Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the structure and governance of the Football Bowl Subdivision postseason should prioritize broad-based athletic opportunity, financial sustainability for college athletics, and competitive balance, and that innovative proposals to expand broad based postseason participation-such as proposals advanced by Coach Mike Leach-warrant serious consideration to mitigate anticompetitive effects in top-division college football.
- Bill Number
- H.Res. 1011
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Sports and Recreation
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-01-20: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-21T16:38:55Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This resolution (H. Res. 1011) expresses the non-binding opinion of the U.S. House of Representatives on reforming the structure and governance of the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) postseason in college football. It emphasizes prioritizing broad athletic opportunities for student-athletes, financial sustainability for college programs, and competitive balance across teams. The resolution highlights the need to consider innovative ideas, such as those proposed by the late Coach Mike Leach, to expand postseason participation and reduce anticompetitive practices that favor a few elite programs.
Key Provisions
The resolution includes detailed "Whereas" clauses providing background and rationale, followed by a "Resolved" section outlining the House's sense in three main points:
- Expand competitive opportunities: The FBS postseason should increase meaningful access for student-athletes and institutions while maintaining academic standards and athlete well-being.
- Reform anticompetitive structures: Postseason designs and revenue sharing should be reviewed and updated to prevent advantages for select schools that undermine fair competition.
- Consider innovative proposals: Ideas like Coach Leach's—featuring a larger, bracket-style playoff (e.g., 16-, 32-, or 64-team format) with a shorter regular season—deserve serious evaluation to enhance opportunity, sustainability, and equity in college football.
Background details contrast the narrow FBS College Football Playoff (CFP, currently 12 teams) with broader formats in other NCAA divisions (e.g., FCS with automatic qualifiers, Division II's 32-team bracket, Division III's 40-team bracket). It cites issues like revenue concentration (e.g., SEC and Big Ten getting ~29% each of CFP distributions vs. ~9% for Group of Five conferences), financial deficits for many programs (median $19.3 million loss in 2022), and potential for $4–$7 billion in added value through unified media rights packaging.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
As a House resolution, this document does not enact any laws or amend existing statutes. It is symbolic and non-binding, offering congressional guidance without legal force. No direct changes are introduced, but it signals potential future legislative scrutiny of college sports governance, possibly under antitrust laws (which address unfair competition).
Potential Impacts
- On government agencies: Minimal direct impact, but it could prompt the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission to monitor NCAA practices for anticompetitive behavior, given references to revenue disparities and market concentration.
- On citizens and student-athletes: Could indirectly benefit a wider range of college athletes by advocating for more inclusive playoffs, potentially increasing opportunities for non-elite programs and reducing financial strain on schools, though implementation depends on NCAA and conference actions.
- On international relations: None apparent, as the focus is domestic college sports.
Overall, it may encourage voluntary reforms in the FBS system, fostering broader participation and financial stability, but lacks enforcement mechanisms.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- College football programs and conferences: FBS schools (136 total), especially non-power conferences like the Group of Five, which face revenue disadvantages; power conferences (e.g., SEC, Big Ten) may resist changes to their advantages.
- NCAA and governing bodies: The organization overseeing college sports, including its divisions (FBS, FCS, II, III), could face pressure to adopt bracket-style expansions.
- Student-athletes and coaches: Athletes gain from potential increased postseason access; references to Coach Mike Leach highlight innovative voices in coaching.
- Institutions and fans: Public and private universities, particularly those with athletic deficits, benefit from sustainability focus; fans may see more competitive, inclusive playoffs.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Raises antitrust concerns by critiquing "anticompetitive effects" in revenue distribution and playoff access, potentially inviting lawsuits similar to past NCAA cases (e.g., on amateurism or media rights). It promotes "lawful pooling" of rights for broader benefits without prescribing specifics.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's free speech role in expressing opinions on national issues; no direct challenges to First Amendment or other rights, but underscores federal interest in interstate commerce aspects of college sports.
- Political: Demonstrates bipartisan (or at least House-level) attention to college athletics amid growing debates on athlete compensation and equity. Introduced by Rep. Baumgartner and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, it could influence future bills if NCAA reforms stall, signaling political leverage over a $20+ billion industry projected by 2032.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Baumgartner, Michael [R-WA-5]
Recent Actions
- 2026-01-20: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2026-01-20: Submitted in House
- 2026-01-20: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the structure and governance of the Football Bowl Subdivision postseason should prioritize broad-based athletic opportunity, financial sustainability for college athletics, and competitive balance, and that innovative proposals to expand broad based postseason participation—such as proposals advanced by Coach Mike Leach—warrant serious consideration to mitigate anticompetitive effects in top-division college football. — issued 2026-01-20 — PDF (5 pages)