More on Tax Exemption...

We've been following the NCAA tax exemption situation for a while... to refresh your memory, check here:

Now they've done it
Tax Exemption, Part Deux
Quickly (see part on "Professionals, Part 2)
Someone Must Be Paying Attention
and, from Gladwell.com: Abolish the NCAA? and NCAA Redux

Today comes an article in the New York Times (!) that echoes these sentiments: Looks Like A Business; Should Be A Business. This article points to the Saban hire as being yet another piece of proof that the NCAA is not about academics, but about money (at least in the "major" sports).

Great quotes:

What kind of a skewed market makes these demands? First, the players are not allowed to be compensated. Instead, the coaches walk off with the value produced by the “student-athletes.”

Second, athletic departments have no shareholders who seek dividends or increases in stock value through higher reported profits. That is, these departments face no market pressure to turn a profit. Money finds a way to be spent in such a circumstance and costs bloat.

Third, athletic departments benefit from privileged tax treatment. Perhaps most notably, boosters can give money to the program and procure the privilege of buying some choice seats on the 50-yard line. Tax laws allow a booster to deduct 80 percent of such a donation, which in practice is little more than a personal seat license.

Fourth, it is in athletic directors’ self-interest to up the ante on coaches’ compensation. Their worth increases along with their coaches’ pay.

But the real point is that college athletics are not supposed to be run according to the rules of the marketplace. They are supposed to be run according to the norms of the university.

Athletic departments should not be able to have it both ways: either they are part of academia and are treated as nonprofit institutions, or they are professional enterprises, whose players are paid a salary and covered by workmen’s compensation, and they pay taxes like other business entities.

Tax Exemption, Part Deux

Feel free to refresh your memory regarding the congressional inquiries into the NCAA's tax exempt status...

And then, read this article by George Will (yup, the Washington Post/Newsweek/Meet the Press guy)

Post: Tax Breaks for Football

He attempts to look quickly at the question- "What is the place of high-stakes football in higher education?"

But, of course, this may go nowhere:

University of Illinois law Professor John Colombo, a tax expert who also testified before the committee, believes the NCAA is in no real danger for two reasons: IRS precedent and the popularity of college sports. "(The IRS is) going to reverse 40 years of their own precedent?" Colombo said. "And if they do, how will congressmen from Texas and California -- and let's throw Oklahoma in there -- react? It's a political non-starter. "This is a not-so-subtle warning to the NCAA that its actions have consequences. The message is that Congress could step in and make your life miserable."

We'll keep you posted...

Now they've done it...

More NCAA news; this time, it's serious(ish):

Panel Questions NCAA's Tax Status

Which brings to mind several questions:

1. The NCAA is tax exempt?
   
2. Miles Brand makes $800,000 dollars a year. For what?
3. Really? The NCAA does not have to pay any taxes?
   
4. There are churches whose tax exempt status is being questioned because of their support of a candidate or party platform, but the NCAA with several enormous television contracts ($503 million from NCAA tournament this year) wants to be exempt? How does that work?
5. None? I have to shell over 35% of my income, and the NCAA doesn't?
6. Seriously?
   

Here are other questions, asked by the committee rather than a blogger in Malibu:

• From the standpoint of a federal taxpayer, why should the federal government subsidize the athletic activities of educational institutions when that subsidy is being used to help pay for escalating coaches' salaries, costly chartered travel and state-of-the-art athletic facilities?

• What additional educational value is received by participation in Division I-A athletics beyond that which is received by participation in other division or intramural athletics?

• How does the transformation of the NCAA men's basketball championship into commercialized entertainment further the educational purpose of the NCAA and its member institutions?

• Several Division I-A schools pay their men's basketball coaches four to five times more than their women's basketball coaches. What additional educational benefit do men's basketball coaches provide beyond that which is provided by women's basketball coaches?

I'm not anti NCAA- they brought/bring me many of my favorite moments in life. However, I am interested in examining the hypocracy of big business actions under higher education language, often at the expense of disadvantaged students.

Remember, this is how Capone went down...

Let's keep this in mind

In light of the huge doing's hereabouts, it's also important to remember that "college sports" are a pretty lucrative way for a number of people to make a lot of money.

You can see just how much here- USA Today: Contracts for college coaches cover more than salaries

Makes you wonder how the NCAA can be tax exempt...

Coaching, the NCAA, and $$$$$

'Cause in reality, it all comes back to money.

