Kennedy Proposal Forwarded to Attorney General Christine Varney

“I’ve dreamed about the NCAA tournament and watched the teams that went to the NCAA tournament and that’s what I wanted to be. Now that we have that chance to, I want to take full advantage of it”- David Stockton

Mark Emmert
President
National Collegiate Athletic Association
P.O Box 6222
Indianapolis, IN 46206


Dear President Emmert:

We are writing to respond to the March 12, 2011 3rd District Town Hall Meeting in Spokane, Washington. January 11, 2011 we sent a letter to Washington State’s Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown to inform her of the efforts that will be taken to convince the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sue the Association of Conferences. When asked if legislative efforts should be taken to improve the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), Representative Timm Ormsby suggested that I send my information to “Dr. Emmert”.

After the conclusion of the July 7, 2009 Senate hearing, “The Bowl Championship Series: Is it Fair and in Compliance with the Antitrust Laws?”, Mountain West Conference (MWC) lawyer Alan Fischel suggested I “submit it to them”. His classification of “them” is the BCS. The BCS is a five game event that is managed by the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) universities with additional assistance from ESPN, the Rose Bowl, the Orange Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl .

The Kennedy Proposal (KP) has been submitted to Executive Director of the BCS Bill Hancock, Executive Director of the Rose Bowl Scott McKibben, the Orange Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, University of Miami AD Brad Bates, Big 12 (10) Commissioner Dan Beebe, Central Michigan University AD David Heeke, University of Texas AD DeLoss Dodds, University of Buffalo Associate Athletic Director Douglas Gnodtke, Mid American Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, Big Ten (12) Commissioner Jim Delany, Ohio University AD Jim Schaus, Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford, Kent State University AD Laing Kennedy, Former Big East Commissioner Michael Tranghese, former University of Southern California AD Mike Garrett, former West Virginia AD Mike Parsons, Southeastern Conference (SEC) Commissioner Mike Slive, University of Southern Mississippi AD Richard Giannini, University of Tulane AD Rick Dickson, USC Senior Associate AD Steve Lopes, San Jose State University AD Tom Bowen, Sun Belt Commissioner Wright Waters, and former Pac 10 Commissioner Tom Hansen ; handed to President Young of the University of Utah, Pat Haden AD at University of Southern California (BCS AD Advisory Group) , Head Coach Chris Petersen, and rejections have come from President Kustra of Boise State University, Vice President of Administration Tom Poole at Penn State (President Spanier is the current BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Chairman), President Nikias at the University of Southern California (USC), President Simon of Michigan State University (MSU)(Mrs. Simon is member of the NCAA Executive Committee) , Greg Byrne the AD at the University of Arizona, President Bodenheimer of ESPN, Western Athletic Conference (WAC) Commissioner Karl Benson and his presidents, makes me doubt that these same people will be wanting to go in that direction unless forced or punished. Each response is not listed in this letter but instead a few will be highlighted.

July 12, 2009 via email
Dear Brandon,

Chancellor Perlman has received The Kennedy Proposal and has asked me to respond.
We appreciate your taking the time to write.
I’m sure you have read that the conferences have agreed to continue the current format through the 2014 bowl season. When they begin to discuss plans for 2015 and beyond, I am certain they will consider as many proposals as possible. I have not heard any sentiment to add three or four games to the season, nor any sentiment to play games in the two weeks before Christmas.
Thank you again.
Bill Hancock

Even if we ignore the fact the KP adds two or three games to the season, and that teams already compete on Christmas Eve, the August 11, 2010 ESPN poll indicates “players want a playoff -- but don't dare take away their bowl games (and the accompanying gift bags).” The players’ position on a playoff was furthered this January with the release of the National College Players Association (NCPA) survey of FBS players—nearly 81% were in favor. The Associated Press reported earlier this month that you would be willing to help create a playoff “if the leadership of those universities wanted to go in that direction.” Mr. Hancock would respond to these comments on ESPNU’s College Football Podcast hosted by Ivan Maisel:

“Well the NCAA membership does not want a playoff. It comes down to that and I think you have to poll every school to find out what their reasons are, but I think the consensus is that they want to continue with the bowl system, which is such a great experience for the athletes, and also the tradition of the bowls; and also the regular season is so important in college football and I don't think anybody wants to do anything to take away from that. And so that's why the people that [NCAA President] Mark [Emmert] works for has said, 'We're sorry we just don't want a playoff'.”

Mr. Hancock has lied once again. This is no different than his four page letter to the Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) when he claims “Certainly, players in a playoff would not enjoy a bowl experience”. I am certain that Bill Hancock won’t use that information in a lawsuit nor in front of legislators that are aware of the KP. In addition, July 25, 2009, the Washington Post reported, “He has sent, by his estimate, more than 15,000 emails and letters to college athletic conference commissioners, athletic directors and NCAA officials over the past year.”

Mr. Viera would conclude his story by asking those administrators about the KP and they reported the KP was “simply not feasible”. Mr. Viera has not supplied those administrators because he knows they can’t supply that information. Furthermore, Mike Leach asked Bill Hancock about me and Hancock acknowledged that we send emails to each other. The email sent to Mr. Hancock on December 7, 2010 challenged him to BCS Debate on my radio show, in a meeting, in the court of law, or in Congress. To report an antitrust concern, the DOJ-Antitrust Division’s first bullet: “What are the names of companies, individuals, or organizations that are involved?” This letter has been forwarded via postal mail to each BCS president, athletic director, and coach. No response is the presumed stance of opposed.

