Big Football's Bully Tactics

[Thinking Skins]

Big Football's Bully Tactics

By Sally Jenkins

Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page D01

A civil war is taking shape in college athletics. On one side is Big Football, and on the other side is what might be called Little Football. A major collision between the factions is coming, with a couple of possible outcomes: Either a genuine reform effort will finally take shape, or the NCAA as we know it will end.

The potential doomsday scenario became all too realistic this week with the Atlantic Coast Conference's hostile corporate raid on the Big East. But that unsavory affair was just a symptom, not the cause. The real cause is the Bowl Championship Series alliance, a rule-the-world cartel so ruinous and corrupt that it ought to be promptly dismantled by the NCAA -- a move toward which is underway, led by Little Football schools.

Little Football is a loose confederation of universities such as Tulane, colleges that choose to behave like colleges rather than conglomerates. According to Tulane President Scott Cowen, the leader of the rebellion, the BCS is not just wrong and destructive; it's probably illegal.

Since its inception in 1998, the BCS has effectively concentrated all of the money and power in college athletics in the hands of just 63 schools in six major conferences (the ACC, Pacific-10, Big Ten, Southeastern, Big 12 and Big East). It's effectively locked out the other five conferences and 53 schools that play Division I-A football from any chance of getting into the major postseason bowl games, with their massive financial pots.

Not one college from those conferences (the Western Athletic, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American, Sunbelt) has gone to a BCS bowl. As The New York Times has noted, BCS revenue from the 2002-03 season was $114 million, and more than $109 million of that went solely to the BCS colleges.

The others got backwash.

The BCS has effectively sentenced schools such as Tulane to second-tier status and huge financial deficits. And Cowen for one is sick of it.

A couple of weeks ago, Cowen sent a letter to his fellow NCAA Division I-A presidents protesting the BCS system and asking them to join him in a conference call to discuss ways to attack it. He figures the time is ripe because the BCS contract expires after the football season in 2005. Cowen says, "We have about 12 months to make the compelling case that a system that has divided Division I-A football into two camps -- haves and have-nots -- and essentially prevents 53 universities from competing for a national championship, should be dismantled."

Cowen figured if he heard back from 10 other presidents, that would be a good start.

Thirty-three of them responded. More replies are coming in every day.

Why is Cowen such an implacable enemy of the BCS? Tulane ought to be a poster child of everything that's right in the NCAA. It has one of the highest graduation rates for athletes in the country, one of whom is Washington Redskins quarterback Patrick Ramsey. And yet it's running a $7 million annual deficit.

Meanwhile, colleges with disgraceful graduation rates hoard the money from postseason play. (Tennessee's football graduation rate in 2001 was 8 percent, and Oklahoma's football graduation rate for the same year was just 6 percent, according to the 2002 NCAA Graduation-Rates Report. Tulane's was 82 percent.) The cost of NCAA Division I-A membership has become exorbitant -- the latest rules require a college to support 16 sports in order to participate -- and yet Tulane is locked out of any shot at getting into the Rose, Fiesta, Orange and Sugar bowls, with their massive TV rights fees and payouts. Cowen nearly had to kill off his entire athletic program this year, thanks to the BCS and the policies enacted by ruling Big Football interests.

"It's not a matter of if programs will begin to disappear; it's a matter of when," Cowen says.

But Big Football has become so financially predatory that it's even turning on itself. Anyone who watched the ACC's raid on the Big East had the sensation of watching a python devour its own tail. The raid, resulting in the defection of Miami and Virginia Tech, instantly ruined the Big East financially and stripped it to six Division I football colleges, jeopardizing its membership in the BCS.

Ironically, the demise of the Big East would mean fewer BCS schools -- instead of 63 it would be down to 55 or so -- concentrating even more money in fewer hands. The NCAA then would be divided exactly in half between the BCS schools and nonmembers. Without a majority, how many favorable rulings will the BCS get, seeing as how it's hurt half of the voters?

Even more ironically, Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese is a BCS official. During the football season, when critics pointed out the system was financially unfair, Tranghese replied flippantly, "This isn't communism." No, it's education. And the tactics of hostile takeovers and insider trading don't belong in this forum.