We've been talking about the investigation into the NCAA's tax exempt status.

Today's LA Times jumps on the bandwagon (not the first time they've borrowed from yours truly), and examines not only this issue but athletic spending overall.

In a section about coaching salaries, you read this quote:

Colleges continue to ignore that "players are generating the money," said David Berri, an associate professor of applied economics at Cal State Bakersfield and a co-author of "The Wages of Win," a book about modern sports. "The money for coaches is coming from players. When you put it that way, it really is a reverse Robin Hood effect — rob from the poor, give to the rich."

Great article, and good to see that others are thinking about this as well.

Round Two/Three/Four/Five

Last night, as a part of "Football Night In America", Tony Dungy had the following to say:

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

That someone has a better chance to coach in the NFL, where there are less than 40 opportunities, than Division 1 football with 120 opportunities, is a travesty.

Dungy implies that the University Presidents would be the ultimate voice for making this change; that they alone have the ability to make the boosters, alumni, and athletic departments change.

However, Presidents know where their bread is buttered, and ain't doing anything. My opinion: this should be examined by the federal government. Equal Opportunity Hiring practices are enforced in every aspect of University employment- faculty/adjuncts/staff. They should also be used for coaches and other athletic personnel. Otherwise, the educational institution becomes a business, and businesses are not tax exempt.

However, things are looking good for minority football coaches this season with two more hires, and at least two more high profile opportunities on the horizon. Both Kansas and Louisville are rumored to be actively recruiting African American candidates, although for Kansas it would only be a change of venue and not an additional "number" for our count. UPDATE: Louisville has made their decision.UPDATE: As have Akron and Notre Dame

Here's where we are:

Akron: Hire- Rob Ianello (no)
Cincinnati
Florida State: Hire/Appointment- Jimbo Fisher (no)
Kansas
Louisville: Hire- Charlie Strong (yes!!)
Marshall
Memphis: Hire- Larry Porter (yes!!)
Notre Dame: Hire- Brian Kelly (no)
Virginia: Hire- Mike London (yes!!)
Western Kentucky: Hire- Willie Taggart (no)

Bowl Movement, part three (seriously)

Look, I promised I would finish this before the season started. No one has kicked off yet, right? So- still on target. As you may remember (or not) we're taking a four part look at the idea of "National Championship". Waaaay back in January, I wrote-

Over the next few weeks (just kidding), I'll be presenting a four part series on the current state of college football's bowl system. My hope is to cover the following areas:

• Those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it- How did we get to where we are?
• Follow the money- Financial realities of the current system
• We've burned the couch- now what?- Is there even a value for a "champion"?
• Laying a golden egg- My recommendation for a playoff
  

Before we jump into a philosophical discussion of "champion", I wanted to give a real quick update to the last post, which posited that bowls and such were mostly about money for colleges. Along this lines comes data from Inside Higher Education, which discusses the magnitude of the financial issues impacting athletic departments nationwide. Quick summary- Athletic departments spend more than they bring in. Given that, you can see how ideas of changing one of the largest cash cows for many institutions (either the current bowl system or the newly discovered 12th game- more on that in the next post) is simply not going to happen.

So- on to the idea of "champion", which seems to be timely, given the BCS-iversary. Let me first go on the record as saying that I am not one of these "let's give everyone a medal" persons, or a "if we don't keep score, then no one will be a loser" folks. I believe in winners and losers, holding firmly to two quotes from St. Woody- "Without winners, there wouldn't even be any civilization.” and "There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you.” Yup, if it's worth playing, it's worth keeping score.

So, the issue isn't about 'winning', but about 'champion'- What does that mean? Granted, it's supposed to mean that you are the best in whatever for whatever time; best in football for this year, in this case. But what does it "mean"?

We've already discussed that this success impacts an institution financially at a great rate, with the trips and the banquets and the rings and whatnot. We could talk about how this is a wash- that these funds are recouped by the increased giving of newly proud alumni and such, but this is just not true (and in the case of basketball, the opposite may be true):

...researchers found that the success of the university’s football and men’s basketball teams had small and statistically insignificant effects on giving by non-athletes, and no effect — and in the case of men’s basketball, even a negative effect — on giving by alums who were not athletes in college. “[W]hen alumni see success among these teams, they may believe that the school is spending too much on the athletic program, and therefore reduce their giving,” the researchers speculate, echoing conjectures made by previous teams of researchers.