Dennis Wagner reports in The Arizona Republic on December 24, 2009, that “former Attorney General Grant Woods turned up “no credible evidence that the bowls management engaged in any type of illegal or unethical conduct.” March 29, 2011 I received an email from Playoff PAC Co-Founder Matthew Sanderson headlined, “Fiesta Bowl Fires CEO Amid Troubling Revelations”. This email was forwarded to a large community of BCS presidents but the reason for illustrating this point is illuminated in the ESPN article ran March 31, 2009 in which former BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Chairman Dave Frohnmayer (who received the KP) states, “Frankly, we’re not concerned about [Utah AG Mark Shurtleff’s antitrust suit]. People can threaten lawsuits all they want, but it’s another thing to be successful … I am convinced that an antitrust suit would be utterly without merit. And I speak as a former state attorney general”.
Washington State University (WSU) has provided a perfectly worded rejection:

December 10, 2010 WSU Athletic Director Bill Moos responds via email:

Mr. Kennedy,

President Floyd of Washington State University received your letter regarding the Kennedy Proposal and forwarded it to me for response.
As you know, WSU is a proud member of the Pac-10 Conference. As a Pac-10 member, our institution’s best interests are compatible with those of the conference as a whole. The Pac-10 Conference supports the bowl system and is opposed to an NCAA FBS playoff structure. In addition, the Pac-10 has a long and valued relationship with the Tournament of Roses and Rose Bowl game and see that relationship continuing well into the future.
Bill Moos

The next step in the process is to determine if WSU’s opposition of the NCAA FBS Playoff Structure provided by the KP is in violation of the antitrust laws. The United States of America has three major Federal antitrust laws: The Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Remarks will be limited to the Sherman Act because the July 13th, 2009 response to Mr. Hancock states, “Unless you can provide sufficient evidence that proves the Kennedy Proposal simply and utterly cannot work, then either the BCS is a conspiracy, collusion, or abusing monopolistic power that is restraining trade and commerce within the states and thus in strict violation of the Sherman Act of 1890”.
Mr. Monts testifies, “The principal federal antitrust statue, the Sherman Act, has two main provisions: section 1 of the Act, 15 U.S.C §1, prohibits any “contract, combination…or conspiracy,”—in other words, agreements – in restraint of trade. Section 2 of the Act, 15 U.S.C §2, prohibits monopolization or attempted monopolization of trade or commerce and conspiracies to monopolize.”

April 8th at Southwestern Law School, Mr. Monts, Mr. Fishel, and Gary R. Roberts (Dean and Gerald L. Bepko Professor of Law), will provide an antitrust analysis of college football’s Bowl Championship Series. Professor Roberts testified at the May 22, 1997 Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing entitled, “Antitrust Implications of the College Bowl Alliance”. His prepared statement for the Judiciary states, “My own view, and probably the best interpretation of the caselaw, is that because antitrust is aimed specifically at aggregations of market power that injure consumer welfare, once a plaintiff establishes significant anticompetitive effects, the burden is then on the defendant(s) to prove that procompetitive benefits clearly and substantially outweigh those negative effects. Put another way, the logic of the Sherman Act suggests that in a rule of reason balance, the tie goes to the plaintiff—or alternatively, that once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of significant anticompetitive effects, the burden is on the defendants(s) to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there are procompetitive benefits that more than justify the negative effects.”

Mr. Monts testifies the BCS has four pro-competitive benefits, “First, the BCS creates an annual national championship game … Second, the BCS arrangement enhances the quality of non-championship BCS bowls by allowing them to delay their team selections until completion of the regular season … Third, by creating a national championship through the bowls, the BCS preserves and strengthens that broad-based bowl system and thus maximizes the number of post-season playing opportunities for student-athletes and the number of post-season college football games for bowls, television networks, and fans … Fourth, it preserves and enhances the college football regular season and thus allows conferences and institutions to reap maximum benefits from their regular season games and sale of their regular season television rights.” He would also testify, “The BCS Has No Anticompetitive Effects.”

Addressed in the email/letter to Chairman Ray, after the conclusion of the July 2009 Hearing, Mr. Perlman is recorded saying, “But if you can within those restraints, come up with some new deal, we’re willing to take a look at it.” Mr. Hancock furthers the recognition of an NCAA FBS Playoff Structure by saying, “it’s not that the college presidents couldn’t devise a playoff plan; they could, but at a great loss to the game that we all love.”

The restraint concerns of Mr. Perlman and the losses claimed by Mr. Hancock were expressed to Senator Hatch (R-Utah) and Senator Bennett (R-Utah) in a July 9, 2009 response letter from ACC Commissioner John Swofford and former BCS Presidential Committee Oversight Chairman David Frohnmayer, “we have not found an alternative structure that is economically workable, preserves the bowl games, maintains the singular importance of the regular season, fits within the academic calendar in place at most universities, meets other significant educational and athletic concerns related to extension of the FBS football season, and can garner the support of all conferences and universities”.

