Josh vs. The BCS Part 1

Overview of the Problem

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a 501(c)(3) system used in NCAA college football as a means to determine their national champion. The BCS is comprised of the Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and BCS National Championship Game. The system is not without controversy; however, while many feel that the system does not actually determine a “true” national champion, this will not be the focus of this memorandum. It must be mentioned that many people do not feel that the system works because of how the system is currently abusing taxpayers’ trust with its exorbitant and egregious misusage of funds. The BCS is grossly misusing taxpayers’ dollars and violating its status as a non-profit organization which is supposed based on charitable contributions. The BCS needs to have its non-profit status revoked or there needs to be a massive overhaul in the oversight of expenditures being written off as tax-exempt.

Problem Statement

It is the belief of these authors that the Bowl Championship Series has violated the requisites for a non-profit organization in such a manner that it no longer deserves this status. The BCS has violated its fiduciary duty and misappropriated a large sum of funds that came from honest and hard-working taxpayers and spent funds on items that have no business being recompensed by those taxpayers. According to Davidson (2011), the Fiesta attempted to “reimburse $46,539 in improper campaign contributions” (p. 1). Additionally, Staples (2011), states that Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker had a “$1,241.75 excursion in September to a gentleman’s club called Bourbon Street with a bowl employee and a consultant” (p. 1). These items are but a few of the frivolous expenditures that were reimbursed as a result of their non-profit status. Despite the fact that, as a non-profit organization, these bowls are required to submit federal documentation regarding their expenditures and reimbursements, these organizations are allowed to submit fairly ambiguous reports which allow them to disguise their hidden spending without fear of reprisal. According to Wetzel, Peter, & Passan (2010), an expense report filed to the IRS from the Sugar Bowl in 2005, ’06 and ’07 included the following: “$455,781 on ‘special appropriations’ in 2006, $201,226 on ‘gifts and bonuses in 2007, and $260,062 on ‘other expenses’ in 2007” (p. 28). These vague descriptions of expenditures have not been called into question until the recent internal investigation conducted by the Fiesta Bowl in 2011 alleging impropriety. These expenditures were written off as tax-exempt due to the current 501(c)(3) status enjoyed by the bowls currently aligned as BCS designates.

Issues

The issues addressed in this memorandum with regard to non-profit tax exemption and the misuses thereof are: misuse of taxpayer revenue, lack of in-depth federal oversight during expense reporting process, and the economic impact vis-à-vis bowl reimbursements and charitable donations in the name of a non-profit organization.

Misuse of taxpayers’ revenue: The Fiesta Bowl is presently under investigation for their gross misuse of funding for a non-profit organization. After the Arizona Republic blew the lid on the misappropriation of funds carelessly spent on personal agendas rather than for the interest of the bowl’s goals and objectives, an internal investigation into the expenditures of the Fiesta Bowl was conducted in March of 2011. The results were a 276 page public report detailing every expenditure made by the Fiesta Bowl and its executives. According to Cain (1999), “when applying the UBTI (unrelated business taxable income) to any potential non-profit direct marketing activity, the non-profit marketer and/or tax advisor must keep in mind the tax-exempt organization’s goals regarding the activity” (p. 328). The excuse provided by John Junker with regard to his gentleman’s club expenditures was outlined in Murphy and McKnight (2011), when he said “We are in the business where big strong athletes are known to attend these types of establishments. It was important for us to visit and we certainly conducted business” (p. 1). Surely a visit to a strip qualifies as an unrelated business taxable income, right? Wrong, these expenses were reimbursed, in full, to the CEO.

Lack of in-depth oversight federal oversight: When submitting their reports to IRS these bowls currently enjoy a rigor-free, superficial, expense reporting process. Bowls are capable of filing these expenditures under pseudonym categories which may or may not even exist. According to Wetzel et al (2010), “the Sugar Bowl has an actual ‘committee on golf’ and a ‘special committee on ladies’ entertainment’—which may or may not have anything to do with all those liaisons” (p. 28). None of these committees designated by the bowls have been questioned until the recent investigation of the Fiesta Bowl. These committees are assumed to be bowl related and have not, until now, received scrutiny regardless of how ambiguous the filed report may have seemed. The college bowl system, on the whole, enjoys the luxury of vague reporting techniques to disguise their expenses to the federal government. These expenses are unacceptable from any taxpayers’ standpoint and in-depth oversight could prevent such erroneous spending.

Economic impact vis-à-vis bowl reimbursements and charitable contributions: Because the major bowls enjoy state and federal subsidies there is an undoubted economic impact that takes place. Derrick Fox, the CEO of the Alamo Bowl testified before congress about the nature of the bowl’s current non-profit status. According to Wetzel et al (2010), Fox testified that “up to one-quarter of the proceeds from the games are dedicated to the community” (p. 26). Furthermore, Wetzel et al (2010) state that the “Sugar Bowl, for instance, received $3 million in direct funding from the Louisiana state government, according to its 2008 tax filing” and that the bowl:

gave nothing. Not a buck to the Hurricane Katrina reconstruction effort. Not a dime to a New Orleans after-school program. Not a penny to Habitat for Humanity. The Sugar Bowl, one of the richest bowls in existence, didn’t give back 25 percent of its proceeds to the community. It hogged everything, including the $3 million in taxpayers’ money (p. 27).