We could also talk about the "pride" that this brings student athletes, but this pride is fleeting- athletes are often more interested in moving to the next stage (NFL); or, failing that, attempting to recoup some money by selling their rings or other memorabilia on eBay.

Championships may bring "pride" or "bragging rights" to the legions of alumni or fans, but the reality is that even this is fleeting. It takes about twenty minutes before the talking heads at ESPN to put together their list of "top teams" for next year. Plus, it's not like we get a tax break or discounts on doughnuts if we happen to cheer for the champs- All I have from 2002 is a couple of souvenirs and a rarely worn shirt. Most people don't even get to experience that most sacred of celebrations... not everyone can live in West Virginia.

Nope, the real beauty of football lies in three areas- On the field (including preparation, recruiting, practice, coaching, etc), in the stands (and on the couch in front of the tube), and everywhere else. In this last arena, I would almost argue that a "champion" takes away from some of the joy for true fans... We can't discuss/argue/debate/describe/fight about "greatest" with others whose loyalties we may question but whose dedication to the game is as fanatical as ours. And the debates now are the same as they were pre-BCS, in tenor and frequency.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way. One of the advantages to my "delay" in this process is that others have chimed in on similar veins. First, from one of the greatest Buckeye blogs, "Around the Oval"- Why I don't want a playoff in college:

(H)ow often can you say you're sure the team that wins the NCAA tournament in men's basketball was the best in the country that year? If they get hot at the right time and catch a few lucky breaks, a pretty mediocre team can make a run through the playoffs and win it all, while a team that crushed the competition throughout the year can fall victim to a bad call and be out in the first round. True, those are the extreme cases, but c'mon, we're all college football fans here: I have argued extensively, with a complete disregard for logic, that Archie Griffin is the best athlete ever, simply because he won two Heismans. You think the Buckeyes losing a close game in the semi-finals is going to stop me from arguing that they're the best team in the country? A playoff won't settle these arguments. It'll give the fans of the winners some pretty good evidence, but then the little crystal balls the BCS hands out are also pretty good evidence.

And who says crowning a national champion is something worth trying to do anyway? Can we really take one team from 119 and say, "Okay, we are absolutely certain this is the best team in the country"? It seems like an exercise in futility, designed to drive us all crazy. So why even try? Let's go back to the old system. Every year, the Big Ten champ plays the Pac-10 champ in the Rose Bowl, the 2nd place Big Ten team plays in the Citrus Capital One Bowl, and so on. It won't give us the best team in the country, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there's no way we can conclusively determine that. So instead, we get the tradition back, and a system that at least makes college football less of a blatant cash-grab.

You would expect tOSU fans to feel this way; we've benefited pretty well from the current system. But I was surprised to read a UGa blogger (one of the best overall, by the way) say some similar things- as you remember, Georgia and U$C fans were the ones who had the strongest arguments that they were left out this past year. But Doug writes:

An old-school, unstructured Wild-West bowl system might not be preferable to a playoff, but in practical terms it’s certainly no worse than letting math geeks have this much say in who gets to play for the title. Basically, after ten years of the BCS, I think I've come to the conclusion that a split title, while certainly not the ideal situation, wouldn't exactly be the end of the world; it's when we have to slog through the aggravation of an arcane jumble of decimal points, and still arrive at a split title anyway, that I really start to feel like the sanctity of my favorite sport is being arbitrarily and pointlessly messed with.

Over on MotSaG, the real issue (other than money) is highlighted: The major problem with the BCS, Bowls, and (ultimately) any playoff is the rankings and the polls-

The primary issue with the BCS is not that it’s unable to match up nos. 1 and 2 - it does that just fine. The problem is that it contains no institution to ensure that the teams ranked number 1 and 2 are in fact the two best teams in the country, as the BCS rankings themselves are compiled using a flawed poll system.

He goes on to argue, in part, what my brother has been saying for years- there should be no pre-season polls. First poll should be at least a month into the season; how many times have there been teams who, while ranked highly, folded against the first real team they played? Or other teams who started out ranked really low but ended up holding the hardware?

To summarize- Being a "champion" isn't really that significant, and difficult to determine. The ways that we've tried to do crown a champion lately haven't helped any more than the previous efforts. Fans should learn to appreciate the "third zone"- the joys of discussion and debate with people who care as deeply as they do about the greatest game going, and that having a "champion" takes away from that.

Next in the series (before kickoff, I promise): If someone held a gun to my head, what would I do? How would create a playoff, given the considerations we've discussed here?