Mr. Hancock claims the BCS is not perfect and I have not claimed the KP is perfect, but other people have. The 120 FBS universities voluntarily agreed to the current automatic qualification, at-large eligibility, team selection procedures, BCS standings, and standards for future automatic qualification. The BCS is claiming that they can’t provide the players, the students, the fans, nor the television networks with a commercially feasible method to create a number one vs. number two matchup in the BCS National Championship Game (NCG) through a national tournament. Despite the claims that a playoff can be implemented, the BCS administration continues to refute the idea of moving forward and instead grasp on returning to the old bowl system.

If indeed this opposition is in violation of Federal law, any corporation that voluntarily participates in the BCS and is opposed would result in violation. Legal action has not initiated because the University of Washington (UW) has not responded to the same letter that was sent to WSU. The letter President Floyd de facto responded to was the November 2010 letter that was addressed to you and forwarded to each Automatic Qualifying (AQ) President via postal mail in response to “NCAA Prez Preaches Efficient Probes”.

The concepts of the Sherman Act are fully understood and thus Chairman Ray’s response is benevolent to the case: August 2, 2010 Chairman Ray responds to email entitled, “The BCS, Legislation of the KP, 2010 August NCAA Meeting, Antitrust Lawsuit and What’s in it for me” via email:

Dear Brandon:

Clearly, you have put a great deal of time, energy and thought into the issue of a future playoff system. The current BCS contract runs through 2014 and the realignment of teams within the six conferences and other conferences may be subject to change throughout the intervening years. The NCAA is an association of conferences and the conferences must vote on any actions implemented by the NCAA. The BCS conferences have indicated that they will continue to review possible changes in the FBS format to determine a champion as additional suggestions are brought forward. I do not expect any significant changes to occur in advance of the expiration of the current contract and it would be difficult to weigh alternatives going forward and anticipate best practices as long as conference realignment of teams is still possible. I am glad that you and others continue to develop and share ideas so that the best decisions can be made going forward. Thanks taking the time to share your observations with me and others.
Ed Ray

The indicting question is if Mr. Perlman responded to the KP before the finalization of the contracts on July 9, 2009 that Mr. Hancock (BCS), Mr. Monts (BCS lawyer), and Mr. Ray (NCAA) have alluded. Mr. Perlman first responded to the KP on July 8th, 2009 in an email to Administrator Bill Hancock: “You want to deal with this?”

Mr. Perlman acknowledges that he sees something “maybe in the antirust a bit”, but he’s not an antitrust lawyer so he wouldn’t want to try to “weave his way through that”. I have no reason to believe the NCAA or BCS administration will implement the KP without legal action and/or pressure from Congress. Will my review of this arrangement provide merit for the United States Treasury to seize approximately $12.5 billion from the BCS?

Sincerely,


Brandon E. Kennedy Jesse T. Wenzl
Executive Director of the KP Coalition First Member

Response from the Office of the President at the University of Washington

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

Thank you for providing the materials regarding the Bowl Championship
Series. The University of Washington proudly supports intercollegiate
athletics and the opportunities provided to student athletes. We will
continue to work with the NCAA regarding a variety of aspects of the
athletics program including participation in post season and championship
events by all University of Washington intercollegiate athletics teams.


Office of the President
University of Washington
Room 301, Gerberding Hall
Box 351230
Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: (206) 543-5010
Fax: (206) 616-1784

Response to USC Associate AD Steve Lopes

"LET'S CROWN A REAL CHAMPION!!!!!! MAKE THIS A NATIONAL MOVEMENT!" NCPA Poll

Mr. Steve Lopes
USC Senior Associate Athletic Director
Heritage Hall (HER)
3501 Watt Way Los Angeles, CA 90089-0602

Mr. Lopes:
This responds to your email sent February 10th, 2011 regarding the Kennedy Proposal. It’s apparent that I am making some noise and gaining traction with the BCS administrators because I’m starting to be addressed as Mr. Kennedy.

In your response, you lie. I have emails dating back to March 15, 2009 that indicate that USC was made aware of the Kennedy Proposal. This is important because the ESPN agreement was not finalized until July 9th, 2009. The Kennedy Proposal was not forwarded to you, it was sent directly to you. I called several times during June of 2009 to seek a response. If I had the phone records from Miriam’s Kitchen I would be able to prove it.

Mr. Monts testifies, “The general retort of BCS critics when this point is raised is that, if there were some other cooperative arrangement, usually some hypothetical “playoff”, then these harms to competitors could be avoided. That argument fails because it starts from the wrong baseline.” The BCS is an event that consists of five, two-team playoffs. The Kennedy Proposal is an expansion proposal for the BCS National Championship playoff.

According to Antitrust Enforcement and the Consumer, “For offenses committed on or after June 22, 2004, individual violators can be fined up to $1 million and sentenced to up to 10 years in federal prison for each offense, and corporations can be fined up to $100 million for each offense. Under some circumstances, the maximum fines can go even higher than the Sherman Act maximums to twice the gain or loss involved.”

By stating USC is committed to the current structure for post-season play when a less-restrictive alternative has been proposed is acknowledging that USC is violating the Nation’s Antitrust Laws.

Fight On!!!

