Joe Barton's billl has passed the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.  The next the bill will go before the full committee where it would be examined to determine if it is worth taking to the House floor.  If passed by the house it would go to the Senate for passage or amendment and then any differences would have to be ironed out.  One both houses pass the final bill it would go to President Obama for his signature. 

Only the last step does not present formidable obstacles.  The main obstacle is the concept that congress has more pressing issues to address.

I would argue what could possible be more important than the Evolution of the BCS.  There is not a single more important issue on my plate, why should congress be any different?

This marks the first time that any bill has passed in any sub-committee of either the house of the senate.  This is a huge advance in the legislative pressure on the BCS.

Amendments to the original bill were passed that would prohibit the BCS from renaming the game as an enhanced bowl game and to require the revenue from the tournament  to be distributed evenly to all conferences.

The original bill and my thoughts next.

Here is the original version of the bill, first drafted last year after Joe Barton's team (Texas) was left out of the BCS NCG due to Big 12 Tiebreaker procedures.

HR 390 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 390

To prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, the promotion, marketing, and advertising of any post-season NCAA Division I football game as a national championship game unless such game is the culmination of a fair and equitable playoff system.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 9, 2009

Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. RUSH, and Mr. MCCAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, the promotion, marketing, and advertising of any post-season NCAA Division I football game as a national championship game unless such game is the culmination of a fair and equitable playoff system.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘College Football Playoff Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) college football games, including post-season football games, depend upon competition between college and university teams traveling in interstate commerce;

(2) the competitions involve and affect interstate commerce and are therefore within Congress's constitutional authority to regulate;

(3) the total economic impact in the host cities from the 5 Bowl Championship Series (BCS) games in January 2008 was estimated at more than $1.2 billion;

(4) collegiate athletic conferences whose teams participate in each BCS bowl game share $17.5 million in revenue;

(5) the BCS system recognizes the important economic impact to a city hosting the BCS championship game and therefore rotates it among cities; and

(6) the colleges and universities whose teams participate in the post-season football bowls experience significant financial windfall including increased applications for enrollment, recruiting advantages, increased alumni donations, and increased corporate sponsorship that provides a competitive advantage over universities whose teams are ineligible or statistically at a disadvantage from the BCS bowl competitions because of their conference affiliation.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACT.

(a) Promotion of Game- It shall be unlawful for any person to promote, market, or advertise a post-season National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football game as a championship or national championship game, unless the game is the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff system for which all NCAA Division I FBS conferences and unaffiliated Division I FBS teams are eligible.

(b) Merchandising- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, market, or advertise any merchandise related to a post-season NCAA Division I FBS football game that refers to the game as a championship or national championship game, unless the game is the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff system for which all NCAA Division I FBS conferences and unaffiliated Division I FBS teams are eligible.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

(a) Enforcement Authority- A violation of section 3 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.

(b) Regulations- The Federal Trade Commission may promulgate regulations or issue interpretative guidelines as necessary to implement and carry out this Act.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The prohibition in section 3 shall apply to any post-season NCAA Division I FBS football game that occurs after January 31, 2011.

What I Think

Isn't the BCS a single game elimination tournament of two teams which any team is equally eligible for if they get into the top two of the BCS standings?  Nothing in this bill undercuts this argument that I am sure the BCS' lawyers can see (BCS officials have even used rhetoric to this effect in the past year.)

Also, I have serious reservations about the amendment today that would require the revenue to be distributed equally.  I also don't know that the FTC is the proper agency to handle this.  If this were coming from the education subcommittee it would make much more sense to me.

College football is a $2.3 billion dollar revenue source to 120 institution that receive large amounts of federal and state funds.  The BCS represents $140, soon to be $200+, million of this revenue.  This is certainly large enough to warrant some amount of federal attention.

If congress is going to get involved, however, I want it to be with the right bill, not this bill.

Let's define a playoff better.  Let's define eligible better.  At the very least define eligible to be guaranteed access to all undefeated teams, if not all conference champions.

This would also restrict any bowl from calling itself a championship.  As a Utah fan we would not have been able to be called the Sugar Bowl Champions last year if this bill were in effect.

This bill will not alter anything about next year's season.  It might even become costly to the MWC if they end up meeting the guidelines for an automatic qualification after the 2011 season.