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
Friday, August 13, 2010
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
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
Thursday, August 12, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