See you in court Mr. Lopes,

Brandon E. Kennedy
Executive Director of the KP Coalition

Kennedy Proposal: Letter to Washington State Senate Majority Leader

Washington State Senate
Senator Lisa Brown
3rd Legislative District
Senate Majority Leader
Spokane, WA 99201





Dear Senator Brown:

This responds to the December 22, 2010 meeting with Public Policy advisor Marcus Riccelli. Mr. Riccelli asked me to provide information on my primary objective during the 112th Congress. An official petition, antitrust complaints, and State Rule of Reason litigation against the University of Washington and Washington State University and other efforts will be taken to complete the objective to convince the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sue the Association of Conferences for lack to respond to consumer preference by not implementing a less-restrictive alternative for the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) event.

The Kennedy Proposal (KP) is an expansion package that would afford a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) playoff structure while ensuring the BCS met its stated objective. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Wiech responded to Senator Orrin Hatch’s (R-UT) letter to President Barack Obama asking for a DOJ investigation into the BCS for violation under the antitrust laws, stating they may ask a government or non-governmental entity or commission to study the benefits, costs, and feasibility of a playoff system.

If the KP is feasible, the option for the DOJ to sue the BCS and NCAA for post-season broadcasting rights and post-season gate revenues is available. Mr. Hancock says financial inducements will not lead to changes but the ESCROW account he manages does not have the revenues to pay 30 years of damages and 90 years of monetary fees.

If the KP were implemented, Texas Christian University (TCU) could have hosted and beat Ohio State in a 2nd round game, loss a nail biter to Oregon in a NCAA Semi-final in Eugene but Purple Nation would still have the opportunity to say, “We’re Rose Bowl Champions”. TCU Quarterback Andy Dalton said playing in the Rose Bowl game was a “dream come true”. The ambience of New Year’s Day and the San Gabriel Mountains will continue to breathe and the opportunity to win the College Super Bowl would be born with the implementation of the KP.

Senator Brown, after the conclusion of last night’s game, the promotion, marketing, advertising, and competitive process for the 2012 BCS National Championship Game began. Mr. Hancock and the NCAA continue to deny and block the KP. We feel Congress could throw a stone and address this issue by inviting Mr. Hancock, the Conference Commissioners, Chairman Spanier, President Emmert, and Chairman Ray to testify about the Kennedy Proposal.


Sincerely,


Brandon E. Kennedy Jesse T. Wenzl
Executive Director of the KP Coalition 2nd Member of KP Coalition

Department of Justice response (2)

August 3, 2010 the Department of Justice responded to a letter sent to Chairman Ray, the vast majority of BCS administrators, and Playoff PAC:



Dear Mr. Kennedy:



Thank you for your continued correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.




We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.




Sincerely,




Antitrust Division


Department of Justice

Department of Justice response

June 10, 2010 the DOJ responded to an email sent to the vast majority of BCS administrators:

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. We have reviewed your email, and have forwarded it to the appropriate legal staff for further review. However, we are prohibited from providing legal advice or offering opinions on whether conduct may violate the law. We have your information on file and should legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.

We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.

Sincerely,

Antitrust Division
Department of Justice

BCS: Mr. Hancock's 2009 Response

July 12, 2009

Dear Brandon,

Chancellor Perlman has received The Kennedy Proposal and has asked me to respond.

We appreciate your taking the time to write.

I’m sure you have read that the conferences have agreed to continue the current format through the 2014 bowl season. When they begin to discuss plans for 2015 and beyond, I am certain they will consider as many proposals as possible. I have not heard any sentiment to add three or four games to the season, nor any sentiment to play games in the two weeks before Christmas.

Thank you again.

Bill Hancock

Bill Hancock, Administrator
Bowl Championship Series

Chairman Ray's Response

Dear Brandon:

Clearly, you have put a great deal of time, energy and thought into the issue of a future playoff system. The Current BCS contract runs through 2014 and the realignment of teams within the six conferences may be subject to change throughout the intervening years. The NCAA is an association of conferences and the conferences must vote on any actions implemented by the NCAA. The BCS conferences have indicated that they will continue to review possible changes in the FBS format to determine a champion as additional suggestions are brought forward. I do not expect any significant changes to occur in advance of the current contract and it would be difficult to weigh alternatives going forward and anticipate best practices as long as conference realignment of teams is still possible. I am glad that you and others continue to develop and share ideas that the best decisions can be made going forward. Thanks taking the time to share your observations with others.

Ed Ray.

http://www.ncaarevolution.com/uploads/Ray_s_Response.pdf

Letter to Chairman Ray

August 2, 2010 the KP Coalition sent a letter to NCAA Executive Committee Chairman Ed Ray. The letter expresses concerns over the new model and format of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), Legislation of the Kennedy Proposal (KP), the 2010 August National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Executive Committee meeting, antitrust lawsuit against the decision makers of college sports, and what’s in it for the Executive Director.

Here are some highlights from the letter

The New Model and Format of the BCS:

“June 10, 2010, Senate Finance Committee Ranking member Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Harkin (D-Iowa) co-signed a letter to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany asking 15 questions regarding conference expansion. According to ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg, Associate Commissioner Scott Chipman said, “the conference has followed up with the senators’ respective staff”; however, I called the Senate Finance Committee July 6th, and they did not have any information to pass along regarding the response to the questions.

The Big Ten is under jurisdiction of the NCAA. So does the NCAA have this response? If so, it should be made to available to the public.”