"I think what's happened is, you live by the sword, you die by the sword," Cowen says. "Nobody should really be surprised by the ACC-Big East conflict because the system is based on power and money and therefore inevitably leads to predatory behavior. And quite frankly it's an anathema to the goals of education. If this doesn't get rectified, the NCAA Division I as we know it simply won't sustain itself. Something will happen. Something will break."

The BCS was created in '98 by former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer and ACC Commissioner John Swofford, who will go down in history as Terminator I and Terminator II of college sports. The BCS has been corrosive to all collegiate games, across the board, not just football: Non-BCS schools now have smaller athletic budgets, fewer recruiting resources, poorer facilities, lower staff salaries and ever-rising deficits. As the Times pointed out, it's no coincidence that in three of the last four years, 14 of the 16 teams in the round of 16 in the NCAA men's basketball tournament were from BCS schools.

How can BCS colleges, in the name of higher education, bring about the wholesale destruction of college football? They can't and still call themselves institutions of learning under the law. Profit-sharing has long been a central tenet of the NCAA: The organization is no stronger than its weakest member, and its central mission is supposed to be not for profit. Its not-for-profit status, in fact, is all that protects it from antitrust challenges, taxation and labor law. Define the NCAA as a business and suddenly the players are entitled to salaries and labor protections, and those bowl payouts are unrelated business income in the eyes of the IRS.

Instead, under the BCS rule, the NCAA has degenerated into a system of Big Football intentionally trying to kill off Little Football in order to keep all of the profits. "If you were a conspiracy theorist, one would say that's exactly what's happening," Cowen says. "In essence you end up squeezing out a number of people in Division I-A."

Why the NCAA allowed the BCS to be created is a good question. The fact is the NCAA has been in an awkward position because "it feared that if it asserted its authority the big football schools would break off from the NCAA," Cowen says. But maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

"If that's the ultimate outcome, I personally have no problem with it," Cowen says. "They would be what they're becoming, major semi-pro leagues. They would define themselves as that."

In the meantime, the BCS will continue to threaten the financial well being of smaller football programs struggling to retain Division I-A status. Cowen has scheduled the conference call of 33 college presidents for July 22. NCAA President Myles Brand has said he may monitor it.

He needs to.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[glorydays]

It's the end of College ball as we know it. It was bound to happen when priorities in business economy and the bottom line determine where to get the dollars, where they are coming from and how to make it even more successful.

the "economic, marketing defacement" of the Chicago Bears is also a heads up to maybe Mary Kay's Biloxi Mississippi WBNA team in the future.

Yuk, "Burger King's San Francisco 49er's" :laugh:

[Larry]

Although, I have to point out, "Big Football" and "Little Football" existed long before the BCS.

(I, and both my parents, attended Oklahoma.)

(OT: I recall reading some commentator saying that one reason that the two political parties are being increasingly seen as obsolete, is because the major division in the US economy was between labor and ownership, and the two parties had hitched their identities to those two sides, And both were clinging to that part of their identity when the real struggle nowdays was between big business and small business. (In short, he said, the two parties were fighting the wrong war.))

[Angus]

Collegiate football programs have been headed for extinction since 1972. That was the year Title IX passed decreeing that educational institutions must treat men's and women's sports alike. First, men's small programs like wrestling were killed because they did not bring in enough money to be used both for women's sports and to maintain the wrestling program at the same time. So the programs had to go. That was the only way to "equalize" the treatment of the genders. Now the small football programs seem to be in money trouble for the same reason. Their football programs are being starved to fund women's programs of golf, or volley ball, or something. It seems only the big schools can mount football programs generating enough cash to feed women's sports and also stay afloat.

Actually, it would be better educationally, in my opinion, if all the intercollegiate programs were converted to intracollegiate intermural contests. The emphasis in universities on big time sports, particularly football and basketball (the money makers), has led to a devaluation of education and a lowering or jettisoning of educational standards. The idea of providing a football scholarship to an intellectually capable young man who otherwise would not be able to afford an education has been perverted. Now, the idea that a football player actually strives for, wants, or needs an education (or ought to meet the educational standards for admission) is considered in some circles quaint and out of touch with reality. The graduation rates bear that out.