Feel free to get a head start in the comments section.

Show me the money...

Ok, it's taken a while for me to get back to this (get off me, I've got other things happening), but here goes.

Welcome to part two of the "National Championship/Bowl System" review. In part one, we talked about where the bowls came from (not the stork), and how the idea of a National Championship has changed in the past one hundred years.

We've said for awhile that the key to the Bowls and the BCS is the amount of money that the system creates for advertisers and Bowl committees, and for the schools and athletic departments involved. In looking deeper, though, it turns out that I was wrong.

Well, kinda. Let's take a look at each part of that statement- First, the bowl committees.

The Orange County Register did an amazing job researching the money trail, and points to several aspects that reinforce the current systems:

• Bowl committees rake in all of their money tax free. Because they are "affiliated" with "educational endeavors", they experience the same benefit as the NCAA (again, in spite of the fact that the NCAA doesn't have any oversight for these games). This is thanks to a 1991 ruling by the federal government holding that the Cotton Bowl could have a corporate sponsor without jeopardizing their exempt status.
  
• The BCS has donated over $500,ooo to Washington connections, and seven bowl organizations have received at least 21 million dollars from the government since 2001.
• Bowl committee chairs' salaries often exceed $100,000 a year; with some chair's salaries equaling 10% of total revenues.

Add this to the fact that these things were designed to increase revenue for the cities and areas that host them and it's easy to realize that the financial motivation to continue the current system is quite significant.

People often point to the NCAA basketball tournament as a counter example to this argument- "March Madness" brings in a lot of money (particularly in advertising); wouldn't a football tournament do the same? Yes, and no.

First, the revenue for the tournament starts at the NCAA, not in the hands of the special interests listed above. And, as CBS showed, in the hands of the networks that have the chance to air the programming. After all, why would CBS spend 6 billion to keep the tourney, or why would ESPN work to own five of the games (seriously)? However, the revenue might not come pouring in- ratings continue to decline for the current holiday games.

The second reality, though is that March Madness offers a very different product than would an NCAA football tournament, and that there are too many variables that would keep the same amounts of money in play. Remember, MM only takes three weekends for a team to play six games, and that there are numerous teams at one location (thus boosting the local revenue). A ticket to the early regionals allows fans to watch several great games; something that I can't see bowl sponsors being excited about.

The other factor here is what I call the "Travel budget" factor. Remember, many bowls are vacation opportunities for teams from snowier climes- there's a reason why Buckeye fans and Husker Nation travel so well. The idea of a tournament presupposes that these fans will go to the first and second and third rounds at the same rate that the currently flock to Pasadena or Miami. However, realistically this is pretty unlikely. Where money will be lost is when a group of fans waits to go to the second or third round, and their team is upset in the first game- Those vacations won't be happening, and that revenue won't be realized. It's much more profitable for 64 teams and fanbases to go to 32 games than to hope that these same ones travel to multiple games.

On this latter point, I would also point to the fact that bowls continue to struggle to be profitable for the institutions involved. Schools continue to foot the bill for unsold tickets, which eats into their ability to justify this process. One of the ESPN Bowls even gave free tickets to area residents, and then required everyone to sit on the side opposite of the camera for the illusion of a full house.

And this is where, as earlier stated, I was wrong. Bowl games are not a cash cow for teams involved; instead they end up costing these institutions incredible amounts of money. Over half of the teams involved in "Bowl Season" actually lost money for their participation. Again, the OC Register report highlights this best, and points to the fact that their national championship actually cost the Florida Gators $3.7 million dollars- and they only received $2.24 million for expenses. The SEC got a total of $17 million to be split among the teams in the conference; so in effect it would have been more profitable to have been Vanderbilt and not have been bowl eligible. And you wonder why Notre Dame fans can actually point to last year as a success.

For a playoff, multiply these expenses for every round and the magnitude of the problem shines brightly. Especially in an era where opportunities for student athletes are cut to comply with Title IX and budgetary concerns, the excess of the current system and the impact on athletic departments becomes all the more damaging.

While it appears that there are more than enough cause for reform, the money involved is way too significant for any significant change to be attempted. Bowls are about profit, and not for the schools. College football (well, and basketball too) should be recognized for what it is- an apprenticeship for young adults who may make a career out of professional sports. An apprenticeship that has an immediate benefit for the institutions who are "hosting" the student athletes (although, some have used words like "sweatshop" and "plantation" and "exploit" instead of "apprentice" and "host").

