WAC chiefs plan Bowl Alliance strategy

Steve Carp

Friday, May 30, 1997 | 11:44 a.m.

To sue or not to sue?

That is the question facing the Western Athletic Conference's Presidents Council as the conference CEOs meet in Monterey, Calif., to determine what its next move should be in its battle with the Bowl Alliance.

Last week, WAC commissioner Karl Benson addressed a Senate subcommittee about the possible violation of antitrust laws by the alliance, which excluded Brigham Young from the festivities despite the Cougars' 13-1 record and No. 5 ranking.

BYU was forced to play in the Cotton Bowl, which is not part of the alliance, and lost more than $6 million in revenue by being excluded from the alliance bowls (Fiesta, Orange and Sugar).

"It's going to be the most important topic of discussion," Benson said of the meetings, which begin Sunday and run through Wednesday. "We have been going back and forth with the alliance over a compromise, but the alliance's latest proposal falls short of what the WAC deserves."

The latest offer from the alliance would require the WAC to have a team ranked at least sixth in the polls. The alliance is offering $1.6 million if a WAC team was excluded.

The WAC is seeking inclusion with a No. 8 ranking, $2 million a year and an additional bonus if the WAC champion is ranked higher than a champion within the alliance (Big Ten, Southeastern, Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Big East and Pacific 10) and is denied a spot in the bowls.

Benson said there's no immediate need to rush into potential litigation. But he said the WAC Council has to be prepared to move in that direction.

"I think there's still some time to get this resolved," he said. "We still don't know what the outcome of the hearings last week in Washington will provide.

"It (litigation) is not the only avenue left. But it's still on the table. We've said all along we'd like to find a way to resolve it without going to court."

NCAA head Cedric Dempsey is scheduled to address the Council Tuesday. Dempsey appeared before the Senate antitrust subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee last week and defended the alliance as a viable means of determining the national champion.

While the WAC deals with the ongoing problem of the alliance, there are other matters to be addressed.

The conference athletic directors last month approved an extension of the current contracts with Las Vegas Events to keep the WAC football championship and men's and women's basketball tournament in Las Vegas.

The two-year deals with LVE expire in 1998. However, there is an option year and the recommendation is to pick up the option and roll over the contract another three years, extending the agreements through 2001.

Word is there may be opposition to the plan. Tulsa and BYU have concerns about staging the conference's showcase events in a city that has gambling. However, there appears to be enough support to keep the football title game and basketball tournaments in Las Vegas.

The presidents will confirm the plan to have the "crossover" games not count in next season's basketball standings and eliminate them altogether, provided the two schools mutually agree. That plan also was adopted last month at the AD meetings in Houston.

The presidents already have given Benson the go-ahead to sign off on the Las Vegas Bowl's offer for the WAC's third-place team to play in the Dec. 20 game at Sam Boyd Stadium. Benson said he is waiting for the contract from the Las Vegas Visitors and Convention Authority.

But the alliance situation will dominate these meetings.

"It should provide some lively conversation," Benson said. "I think the council just needs to be brought up to date and they'll take it from there."