I would much prefer the establishment of a professional football farm system. It would be much more honest and reduce the tendency of educational institutions to sell their academic standards in exchange for the wealth and power that sports notoriety brings.

[scottb]

I choked on the phrases like "athema to the goals of higher education". The major college sports (i.e. football & basketball) are about generating money, not the education. Let's not pretend otherwise. So in the spirit on contention and being the Devil's advocate:

Since when hasn't college athletics been anything but a predatory business? What is the point of offering scholarships to athletes of any sport if not to benefit the the college? Otherwise, all sports could be played on an intermural basis without the distinction between a student and a student/athlete. Why do we care about the graduation rate of "students" who are majoring in their sport? Just who should we feel sorry for: the athletes who turn pro early or just those who waste their opportunity to get a free education. If a school has to drop its athletic programs because they are too expensive, just how is the campus student's education really impacted? Does anyone feel sorry for Georgetown because of their lack of a real football program? Is Temple becoming less of a school after next season when they leave 1A football?

I too found the raid of the Big East a little taseless, but I hardly viewed it as a calamity. I am sure conferences will now institute penalties to protect themselves....that's what any good business would do.

Major college football (& basketball) have evolved to satisfy the public consumer. The BCS is a perfect example of adapting to the wishes of the marketplace. The universities are the stores selling these products. So who exactly are the victims of this venture if it is run poorly? The students???...I don't think so. The student athletes that make up a tiny percentage of the student body???...yep, they may have to actually pay tuition like the other folks. The alumni and fans??...somewhat. They may have to watch "inferior" college ball. The sports media??.. Not really. It gives them fodder for lots of articles like this one. The networks??...You bet, but do you really feel sorry for them?. So I ask you, why all the indignation ?

[ummagumma]

Because it's gone too far. Sometimes things go on that have always gone on that were under the table or just left unsaid, but now Big Football isn't happy just being BIG...it has to be ONLY. That is the problem.

[CMonster]

If a school has to drop its athletic programs because they are too expensive, just how is the campus student's education really impacted? Does anyone feel sorry for Georgetown because of their lack of a real football program? Is Temple becoming less of a school after next season when they leave 1A football?

WHOA!!!!

You are way off here. The reason universities spend spend spend on big time athletics is because of the INTANGIBLE value it carries.

If you are winning national championships, your team, dressed in the school's logo and colors, is likely on network TV for 20-30 hours in a season, and your school is on the front page of every newspaper in the country labeled "champions".

Ask someone who works in marketing what that type of name recognition marketing campaign would cost. There's a reason Michigan spends $30-$40 MILLION per year on athletics-----because it's worth $100 MILLION in marketing and keeps alumni happy. As they say, 80,000 people never show up on campus to see the unveiling of a new collection in the library.

QUICK QUIZ: What teams played in the national championship game last year-------------------Miami and Ohio State. Everyone knows that.

What teams played in the Division III national championship game--------------------------

------------Times up.

Mt Union and Trinity University. I rest my case.

And yes, Temple is LESS of a university becuse they cannot sustain Division 1-A status.

:soapbox:

Although, I have to point out, "Big Football" and "Little Football" existed long before the BCS.

This is true, but before the BCS, it wasn't contractually structured to keep the dollars away from half the schools. This is a big time anti-trust violation. Tulane SHOULD have gone to a BCS bowl in 1998, and it cost the school a ~$10 million payout.

[scottb]

Actually CMonster, I primarily agree with you. The difference is where you see "intangibles" I see "dollars" and the sporting programs they fund. And while I do believe an active sports program does enhance the overall college experience, I don't believe it betters the actual education of the student. (I make this statement assuming that the revenue received is used only for the school's overall athletic programs). Hmmmm...I did not consider the impact on fundraising, so I'll have to concede some non athletic benefit. I wonder how much?

