Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)
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.
A Republican resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the governance of the Football Bowl Subdivision postseason. It advocates for a structure that prioritizes broad-based athletic opportunity, financial sustainability, and competitive balance. The text highlights innovative proposals, such as those by Coach Mike Leach, to expand postseason participation through a bracketed format. These proposals aim to mitigate anticompetitive effects currently seen in top-division college football. The resolution suggests that current postseason paths are too narrow and concentrate advantages among a limited set of institutions.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +3
Would students be better off under this?
The resolution emphasizes expanding competitive opportunities while maintaining academic integrity and student-athlete welfare.
- Scored +3
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The resolution advocates for revenue structures that distribute financial benefits more widely among institutions rather than concentrating them among a few.
- Scored +2
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Expanding competitive opportunities could benefit the athletic and professional development of student-athletes in their early twenties.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Expanded Athletic Opportunity: The resolution suggests that expanding the postseason to a broad, bracketed format could give more teams a meaningful late-season path (Resolution, Whereas clauses).
-
Increased Competitive Balance: By reforming postseason design and revenue structures, the House aims to reduce anticompetitive effects that entrench advantages for a select few schools (Resolution, Item 2).
-
Improved Financial Sustainability: Implementing a more unified approach to packaging and monetizing media rights, alongside a broad-access postseason, could create a more valuable national product and distribute benefits more widely (Whereas clauses).
-
Protection of Student-Athlete Welfare: The resolution calls for expanding competitive opportunities in a manner that is consistent with academic integrity and student-athlete welfare (Resolution, Item 1).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Potential Season Disruptions: The text notes that a larger bracketed postseason would need to be paired with "responsible season design," which includes a shorter regular season (Whereas clauses).
-
Financial Sustainability Pressures: The resolution acknowledges that the current FBS system faces sustainability pressure, noting that the median FBS program has operated with a median operating deficit (Whereas clauses).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — The resolution emphasizes expanding competitive opportunities while maintaining academic integrity and student-athlete welfare. Would business owners be better off under this? — A more valuable national media product could increase the economic viability of many college athletic departments. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Expanding competitive opportunities could benefit the athletic and professional development of student-athletes in their early twenties.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The resolution advocates for revenue structures that distribute financial benefits more widely among institutions rather than concentrating them among a few.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make college cost less? — By addressing the operating deficits of many FBS programs, the resolution supports the long-term financial sustainability of public college athletics.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The redistribution of football revenue could potentially bolster the financial stability of less-wealthy public institutions.
- 1/20/2026
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.