We'll address this more in the final post of this four part series (at this rate, look for it in August) when we think through ways to correct some of the issues that we've brought up. Next time, though, we'll ask the question- "Do we need a national champion?"

Well, it's a start

We give both Oregon schools a lot of grief, hereabouts... from their continual inflow of Nike money that still hasn't bought a national championship, to the reminders that the Beavers are the otherOTHER OSU, to the uniforms from hell... You'd never know my wife was from there.

But, I will give credit to the state of Oregon, who are considering a version of the "Rooney Rule" for any future head coaching hires.

It was originally aimed at football coaches, but a House committee expanded it to include all sports as well as athletic directors, Greenlick said.

It would require universities to interview at least one minority in each hiring process. The state's Board of Higher Education would enforce the legislation, but the bill specifies no penalties.

The bill easily passed the House. Should it be approved by the Senate and signed by the governor, Oregon would become the first state with such a requirement.

Good timing, too... we've talked about this before, and have even implied that there may be other ways to levy pressure at the national level. Seems that there's at least some investigation into the foundational purpose of College Sports which may help impact this discussion. A report from the Congressional Budget Office implies,

I-A athletic departments get 60% to 80% of their revenue from activities that can be described as commercial.

CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, left, writes: "The high share of commercial revenue for some sports programs raises the questions of whether those programs have become side businesses for schools and, if they have, whether the same preferential tax preferences should apply to them as to schools in general."

With all the discussion about a playoff and monopolies and such, it may be an interesting summer in the world of higher education and sports.

Racial Divide

Couple of articles over the past few weeks that discuss one of our favorite topics

First, The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports gives college athletics a C+ in terms of racial and gender hiring practices. They gave the FBS (Division 1) football programs an F for hiring- and that don't stand for "Fantastic".

Also, the first African American head football coach to win a Super Bowl opined in the New York Times Op-Ed pages on this topic as well. Tony Dungy gives his insight on why it's so difficult to make any progress at the college level-

At a seminar last spring in Indianapolis with other N.F.L. and college head coaches and university athletic directors, I asked that very question, and was enlightened by the responses of those directors. The biggest factor, they said, was the involvement of other people associated with the universities. It was not just the president and the athletic director who made the hiring decisions — alumni and boosters were involved, and the presidents often felt pressure to hire coaches the boosters would support.

So, it comes down to money (as always). In the NFL, there's a league wide initiative regarding interview processes. But there aren't any areas where all Universities have common incentives that could be leveraged to help encourage this process.

That is, except for their tax exempt status.

Paging Thomas Paine

It was one of those weeks in college football- the "times that try men's souls", as it were.

More than a few top squads found themselves in dogfights with opponents that, on paper, they should have dominated. But, because we know that games aren't played on paper but by tiny men in our television sets, this week's slate of competition ended up being quite memorable.

First, let's visit the Notre Ame Broadcasting Company, where the coverage of what would turn out to be a surprisingly good NA/U$C Game was worse than anything the Big Ten Network ever created. Not since the days of Jefferson Pilot Sports have people been subjected to such rampant homerism in the coverage. It's almost as if either they weren't watching the game or as if they'd gotten a high school budding sportscaster to cover it.

At any rate, my hat is off to Charlie Weis for his brilliant usage of my favorite trick play- the "missing man" formation; although Pete seems to be questioning the Irish's attempts to seek a competitive edge. What Carrol's Trojans aren't talking about, though, is the way they allowed a team to come back from a 20 point deficit to almost tie at the buzzer. And yet, even with some creative clock work by the Notre Dame officials, the Irish did not prevail. Interesting fact: The three signature wins of the Charlie Weis era are last year's victory over Hawaii in their bowl game, Almost beating U$C in 2005, and Almost beating U$C last night. Yup, two of the three are only moral victories.

The Red-River shootout turned out to be just that, with Texas holding on to win even after Oklahoma's Heisman Trophy QB was again sent to the sidelines. I'm very interested in seeing what the Big 12 South looks like this year- Texas has some development yet to do, in my opinion.

Over in the SEC, both Florida and Alabama were pushed to the brink. The Gators needed to have Tim Tebow's prayers answered on a last second field goal in order to beat Arkansas. I wonder how this guy feels about Tebow's faith now? The Great Saban and company were in a bit of a close game against the "Formerly Good Ballcoach", but managed to pull away in the second half.