Legislation of the Kennedy Proposal:

“Legislation of the KP could come in several different forms but the only one that I can control is through an official petition; however, we plan to ignite a full congressional movement.”

“House Resolution 68, which supports the establishment of an NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision Championship playoff system in the interest of fairness and to bring parity to all NCAA teams, House Resolution 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, and House Resolution 599, to prohibit the receipt of Federal funds by an institution of higher education with a football team that participates in the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision, unless the national championship game of such Subdivision is the culmination of a playoff system, each have influence on the KP.”

The 2010 NCAA Executive Committee meeting in Seattle, WA:

“Executive Director Bill Hancock and I disagree whether there should be a multi-game playoff for the FBS; however, according to Teddy Greenstein of ChicagoBreakingSports.com, Hancock thinks a meeting with President Obama would be “way cool”. ”
“We are asking if the NCAA believes that the Kennedy Proposal provides compelling evidence to assemble a committee to study how the KP applies to academics, athletics, economics, and the structure of the FBS season.”

Antitrust Lawsuit against the decision makers of College Sports:

“July of 2009, President Kustra spoke on behalf of the presidents and chancellors of the WAC and stated, “The automatic qualifying conferences and Notre Dame receive 90 percent of the $132 million generated by the BCS bowls, a monopoly that if uncovered in the business world would cause for a Department of Justice antitrust investigation.”

“July 7, 2009, Troutman Sanders lawyers Barry J. Brett and Roy Morrow Bell sent a letter to Senator Kohl, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Hatch, Ranking member, stating “Action by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to remedy this illegality is a particularly appropriate use of its resources and would serve the public interest.” (p. 8)


The BCS and the NCAA have employed an antitrust lawyer for a reason; the issue requires one. People may not believe that the NCAA is the BCS but the majority of Division I committees within the NCAA are comprised of individuals who work at AQ institutions.

They continue, “Threatened action by state Attorneys General does not hold the prospect of expertise, resources and national view which is present in an action by the Division, which is the historically most desirable means to address such violations.”

I do agree and understand that reality; therefore, the Civil Rights Division, U.S Department of Education, U.S Department of Transportation, U.S Department of Commerce, U.S Department of Labor, U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, the N.A.A.G, President Bodenheimer, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and CNN Student News will be receiving a copy of this letter and proposal via postal mail.”

What’s in it for Mr. Brandon Edward Kennedy of Spokane, Washington:

“We have not been able to raise awareness at each FBS institution; however, in a responsive tweet, running back C.J Gable of USC states he would like to participate in a multi-game playoff if afforded. Travis Long of Washington State University is a member of the KP Coalition and although he may not agree with the sentiment to convict, we all agree on one thing: WE WANT NCAA FBS PLAYOFFS!!!”


http://www.ncaarevolution.com/uploads/Chairman_Ray.pdf

Championship Fairness Act of 2009

House Resolution 599

To prohibit the receipt of Federal funds by any institution of higher education
with a football team that participates in the NCAA Division I Football
Bowl Subdivision, unless the national championship game of such Subdivision
is the culmination of a playoff system.

College Football Playoff Act

House Resolution 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.

Januaury 29, 2010 DOJ to Senator Hatch

"We note in that regard that legislation in the HOuse H.R. 390, that would ban the promtion of a post-season FBS game as a championship or national championship unless it results from a playoff, recently passed by voice vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee."

House Resolution 68

House Resolution 68

Supports the establishment of an NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision
Championship playoff system in the interest of fairness and to bring
parity to all NCAA teams.

KP sent to BCS Bowls

Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl Decision Makers:

Thank you for reading my email. The purpose of this email is to inform you of the federal, and possible state, antitrust lawsuit that will be filled against BCS bowls and the decision makers of the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) by the KP Coalition.

I have sent my proposal to the vast majority of Presidents and Chancellors but a suit cannot be filed unless all parties with decision making abilities are fully notified of the Kennedy Proposal and its improvement to the BCS model and format.

I can file a state lawsuit against the Rose Bowl because I am a consumer in the State of Washington; however, if and when that is filed, that will be with more consumers from this great state than just me.

I strongly urge that BCS bowls become pro-active in affording a multi-game playoff, and more specifically, the Kennedy Proposal.


God Bless,
Brandon E. Kennedy
Executive Director of the KP Coalition
www.ncaarevolution.com

The Kennedy Proposal sent to Utah AG

Dear Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff:

Thank you for reading my email. I understand that you are in pursuit of an Antitrust lawsuit of the BCS (as I am myself) ; however, I was wondering, if you would be willing to supply a Comprehensive Review of the Kennedy Proposal as it applies to Academics, Athletics, and Economics.