I must however stick somewhat to my guns about schools like Temple. Yes, the college is diminished by the loss of its 1A football, but I firmly believe that is but a small item to judge the school by unless you are a football player. Although the average John Doe's knowledge of most schools consist of their exposure to general image (e.g. Ivy League) or athletic reputations, the real educational worth and offerings remain unknown to the majority of the population. For example, most everyone knows about the FSU football program, but how many know that they recently established a medical school...a real accomplishment given the difficulty to satisfy the requirements of that controlled environment. So which of those programs are a real reflection on the education merits of the school. By the way, Temple also has a medical school.

Ok ok..I confess. The main reason I was being a jackass about the issue was how sanctimonious the article seemed to me. Unfortunately, some of my rantings were undoubtedly my reading tones that may or not have been there, my lingering heartburn from the July 4th barbeque, the desire to spout opinions on topics I know nothing about, and finally the jerk that emerged from being called into work for a non existing emergency. I think my feisty gland was on full pulsation. :doh:

[OrangeSkin]

You make a great point, CMonster. When I was a young buck applying for colleges I wouldn't even consider going to a D-II or D-III school because football was so important to me. A solid team and a big stadium was a LEADING FACTOR in my decision.

Same with my son, who's going through the same process now and is determined to attend a bigtime football school.

I never really put 2 and 2 together like you did. Good job.

[CMonster]

For example, most everyone knows about the FSU football program, but how many know that they recently established a medical school...a real accomplishment given the difficulty to satisfy the requirements of that controlled environment.

I agree with that, but do you think FSU would have the free cash flow to make something like that happen without their football program?

Put another way, do you think Duke University would be a top 1o University without their basketball program?

If Duke had Division 3 athletics and basketball, you would never have even heard of Duke University. It would be competing with Davidson for best small private school in North Carolina.

[scottb]

Yes I do. If you look at the top 25 schools as ranked by Newsweek, most are not sport powerhouses. Even the top public college (Cal Berkley) is pretty much unknown athletically. Schools like Georgetown had a rep long before John Thompson came along. Has William & Mary ever been good? UVA (2nd ranked public school) has grown their athletic program over the last 20 years, but they've been academically good for a century.

but...I still concede to your basic points based upon the average student. Thanks for a more realistic viewpoint.

[Larry]

I agree with that, but do you think FSU would have the free cash flow to make something like that happen without their football program?

Actually, I don't think a dime came from their football program. The way they added a medical school was:

• The state of Florida had an organization, the Board of Reagents, who was in charge of administering the state's colleges and universities. The board was designed with limited turnover, to make it resistant to political pressure. The state gave a lump sum to higher education every year, and the Reagents decided how to allocate it.
  
• Several state legislators wanted a medical school in Tallahassee, but the Reagents said there wasn't enough money in the budget for three (UF and Miami have them currently). (The legislators, and the Governer, also had other issues with the Reagents, and with the presidents of some of the individual universities. But, the system was designed to make it difficult to apply political pressure to the universities.)
  
• Solution: Eliminate the Reagents, and allow the legislature (and the Governer) to exert as much control over individual colleges as they want.
  
• The legislature then finds enough funds for a third medical school (in a year when the state is having to make cuts in order to balance the budget and justify the traditional Election Year Tax Cut) by cutting the budgets for the two existing medical schools.
  

(But, I do agree: A big-name football program can lead to lots of "spinoff" benefits for a school. If winning a Championship causes some alumni to cough up more money for the engineering school, then that's a great idea.)

[NavyDave]

I cant wait to see lawyers representing athletes and the IRS to go after the Universities in court.

That will be must see tv

[gridironmike]

With all of the sideline material left out, the BCS will ultimately fail because of the exclusion of these other schools. What will they think of next, a playoff??

[EagleSteve]

Originally posted by gridironmike

What will they think of next, a playoff??

Never. That's way too logical.

[spanishomelette]

Originally posted by CMonster

WHOA!!!!

What teams played in the Division III national championship game--------------------------

------------Times up.

Mt Union and Trinity University. I rest my case.

I didn't know that.

Trinity University Tigers...my alma mater. They were hands down one of the worst teams in the division when I attended (way back in the '80s).

ahem...pardon the interruption

[brandies]

“It is only sick music that makes money today.” Nietzsche