Autumn Spectacle: "We Swear to Tell the Truth..."

"We swear to tell the truth..."
By AutumnSpectacle.com staff E-mail

This past offseason, the United States Congress decided that they needed to "fix" college football. AutumnSpectacle.com was left off the witness list. Despite the smugness of Rep. Joe Barton's ramblings, the conversations were the same as back when Congress held similar hearings back in 2005. AS.com was left off the witness list then, too.

However, we offered our testimony back in 2005 and we're re-publishing that testimony here now.

The following is a fictitious dialogue between the committee and AutumnSpectacle.com. Some of the comments we attribute to the committee members were taken verbatim from the hearing. We've also taken creative license with some of their questions for the sake of our own testimony.

AS.com: Mr. Chairman, before we start, we'd like to offer an opening statement. We are honored to be here in our nation's capitol visiting with all of you about the best sport on the planet. However, we are deeply troubled by the very idea that, with our nation at war, the taxpayers are footing the bill for this sort of government work.

To that end, we don't understand why this meeting is even necessary, given the nature of the subject - the BCS. The contract agreed to by the participating parties is in place through the 2010 college football season. There is a lot of great and enjoyable football to be played between now and then; but holding such a hearing is polarizing to many and sucks the joy out of the most highly attended sport in America.

Finally, we take issue with the nature of this hearing. You've titled it, "A Comprehensive Review of the BCS and Postseason College Football." The word "review" implies that you have no agenda. However, Mr. Chairman, your pre-hearing statements were inflammatory and biased. You stated that college football uses a system that "appears to be deeply flawed." By the very nature of that term, you have revealed that you have little interest in reviewing the BCS and bowl system. It appears to us that you have an ax to grind.

Since you have called this hearing, we are willing participants and are eager to share our perspective.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX): The BCS hasn’t worked out very well. The fact that only two teams remain undefeated this year does not mean that the system works. What it does mean is that this year there are only two undefeated teams. In contrast, last year brought us the BCS at its unluckiest. Largely because it was ranked lower in preseason polls than two other undefeated teams, Auburn was barred from the title game despite a spectacular season. When polls and computer rankings outweigh the performance that a team actually delivers on the field, there is a problem. Other divisions of NCAA football decide the champion on the field. Why can't the highest level do it?

AS.com: We don't deny that a postseason tournament could be done. Our questions are: why would we want to have such a system in place? What would happen if we dramatically change the current format and go to a postseason tournament?

For those that are in favor of a postseason tournament, such as yourself, we hope that you can take an honest look at college football's regular season and appreciate everything it brings to the table. The sport has the best and most meaningful regular season of any sport in the country. It also is the only one that does not have a postseason tournament. Is that a coincidence?

The BCS places a high level of importance on who a team plays and how they perform over the course of the season. Tournament sports place a high level of importance on how a team plays at the end of the year. The regular season is just a qualifying period.

Mr. Chairman, we would like to know if this committee is planning to call the NFL into this room and urge them to produce a regular season that is as exciting as college football's.

Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY): The problem with the BCS is that the less traditional powers have no chance to win the national championship. What about somebody in the Mountain West? Forget about it. The University of Wyoming beat UCLA of the BCS' Pac 10 in the Las Vegas Bowl last year (2004). That proves that these teams should have a chance to play for it on the field.

AS.com: First, Wyoming's last second win over UCLA was one of the best games of any bowl last year. The entire state should be proud of the Cowboys' performance. But, if a postseason tournament was in place, Wyoming wouldn't have even played that game. They would not have qualified for an eight or 16-team playoff and they wouldn't have played in the posteason at all.

As for the notion that a team from a smaller conference can't win the national championship? It is improbable but it's absolutely possible - in this system. The challenge to the teams from the smaller conferences is scheduling quality opponents and winning them. ALL of them. A year ago, Utah went undefeated but their best win over a team from a BCS conference was against Texas A&M, who only finished 7-5. Schedule the best teams, be willing to go on the road to do it and then win them all.

There is a better chance for a team from a non-BCS conference to win the national championship in this format than in a postseason tournament. Let's be honest with ourselves. Utah, Wyoming, UTEP and the like are not going to beat Virginia Tech, USC and Texas in three consecutive weeks of a tournament. They may pull off an upset but the odds they will put three games of that nature together are far less probable than winning the national championship in the BCS.

So, our response is that they should embrace this system if, in truth, their goal is to win a national championship.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL): You made it sound as if the Division I college football was far superior to any other sport. How can you say that when there is so much controversy every year over who is playing in the national championship game? Let them decide it on the field.

AS.com: There is going to be controversy no matter what the system is. There are 65 teams that play in the NCAA basketball tournament, yet we see interviews with players and coaches who are upset because they believed they deserved an invitation. Whether it's two teams being invited like in college football or 65 teams like March Madness, there is always going to be controversy.

The real question should be are we willing to risk the intensity and cut-throat feel of college football's regular season? College basketball's regular season takes on little importance. If top-ranked Duke throttles #2 Texas in December, what does that mean? Not a whole lot because both teams will make the tournament and the December "showdown" will have been meaningless.

In college football, fans are treated to three whole months of drama. Each week is important because if you lose, you are taking your chances on whether you can play for the national title.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that Penn State could possibly beat USC or Texas if given the chance. We don't doubt that is a possibility. But, while USC was surviving against Notre Dame, Penn State failed to beat Michigan on that same day. The regular season results are huge in the national title picture and it gives the fans a lot of enjoyment.

When other sports can boast of having such drama play out in the middle of the regular season, then we'll be the first to buy tickets.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I also want to express my strong opposition to changing the postseason football schedule or altering the successful Bowl Championship Series. If the BCS was replaced with a playoff system, this would not only undermine the almost 120 years of tradition established by the Tournament of Roses, but it would also seriously undermine the economic vitality of the City of Pasadena and its surrounding areas.

AS.com: Thank you for sharing your perspective, Congressman. The economic impact on the host community is an aspect seldom talked about. There are 28 bowls in 25 communities. Why is that?

The host communities recognize an opportunity to increase tourism and, in turn, increase revenue for the city and its merchants. If a playoff was in place, that would change drastically.

In an 8-team playoff, how many Texas fans would be in a position to travel to all three playoff games, if the Longhorns were to advance to the finals? If attendance is affected, then the corporate sponsors will, at some point, reconsider their partnership. If that happens, those cities will have to decide whether they want to host a bowl or not. As you said, the bowls have been a long-standing part of college football's identity and this aspect should be discussed more.

In closing, it is our hope that the members of this committee and the public will take an honest look at what makes college football so special. The regular season, in the autumn, on the campuses, in front of the die-hards, alums and student body, in those storied stadiums. That is what's at stake. If you change the way it is, the focus will move to the games played in the postseason, in the winter, on neutral sites, in front of corporate sponsors, fat cat donors and the host communities.

It's easy to say that the grass is greener elsewhere. But, what happens if it is changed? What's the fallout then? Can you honestly say that another system can be put into place and not affect what has been so great for so long? Please ponder these questions the next time you set out to cure America's "ills."

Advertise Privacy Policy