God Bless,

Brandon E. Kennedy
Executive Director of the KP Coalition
www.ncaarevolution.com
Office: (509) 570 - 3907

Bi-Partisan Effort Increasing

June 10, Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley ( R - Iowa ) and Tom Haskins (D - Iowa) sent a letter to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany asking:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D2160017624.PDF

"
(1) Provide a copy of the most recent Form 990 filed with the IRS for the Big Ten Conference;

(2) Provide a comprehensive breakdown of all Program Service Revenue; including a detailed breakdown of "Sports Revenues" and "Operating Revenues";


(3) Provide an explanation of how all Program Servive Revenue furthers the state charitable purpose of the Conference;

(4) Provide an updated list of grant distriubutions to member academic institutions for 2008 and 2009 and explain how each distribution furthers the Conference's charitable purposes;

(5) Provide a detailed explanantion of how the Conference determined the grant award amounts for 2007, 2008, 2009;

(6) Provide a detailed explanantion of how any considered, planned, or possible expansion of the Conference will help further the stated charitable purpose of the Conference;

(7) Provide all copies of any proposed expansion, merger, or consolidation plans the Conference has considered, developed, requested, or otherwise discussed and explain how the Cnference decided on which schools to invite;

(8) Provide a detailed list of all dues and other assesments that member academic institutions pay to the Conference, how they are calculated and how they are utilized;

(9) Provide a detailed list of revenue generated by corporate sponsorships;

(10) Provide copies of any documentation used to determine commissioner's compensation, including compensation studies and minutes of full board, executive committee or compensation committee meetings where compensation amounts were decided;

(11) Please provide copies of the Network's income tax returns for the past three years;

(12) The Conference's Form 990 indicates that its ownership percentage of the Network is 5100%. Please clarify and explain who is the other owners of the Network are, if any;

(13) Provide copies of all legal opinions, internal or external, discussing or advising the tax implications of the Conferene's ownership interest in the Network, including the Conference's tax exemption and unrelated business taxable income;

(14) Please explain why these conferences should continue to be tax exempt;

(15) Please explain what requirements member schools must meet to be included in the conference, what the costs are to meet these requirements and how such costs impact tuiton and other costs for student at those institutions. "


January 29, Assistant Attourney General Ronald Wiech to Senator Hatch

"Others have suggested that legislation might target universities' tax exempt status if a playoff system is not implemented"

The BCS is running......and they should be

BSU to MWC? Who is gaining?

President Bob Kustra of Boise State University is considering joining the Mountain West Conference. That will come at the detriment to Boise State University.

The Idaho Statesman reported that BSU could gain $2.6 million by entering the MWC but is that number accurate? Money is being gained but what about exposure?

The 5th BCS bowl game and double hosting model was instituted in 2006 and thus the numbers will reflect that shift in the BCS post-season. Only ten teams have competed in BCS bowl games more than twice since its insertion:

Florida (3-0) 2007 UF 41 vs. OSU 14, 2009 UF 24 vs. Oklahoma 14, 2010 UF 51 vs. Cincinnatti 24

USC (3-0) 2007 USC 32 vs. Michigan 18, USC 49 vs. Illinois 21, 2009 USC 38 vs Penn State 24

LSU (2-0) 2007 LSU 41 vs. Notre Dame 14, 2008 LSU 38 vs OSU 24

BSU (2-0) 2007 BSU 43 vs. Oklahoma 42, 2010 BSU 17 vs. TCU 10

Texas (1-1) 2009 Texas 24 vs OSU 21, 2010 Alabama 37 vs. Texas 21

VTech (1-1) 2008 Kansas 24 vs VTech 21, 2009 VTech 20 vs. Cincinnatti 7

Alabama (1-1) 2009 Utah 31 vs. Alabama 17, 2010 Alabama 37 vs. Texas 21

Ohio State (1-3) 2007 UF 41 vs. OSU 14, 2008 LSU 38 vs. OSU 24, OSU 26 vs. Oregon 17

Cincinnatti (0-2) 2009 VTech 20 vs. Cincinnatti 7, 2010 UF 51 vs. Cincinnatti 24

Oklahoma (0-3) 2007 BSU 43 vs. Oklahoma 42, 2008 West Virginia 48 vs. Oklahoma 28, 2009 UF 24 vs Oklahoma 14



2010 ESPN College Football Schedule

BSU currently has five games scheduled to be broadcast on ESPN, ESPN 2, and/or ESPN 3 next season. Thanks to TCU, the MWC has two. Would BSU's quantity of games broadcast increase or decrease with alignment in the MWC?



In addition, Ohio State has one, (assuming more will come throughout the season), Florida, LSU, Alabama, have zero but that's because they have the SEC Network and ESPN deal. It's untelling how many games that will eventually be broadcast but BSU is currently bolstering nearly half (41.67%) of 2010's regular season games in a Global market.

Seems like a great move to decrease the global television market for BSU when in fact he could increase the market by trying to afford a post-season tournament. Instead, he writes statements on the internet saying the BCS shouldn't be in place by June 25th yet he has done nothing

BCS in Violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964

I would like to share a letter I wrote to an ABC Executive last year. I’m not sure when this letter was writ but we know it was at least befre April 2009.

“Hi, how are you? My name is Brandon Kennedy and I am a former Central Washington University student-athlete and now a former Eastern Washington University student-athlete. I will be attending school once again in the fall; however, I have not stopped learning and creating.”

“The Economic Recession and a major college football playoff each fit into both categories…” “…the answer to solving the United States recession resides in the insertion of an Football Bowl Subdivision “FBS” playoff. The Bowl Championship Series “BCS” currently controls the FBS post-season. Utah Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch is behind a legislative push that is leading the “BCS Fight” to Washington. On November 4, 2008, President Barack Obama said he would “throw his weight around” for a playoff, now is the time to push this agenda. Government dollars will be spent to determine if the BCS system is fair and breaks antitrust laws but the answer to a tangible [feasible] FBS playoff is already created; however, the proper people still need to be notified; hence the intent behind this letter.