The bowl received its funding from the citizens of Louisiana yet did not give one cent back to those citizens. A city facing severe economic crisis funded a bowl to the tune of $3 million dollars and that bowl did nothing to improve the current situation.

Solutions

Addressing these concerns is actually rather rudimentary. The federal government and state governments, as the financiers for these bowls, need to conduct two audits of these bowls. One of them prior to the distribution of funds is requiring the bowls to detail how they intend to spend the money along with the previous year’s expenses. Then, a secondary audit which closely analyzes every penny spent as a “bowl expense.” No longer can these financiers accept expense report statements title “other expenses” and such. These bowl executives need to account for exactly where this money is being spent and how it is being spent. Additionally, testifying before congress that these bowls are charitable when they are, in fact, not donating what they claim to be donating. According to Wetzel et all (2010), “of the 23 tax-exempt bowls the total payout to charities: a combined $3.2 million dollars” (p. 29). The state of Louisiana donated $200,000 less than the combined payout of 23 tax-exempt bowls. This is simply unacceptable. If these bowls are testifying before Congress that they are, indeed, charitable groups, then Congress ought to have the luxury of holding them accountable for these statements. Bowls receiving public funding ought to be required to give back to the public. Their donations need to be documented and included in their expense reports to the IRS. Bowls that fail to comply with this should have their non-profit status revoked.

Conclusion

In sum, federal regulatory procedures need to be increased and implemented into non-profit organization law to ensure that this type of fleecing cannot continue. While not-for-profit organizations undoubtedly are not “non-profit” in the traditional sense of the term, these profits need to be closely micro-managed and evaluated to ensure that the public is not funding visits to strip clubs and golf resorts. A federal or Congressional oversight committee that closely monitors the expenditures of these bowls addresses two of our three concerns. Lastly, the implementation of charitable donations and reimbursements for expenses needs to be stressed. One cannot perjure themselves before Congress by saying they are a charitable organization when they have given back only $200,000 more as an entire entity than one of their bowls received in general public funding.

An Open Letter From Wile E. Coyote to ACME Products

To: ACME Products

From: Wile E. Coyote

Re: Product Line

Date: 4-20-2011

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a loyal user of ACME products for about as long as I can remember, but it is time for me to express my utter disgust with your product. For far too long your company, which has had no problem taking my fucking money mind you, has shipped me substandard products that have failed me countless times. I have had it. Your shitty products have cost me my main goal in life; capture that fucking bird and eat him, one too many times. Need examples? I'd be happy to provide them for you.

Let's start with those fucking death-traps you refer to as "rocket powered skates." Do they work? All except for the brakes! The braking systems of those things fail to kick in every time. Do you know what happens as a result of this? I shoot right past that god-damned bird and, inevitably, fly off a fucking cliff, plummeting to my doom. You'd think after years of market research you could have addressed this glitch. It is, after all, DEADLY!!!!! Do you think Ford continued to sell Explorers with Bridgestone tires on them after they fucking blew up and killed people? No! They immediately did a recall to get those dangerous pieces of shit off the road.

This isn't even the half of it, however. How about your god damned "Batman outfit?" Yeah, you remember that one; the one where the fucking WINGS FALL OFF!? Please explain to me how this is supposed to aid me hunting when it's basic purpose, FLYING, is faulty? While I'll admit that the outfit itself is a rather stupid idea for hunting roadrunner, I still expect this product to work.

Oh, now to the "dehydrating boulder." This motherfucker's a real gem. Low and behold, you've made a product that actually works. There's just one problem; it doesn't do anything except crush ME! The son of a bitch only actually expands and crushes something when it's me. Good lord, can you make one fucking product that works on the roadrunner? Lord knows it's not the "earthquake pills."

Don't even get me started on your TNT and rockets. Those things explode on me if I look at them wrong. I don't think I've ever blown up anything besides my own ass using your dynamite. Not one fucking stick of dynamite has ever detonated when that damn bird is around, but let me walk over for one second to examine the situation and check the fusing and connections and BOOM!!!!! I'm farting bomb fragments out my ass for the next six weeks.

Due to your ineptitude and unwillingness to recall and correct the problems with your products, I have retained the services of a lawyer. Enclosed you will find every receipt and shipping order from my purchases of your dog-shit excuse of brand. Additionally, I've also included hospital bills and medical expenses that have resulted from your negligence. I have decided to take my business elsewhere and sincerely hope that one of your faulty products causes an rather timely demise to your manufacturing plant. But just in case, I've placed every last remaining ACME product I've purchased into a box that should find its way into your office in about ten minutes.

In sum: Fuck you....and yours.