Every one's favorite (well, not everyone, right Coach Stoops?) "little school that could" found themselves up to their necks against Tulsa, but the Boise State Broncos managed to hold on to their undefeated season with a seven point win. Cincinnati also looked to be in trouble, until USF self destructed in the second half.

Not all ranked teams fared well this weekend, though: In the ACC, Virginia Tech met the buzzsaw that is the triple option attack and lost their number four ranking to the Ramblin' Wreck. The Fighting Mangino's managed to let Coach Hawkins keep his job (after benching his son), Nebraska fell to unranked Texas Tech, and (yes, I'm getting to it) Ohio State choked against 1-5 Purdue. Having watched most of the game, "choked" isn't exactly the word for it... but this is a family blog, so I'll refrain.

It could be worse... Delaware State lost twice on Saturday. Once in an embarrassment to Mich1gAAn, and once by forfeiting the game that they originally scheduled for Saturday that they forgot to re-schedule so they could accept the $500,000 "pity date" payment TTUN gave them. To make matters worse, when the game was over they had to travel back to Delaware. *shudder*

Across the nation- Kentucky beat Auburn (honestly, I'm as surprised as you are), TCU continues to roll, Cal reminded Slick Rick who the "real" University is in this budget-forsaken state, and TBPU played solidly against a really overrated Mizzou team. UW again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, State Penn and Iowa played solidly against good opposition, Kansas State embarrassed aTm, and Vandy is Vandy, as my daughter would say. This week's "Big T1e1n Cripple Fight" goes to Indiana, who managed to beat Illinois in Champaign. Hope the resume's ready, coach Zook.

Small schools- Anderson's march towards a winless season continues, as they fell to Franklin. APU also dropped a match to Dixie State (which, I've just learned, is not in the South). SNU's Crimson Storm defeated Southern Assemblies to move to 4-3, and Gallaudet lost to Catholic (or so I heard).

For the second straight week, we've had a perfect score! Great job, Brian- must be the Florida QB name, right?

Michael went against his usual "Big 12 South" pattern and it cost him a tie for first for this week.

I'm not sure what happened to Jordy, but I did receive an "Oh, crap" email from Dan at about 9:35. Live and learn, hoss.

Matt? Not beating Michael in any/either category. Time to pick it up, bro.

Dan moves back into the lead, as Steve's poor showing this week drops him in the points race.

Now that the BC$ is out (interesting how ESPN has stopped calling for a playoff now that they have exclusive BCS rights?) it's time for my weekly "who I'd like to see play in a national championship game" update. With a lot of football still to be played, I think there are four teams I'd love to see in a playoff... you know, if the No Clue At All had such a thing. Semi-final games of U$C and Alabama with the winner playing either Texas or Florida would be a great thing for the fans, right? Ah, but it's not about the fans- it's about the tax-free money for these "educational endeavors". Silly me.

This week- It's Homecoming at APU, and Michael gets to be front and center for the game against Western Oregon. Joe's Ravens welcome Defiance (No! They do NOT!), while SNU meets Langston (APU's final opponent of the season).

Bigger schools- Ohio State looks to rebound against the Gophers, and Nebraska does the same against Iowa State. Illinois and Purdue square off, while Vanderbilt travels to South Carolina. Alabama and Tennessee play, as do State Penn and Mich1gAAn. UW begins it's quest to win the Northwet by meeting Oregon, and the marquee matchup is undefeated TCU against 16th ranked BYU.

Obscure game of the week: Juniata College and Moravian, in another Division Three clash between Pennsylvania schools. The Eagles of Juniata are winless on the year, unless you count the awesomeness that is "mattress dominoes". Founded in 1876, it's mission challenges students to be prepared "for the useful occupations of life". You know, like mattress dominoes- if I had a dollar for every time that was part of a job interview... Ironically, even though it is of Brethren heritage the first class had a 2-1 ratio in favor of the sistren. Some things never change, it seems. Although, if I was a male student at JC, I know what a great date would be- Lobsterfest. Who says tuition goes to waste?

Moravian college is American's sixth oldest (with a bullet!!), founded in 1742 as a seminary for women (again!) in Bethlehem PA. Their matchup with JC's Eagles will be a part of Homecoming festivities- perhaps alumni John Andretti will make a fast stop by campus? With only one win under their belt, the Greyhounds will hope to emerge victorious at Rocco Calvo Field. Little to no comment from the good people of Moravia regarding the team's successes this season... perhaps they're just a bit too captivated by 77 other things.