The BCS system puts the NCAA in violation of the Title IX of the Education Amendments. Each women’s sport competes in a national playoff; however, each male sport does not. This is the sole reason why Title IX was instituted, to banish these inequities and unfairness within the United States, and the BCS system is in direct violation. The BCS system may also be in-contempt with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, breaching Title VII of the Act. Why can’t the FBS student-athletes compete in national playoffs like the all other NCAA student-athletes? The BCS system is socially unjust and prevents the U.S economy from generating its potential maximum economic value. “

“…The BCS system denies the United States citizens “playoff benefits” from the FBS post-season. No season is complete without a playoff and therefore the FBS season has a “missing piece”. ..” “…March is know in the United States, if not globally, for its three week “madness” afforded by division one college basketball playoffs; so wouldn’t a three week FBS playoff in December create at least the same magnitude, if not three, four, or ten times the amount? The revenue and employment that will come with the insertion of an FBS playoff is imminent, but finding the right solution, the win-win solution, for the BCS, NCAA, and the United States is difficult to achieve; however, the day has come.”

“…The Kennedy Proposal offers the BCS and NCAA the opportunity to afford the fans of college football a playoff; however, the Kennedy Proposal has millions (potentially billions) to offer ABC in 2010 alone.”

“…with three additional weeks of FBS competition, that would mean that there would have to be three additional College Game Days.”

“…A FBS playoff is the answer to restoring the economic recession…”

“…In a BBC news article, I read that “good government reaction” to the Great Depression was “attracting light industries to ‘distressed’ areas”. The University of Southern California would have hosted a playoff game last year …” “Lost Angeles isn’t a ‘distressed’ city but in essence, our entire country is in a distressed state. Saturday night lights provided by an FBS playoff will attract people, wherever the lights are turned on. As a country we must turn our lights on and fight for an FBS playoff, fight for the rebuilding of our economy, but most importantly, fight for our divine right…”

“The Kennedy Proposal essentially takes the power of the FBS playoff out of the BCS and into the hands of the people…”

“…The more support we can grow for our cause, the stronger the lobby will be in Washington…” “I have sent my proposal to ACC Commissioner and BCS Coordinator John Swofford, BCS Presidential Oversight Committee President and University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer, BCS Presidential Oversight Committee representative and Chancellor of Nebraska Harvey Perlman…”

“…Thank you for your time and patience, but the time for an FBS playoff and the liberation from economic depression is, as will always be, residing in the present.”



www.ncaarevolution.com

The University of Washington

April 29, 2010

University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195

Dear Husky,
Thank you for reading my Facebook note. I am visiting the University of Washington today to discuss President Emmert’s call for a multi-game playoff, his concerns regarding the renovation to Husky Stadium, and the current State of the Kennedy Proposal.

November 7, 2008, Seattle Times writer Bud Withers ran an article titled, “The debate of BCS versus playoffs”. He dug into former Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen’s brain, advancing “every notion from the popular plus-one proposal to a 16-team pigskin-palooza”. Hansen went with the grain and rejected each proposal but President Emmert has different beliefs.

Emmert stated to Withers that he believes a playoff is “inevitable” but other Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) presidents, like University of Georgia President Michael Adams and University of Florida President Bernie Machen, had much such claims and no significant discussion or debate has occurred within Bowl Championship Series (BCS) meetings, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Football Issues Committee, nor has there been a Comprehensive Review of the FBS post-season on Capitol Hill. (District of Columbia)

Withers insisted on playoffs and Emmert continued to respond. Although Emmert did not specifically say this about Executive Director Bill Hancock, he did allude to the “illusory arguments” regarding the insertion of a multi-game playoff. The arguments pouring off the official BCS website, www.playoffproblem.com, cite reasons such as missed class time, travel expenses, increased rate of injury, the inherent unfairness with a home-hosting model, value of the regular season, and the importance and heritage of non-BCS bowls.

Although he will still be deemed “President”, his new office lands in Indianapolis as the Association’s Fifth Commander. November 1, 2010 he will replace Jim Isch who has been serving in the role after Myles Brand lost his battle with cancer. With appointment to his new role, Emmert could possibly implement what players, coaches, and some fans have dreamed for years.

"I'd like to be one having shaped that [the playoff evolution], rather than having it shaped by others.” November 7, 2008 President Emmert to Bud Withers.


As deficit issues rise and as athletics continue to operate in the red, will President Emmert respond to the 1,055 member institutions and find a way to “shape” a billion dollar fund-raiser during the short holiday period?

If indeed he finds a way to implement the Kennedy Proposal, or any other BCS playoff proposal, the public funding for athletic buildings, such as Husky Stadium, will be created. For example, the University of Alabama produced 91,312 for their Spring Game. How much revenue could eight additional games produce for the NCAA and its member institutions? What would the televisions contract be worth? Merchandise? Advertising? How would EA Sports be affected?

As the questions continue to add up, the dollars would, too. My personal interest is not to expand the FBS post-season for dollar increase but to afford the players the opportunity to settle the national championship. As a result, the influx of public dollars would be invested back into Higher Education institutions across the country.