Wile E. Coyote.

An Open Letter to John Steigerwald

To Whom It May Concern:

John Steigerwald, a Observer-Reporter.com journalist, recently wrote an article about the tragic incident at Dodger Stadium where Bryan Stow was unmercifully beaten by several men at a game. The results of this beating have left Stow in a coma with portions of his skull missing. Steigerwald, with all the class and dignity a human being could muster, has decided to place the onus of the beating on Stow himself. In Steigerwald's Sunday "contribution," and I use that term VERY loosely, to Observer-Reporter.com, he opined the the following:

"It's probably safe to say that the two "Dodgers" were high on something or things, but somewhere in their sick, juvenile minds, they probably also thought they were doing their duty as Dodger fans.

They were protecting Dodger turf.

Just before he was beaten to within an inch of his life, Stow texted some friends and said that he was "scared inside the stadium."

Maybe someone can ask Snow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years.

Remember when it was the kids who were wearing the team jerseys to games? It was a common sight to see an adult male coming through the turnstile dressed as a regular human being with a kid dressed in a "real" jersey holding his hand.

Cute.

Are the 42-year-olds who find it necessary to wear their replica jerseys to a road game, those kids who are now fathers who haven't grown up?

Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team? It was cute when a 10-year-old kid got that feeling by showing up at Three Rivers Stadium in a Pirates jersey, but when did little boys stop growing out of that?

Here's tip for you if you actually think that wearing your team's jersey makes you a part of the team:

It doesn't."

You have got to be kidding me? Aside from the fact that you misspelled Stow’s name, you have, somehow, decided that Bryan was responsible for the actions that befell him. Here is a man who has dedicated his life to saving other individuals, but you’re blaming him for wearing a Giants jersey to a Dodger game simply because of his age? Ageism aside, Stow is in no way, shape, or form responsible for the brutal assault he endured at the hands of some savages simply because he chose to support his team.

I find it absurd, John that, in this economy, you find yourself receiving a paycheck for disseminating this sort of bile. Bryan Stow is a hard working citizen who decided to attend a baseball game as a form of leisure. I am sure that several things crossed his mind as he adorned his Giants jersey before the game. Being beaten within an inch of his life was, probably, not one of them.

John, I hate to break it to you, but people shouldn’t have to worry about fear of reprisal for wearing the opposing team’s jersey to an away game. That’s not how a civil society operates. Human beings are complex creature and one of the complexities that makes us unique is our ability to reason and process situations.

Deontology, something with which I’m sure you’re unfamiliar, is a branch of ethics dealing with moral obligation and duty. You know those basic tenants most journalists subscribe to? Those other citizens at Dodger stadium have a moral duty to conduct themselves with a modicum of dignity and civility toward their fellow man. I hate (actually I don’t, I relish it) to tell you this, but wearing an opposing team’s jersey does not infringe upon the basic human rights that are afforded us. The savage beating that Stow received, however, most certainly violated his basic human rights.

You seemed to have glossed over these facts with the sort of bravado that allowed Don Imus to refer to the valiant women of Rutgers University as “nappy headed ho’s.” Never in the history of our society has it been acceptable to beat and maim human beings for what they wear. If this had been a gay man, in a straight community, that was wearing a gay pride shirt and had been beaten for doing so, would you be so quick to blame the victim for his assault?

Call it what you want to call it, but these sorts of actions border on the “hate crime” territory. While I realize that sporting affiliation is not a protected category under the current statute, being savagely beaten for the open support of something ought to be sufficient enough to qualify as hatred. Someone that would intentionally harm another human being because of their intense dislike for something they support is, in fact, hatred.

I’m going to bring your attention to a similar case. Brian Thomas, a Longhorns fan, was nearly castrated at a bar in Norman, Oklahoma for wearing a Texas shirt in “Sooner territory.” Do you know what an attorney had to say about the very same ignorant argument you’re making? Here, I’ll tell you.

"I've actually heard callers on talk radio say that this guy deserved what he got for wearing a Texas T-shirt into a bar in the middle of Sooner country," said Irven Box, an attorney in this city 20 miles from Oklahoma's campus in Norman.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296466,00.html#ixzz1JLbonv8T

There’s an implied ignorance with this line of thinking. Many Sooners fans I know, as well as Dodger fans, found these actions grotesque and unwarranted. People do not “deserve” to be beaten and mauled because they support their team. It doesn’t matter how old they are.

Bryan Stow has two children. They may never have their dad back in the capacity they knew him before this assault. That does not seem to matter to you. All you’ve chosen to focus on is that he wore the “wrong jersey” at the “wrong game.” I sincerely hope that this man’s family insists upon you saying this garbage in person with your supervisor present.

I cannot fathom how you find work, John Steigerwald. While I respect the freedom of the press, I think it’s a bit absurd that any self-respecting journalistic outlet would employ an insensitive half-wit such as yourself. Please do the journalistic world a favor and quit publishing this garbage.

Sincerely,

Josh Webb.