Second, the federal deficit will not rise one penny if the Justice Department investigates the BCS. The Justice Department employs people, and those people must do something. If they are ordered to investigate the BCS, there is an opportunity cost exacted -- they could have investigated something else -- but not a monetary one. Also, it is the government's responsibility to monitor the activities of a multi-billion business that involves more than 100 publicly funded universities.

Third, [BCS executive director Bill] Hancock's response doesn't actually answer the question; it simply misdirects. So, as a public service for Hancock and the bowl lovers everywhere, I called Michael McCann, the Vermont Law School professor who writes about legal issues for SI.com, and asked him to explain how the BCS might defend itself against an antitrust challenge.

"The people that support the BCS would say that we wouldn't have a national championship without it," McCann said. "All it does is reflect the college football standings. It doesn't do anything other than that."

McCann also summarized what the Justice Department might argue in an antitrust proceeding against the BCS. "It's arguably a cartel," McCann said. "It's producers and sellers joining together to control a product's production, price and distribution. ... In terms of anticompetitive effect, it affects prices. It also creates financial and recruiting disadvantages for some schools. There are economic disparities between BCS members and non-BCS members . . . ."

* * *

Besides, even BCS leaders will admit that there's more money in a playoff. The NCAA basketball tournament brings in an estimated $545 million a year, and college football is exponentially more popular than college basketball. The BCS brings in only $150 million a year, but it funnels most of it to the most powerful conferences. Government intervention would strip those conferences of their power. After that, given a choice between less money and more money, here's betting college presidents forget about their arguments against a playoff and opt for more money.

There is another solution, and it probably will work. Compromise. Offer a plus-one -- a four-team, bracketed playoff -- and offer to split the revenue 11 ways. Then the president could declare victory, and the relationship with the most powerful bowls would be preserved. That could very well result in what Hancock calls "bracket creep," but one man's creep is another man's market correction.

On December 28, 2009, Leach was suspended indefinitely by Texas Tech pending investigation of alleged inappropriate treatment of a player. School officials gave Leach an ultimatum--apologize to James in writing by December 28 or Leach would be suspended. Leach refused to do so. Leach immediately sought an injunction that would allow him to coach in the 2010 Alamo Bowl. However, on December 30, Texas Tech fired Leach, calling his refusal to apologize to James "a defiant act of insubordination." On January 8, Leach formally filed suit against Texas Tech for wrongful termination. He claimed that school officials not only fired him without cause, but issued defamatory statements in a willful attempt to keep him from being hired elsewhere.

Rick Karcher and Michael McCann will take you into the world of high profile employment and sports contracts. They will provide an update on the controversy and offer analysis on the upcoming legal process.

Both law school and college football view it as important to harden and battle test your charges the best you can before you turn them out into the real world.

In my class, the unlucky student called upon to recite Pennoyer [v. Neff] was brutalized from beginning to end. When the student finished, the professor said in a rather sinister tone, “Sit down, Mr. Smith. Call your parents and tell them that there is very little chance of you ever successfully becoming an attorney. However, I understand there are openings for assistant managers at McDonald's.” This was said in front of approximately ninety people. . . . Certain individuals could not deal with having to stand up in front of people to recite a case, not to mention handle the combative nature of the comments and questions from the professor and fellow students.

They do so because getting untoward benefits as student athletes can jeopardize their future eligibility to run, block, and tackle and, by extension, their opportunity to reap a bigger future payday in the NFL. (And forget sponsorships. College athletes lose their ability to take the field by entering into corporate pacts.)

But during bowl season, game organizers shower these same athletes with up to $500 in free merchandise that athletes then wear and use on campuses across the country, giving brand names a boost in the process. What happens at a bowl gift party that makes it any different from the other 364 days a year?

"When players come down to these bowl games, you don’t want to just lock ‘em in the hotel room," says Geoffrey Rapp, a law professor at the University of Toledo who contributes to the Sports Law blog. "Part of the fun is going some place warmer, getting to to go Disney land, and if there was a strict ban on any contributions or any value given to players, you’d have to be very vigilant on your players. But that said, iPods and PlayStation 3's and other electronics seems to be a bit inconsistent with the spirit of the NCAA rules."

But the financial-aid restriction is a blanket one, whereas the prohibition on free gets lifted for a glimmering moment during bowl season.

"On one level, it’s good that players are getting something for all they are contributing to the school," says Michael McCann, a law professor at Vermont Law School who studies sports law. "But it invites the question of why this is an exception and where should you draw the line. Should there even be a line?"

* * *

The keynote speaker for this year’s symposium will be Harvey W. Schiller, Ph.D., who has served as president of the International Baseball Federation since 2007 and is also chairman of the board and CEO of GlobalOptions Group, a multidisciplinary international risk management and business solutions company located in New York. Prior to joining GlobalOptions in 1994, Schiller held posts at Turner Broadcasting System, served as the executive director/secretary general of the United States Olympic Committee and was the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference.

“It’s an honor to be able to address future sports-business leaders in Gainesville,” Schiller said. “We live in very challenging times where the changes in the way we conduct business occurs in minutes. Adapting and understanding those changes is critical to our success as professionals. It is my hope that forums like the one being held at the University of Florida, provide the framework for the growth of the industry and to inspire further discussion and opportunity.”

Closing the day-long symposium will be Donald Fehr who served as the general counsel of the Major League Baseball Players Association beginning in 1977, and as its executive director for 26 years from December, 1983. In his role as executive director, Fehr served as the players’ chief negotiator in collective bargaining with major league owners and was responsible for contract administration, grievance arbitration and pension and health care matters. Fehr will address the role of collective bargaining in professional team sports, and discuss his experiences in his role with the players association.

“Interesting things are on the horizon for the four major professional team sports in North America,” Don Fehr said.

To view the symposium agenda, speaker profiles and designated CLE credits, visit http://www.ufsportslaw.com/symposium.html.

For more information regarding the symposium, contact Darren Heitner at heitner@gmail.com