January 14th, 2009, President’s Emmert’s blog, “The UW and the economic downturn”, he states, “Finally, I want to say a word about Husky Stadium since many of you have asked.” “Normally, seeking funding in tight economic times for the stadium would simply not be on our list of priorities. But by issuing debt now, we could do the project, create 5,000-7,000 construction jobs, and still have no negative impact whatsoever on the 2009-11 budget. We believe it is worth considering and would benefit the state economy now and the University for decades to come.” Since that time, new field turf has been installed but with Emmert’s departure, what lies ahead for the renovation of Husky Stadium? Questions regarding stadium improvement, facility improvements, Olympic Sports, and others continue to be asked on campuses around the country, but what is being installed? What are the Presidents and Chancellors doing to Improve the State of Higher Education?


They are being fiscally irresponsible and spending millions of dollars to combat the multi-game playoff push coming from Congress and others interested parties when those same public dollars could be used to implement a playoff. According to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany, a playoff could bring “three or four times more money”. *******************************************************************************

The State of the Kennedy Proposal

I spoke with a fan of mine and he asked, “How is Congress receiving the Kennedy Proposal?” They aren’t. I have not sent finished version of Part I to Congress and have not been in direct contact with any such members since August of 2009; however, the time has come to try and bring the issue to the forefront. Congressional members who have endorsed the insertion of a multi-game playoff will be receiving the Kennedy Proposal beginning in May. Although the costs will be an issue ($25 for color print), we plan to cover a broad range of Congress. God Bless, Brandon E. Kennedy

Letter to Vandals

University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83844-3140 Dear Vandal, Thank you for reading my letter. I am visiting Moscow today to raise awareness of the Obama Administration's involvement toward the insertion of a multi-game playoff for the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and the proposal I have drafted to improve the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). November 17, 2008, on CBS' 60 Minutes, President Obama called for the insertion of a multi-game playoff, "We should be creating a playoff system". He also stated, "I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do." After the Florida Gators defeated the Oklahoma Sooners in the 2009 BCS National Championship Game (NCG), the Commander-in-Chief re-endorsed a playoff, "Congrats to Florida", "but if I'm Utah, USC, or Texas, I may still have some quibbles." "That's why we need a playoff." Including his final pitch on ESPN during Monday Night Football, Obama’s endorsement count is three; however, the most significant "throw" came January 29, 2010. Penned by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Wiech, the Administration responded to a letter from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) stating, "The Administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football playoff raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties." Also stating, "The Administration is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football post-season. These include encouraging the NCAA to take control of the college football post-season". The recession has caused universities throughout the United States of America to cut athletic teams, raise tuition (which then increases the cost of an athletic scholarship), cut regular season games, and has forced the NCAA to expand March Madness due to the lack of revenue. I believe through the insertion of the Kennedy Proposal that a multi-game playoff could be legislated by the NCAA Executive Committee or through Congress; however, support from the students and student-athletes is a necessity. I drafted my proposal last year and have been traveling around the U.S. to gain support. Information regarding my destinations, journey, and the 42 page proposal (with footnotes and annotations) can be found at my Facebook group. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments. God Bless, Brandon E. Kennedy

Letter to Washington State Cougars

Washington State Unviersity

Pullman, WA 99164-1227

Dear Cougar,

Thank you for reading my letter. I am visiting Pullman today to discuss the Pac 10's relationship with the Rose Bowl as it pertains to the insertion of the Kennedy Proposal ( a mini-playoff proposal for the Bowl Chanpionship Series [BCS]), Congresses involvement toward the insertion of a multi-game playoff, and the picture that represents President Barack Obama and me shaking hands.

The University of Michigan and Standford University competed in the inaugral Rose Bowl in January of 1902. Due to the 49-0 blowout handed to the Cardinals, the Rose Bowl did not cmmence again until 1916 when Washington State and Brown competed--a 14-0 Coug victory.

In 1947, the Big Ten and the Pac 10 made an agreement to send thier champions to the Rose Bowl. According to the Tournament of Roses, the attraction has been a sellout each year since. That is why the two conferences are unwilling to sacrifice this relationship.

If the Kennedy Proposal had been inserted for the 2009-2010 season, and assuming the Oregon Ducks advanced to the semi-finals and lost, they would then be routed to compete in the Rose Bowl. Meaning, unless they qualify to participate in the National Championship Game, the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) will send their champion to the Orange Bowl; Big 12 Fiesta Bowl; Big Ten Rose Bowl; Pac 10 Rose Bowl; and Southeastern Conference (SEC) Sugar Bowl.

After the accumulation of the regular season, a re-seeeding process occurs but the conferences who have established relationships with BCS bowls will continue to send thier champions to respective BCS Bowls. In short, the Kennedy Proposal does not ask the Big Ten and the Pac 10 to sacrifice thier relationship with the "Granddaddy of them All".

January 29, 2010, the United States Justice Department responded to a letter from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) stating they may be "studying the benefits, costs, and feasibility of a playoff system". Although I took that picture while lobbying on Capitol Hill for the Kennedy Proposal, I have never met the President of the United States.

I look forward to hearing comments and engaging in conversation toward the insertion of a multi-game playoff, the Kennedy Proposal, the KP Coalition, and the improvement of Washington State University.

God Bless,

Brandon E. Kennedy

KPCoalition.com

Twitter: KPCoalition

Facebook: The Kennedy Proposal