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
Showing posts with label BCS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BCS. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, February 10, 2011
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
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
Friday, August 13, 2010
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
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
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
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
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."
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
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
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
Monday, June 7, 2010
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
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
Monday, April 12, 2010
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
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Letter to Bronco Students
April 5, 2010
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, Idaho 83725
Dear Bronco,
Thank you for reading my letter. I am visiting your community today to discuss President Kustra’s call for BCS Reform and a comprehensive analysis of the Kennedy Proposal’s abstract.
January 8th, 2010, President Kustra announced that he would like to see Reform of the BCS because the system is “unfair in its access, governance, and revenue distribution.” Since that time, the United States Justice Department has announced they may be “studying the benefits, costs, and feasibility of a playoff system”, Senator Baucus (D-MT) joined the Bi-Partisan effort, and AFCA has announced the coaches continue to support the BCS.
The Governance—which now includes a presidential member from each conference—has launched a Twitter account, Facebook, and created a “Playoff Problem” website. Executive Director Hancock is employed as the public face of the organization. Despite the “BCS is the greatest thing ever created” propaganda, the following statement is fact and truth: “there really is no consensus among hypothetical playoff advocates”. We have yet to decide which “playoff” should be implemented.
I drafted my proposal last year and continued to develop its strength in order to gain what is truly needed—support. The comprehensive analysis of the Kennedy Proposal is to gage how much information the reader can obtain and explain on a single piece of paper without reading the full length 42 page proposal. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and encouraging the Bronco community to get involved in the multi-game playoff debate by reading, (re)Tweeting, Facebooking, etc.
The Kennedy Proposal is a ten team, 13-game, double elimination tournament. All mini-playoff games will be played at the highest remaining seed. Four teams, matching seeds (7) vs. (10) and (8) vs. (9), will compete on the second Saturday in December. The winners will advance and continue as in an eight team model. The eight teams that do not advance to the national championship will compete in traditional BCS bowls. The Non-BCS Bowls will continue in their present form.
God Bless,
Brandon E. Kennedy
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, Idaho 83725
Dear Bronco,
Thank you for reading my letter. I am visiting your community today to discuss President Kustra’s call for BCS Reform and a comprehensive analysis of the Kennedy Proposal’s abstract.
January 8th, 2010, President Kustra announced that he would like to see Reform of the BCS because the system is “unfair in its access, governance, and revenue distribution.” Since that time, the United States Justice Department has announced they may be “studying the benefits, costs, and feasibility of a playoff system”, Senator Baucus (D-MT) joined the Bi-Partisan effort, and AFCA has announced the coaches continue to support the BCS.
The Governance—which now includes a presidential member from each conference—has launched a Twitter account, Facebook, and created a “Playoff Problem” website. Executive Director Hancock is employed as the public face of the organization. Despite the “BCS is the greatest thing ever created” propaganda, the following statement is fact and truth: “there really is no consensus among hypothetical playoff advocates”. We have yet to decide which “playoff” should be implemented.
I drafted my proposal last year and continued to develop its strength in order to gain what is truly needed—support. The comprehensive analysis of the Kennedy Proposal is to gage how much information the reader can obtain and explain on a single piece of paper without reading the full length 42 page proposal. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and encouraging the Bronco community to get involved in the multi-game playoff debate by reading, (re)Tweeting, Facebooking, etc.
The Kennedy Proposal is a ten team, 13-game, double elimination tournament. All mini-playoff games will be played at the highest remaining seed. Four teams, matching seeds (7) vs. (10) and (8) vs. (9), will compete on the second Saturday in December. The winners will advance and continue as in an eight team model. The eight teams that do not advance to the national championship will compete in traditional BCS bowls. The Non-BCS Bowls will continue in their present form.
God Bless,
Brandon E. Kennedy
Monday, April 5, 2010
Boise State University
Bronco Community:
I enjoyed visiting Boise State University and the city of Boise, Idaho during Easter weekend. I will have further updates to my blog, the Facebook Group, and the KP Coalition website after the completion of the 2 WAC 1 PAC Mini-Tour.
Thanks,
Brandon
Sunday, April 4, 2010
I grabbed my bag.....and It's on
After arriving ten minutes early to Boise, Idaho, the only thing on my mind is this:
Yes! I am in a community where the people know, and care, about the Bowl Championship Series. Boise State University shall be quite interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
