundreds of millions of dollars.
SHURTLEFF: "Despite near-universal opposition,"
Which Dufresne and the BCS take issue to:
DUFRESNE/BCS: "In fact, many players, coaches and school presidents are not opposed."
If many of the parties (usually schools given the "bone" thrown to the "non-AQ"s to keep them quiet) were to speak out, they would be exiled from what (little) relevance college football has for them.
SHURTLEFF: "the BCS clings to its power, money and secrecy and refuses to conform to the law. Therefore, the courts will have to force compliance within a few months when I sue them in federal court."
FALKNER: If that compliance comes, it's the end of college football at the top levels. ESPN will lose hundreds of millions of dollars and will almost certainly aid in retaliating against any parties who are successful in junctures such as this.
Dufresne and the BCS take issue with one more statement which I didn't find in his original editorial:
DUFRESNE/BCS: "Shurtleff: Only seven "non-AQ" schools have played in major bowls since the BCS was formed in 1998.
He failed to note that none of those schools, including Utah (twice), had access to those bowls before the BCS."
FALKNER: That may be true, but the only reason you provide them that is to shut them up and force them to be "lesser persons" in the world of college football, never to play for the title.
And Heaven forbid that a Boise State might want "MORE"... We'll have to sic the Oliver! production number on them for that one...
