OT: Utah AG suing BCS
I know there are strong opinions on what should happen with the BCS at MGoBlog. Seems like this could be another chink in the armor. The arguments:
"...there are serious antitrust violations that are harming taxpayer-funded institutions to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars."
"The BCS also doesn't limit supply," Hancock argues. "There's more (bowl) games than ever before. It's created a national championship game that didn't exist before. So in terms of access for the consumer and supply for the consumer, and just access in general, contrary to limiting that, the BCS has enhanced it."
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2011-04-20-bcs-anti-tru…
April 21st, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
Utah needs to shut up, if anybody has a case its Boise or TCU.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
But in a way you have to respect them for following through on this even after Utah has joined a BCS conference. They no longer need this, but other schools could benefit.
These teams have access to bowls they did't have access to before, and money that their school's fan base doesn't justify. If they want to play in a playoff, they have every opportunity to drop down to the FCS division. Yes it sucks that they might not get a chance to play in the championship game, but they get way more then they contribute to the pot.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
The Utah AG and the University of Utah are separate entities. Also, 2008...
April 21st, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
Presumably, though, the Utah AG is justifying using taxpayer money to fund a lawsuit because it affects "taxpayer-funded institutions" in the state. Utah is the one that they are really suing on behalf of, with the added benefit of helping out BYU.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^
Utah doesn't want the BCS gone. Without the BCS (or another "cartel"), Utah, in the past decade, and BYU would never be even close to seeing an oppertunity at a national championship. They better be careful what they wish for here.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
You mean other than the time that BYU won the national championship?
Anyhow...he's been saying this for 2 years. I'll believe it when I see it.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
You mean when they got to go to the Holiday Bowl against an unranked Michigan?
Their being able to win it that year is the exception that proves the rule. No way would a Holiday Bowl victory against an unranked team win a MNC in 99.99% of seasons.
I understand what you are saying, but when did Utah, in fact, have an actual opportunity at a National Championship in football? When they went undefeated? Oh, wait, they did that, still no shot.
Being in a BCS bowl does not equal a national championship opportunity, and you have to know that. From a competition stand point, there will never be an equal opportunity to win a title until everyone is truly allowed to participate.
The BCS is the biggest stage they'll get. As soon as the BCS is forced to split up, how many TCU teams will get into the Rose Bowl again? No BCS != playoff, it means going back to the 1960's style of bidding on conferences. A playoff just isn't politically feasible within the NCAA.
It's too bad in some ways, but Utah's ceiling is a BCS game and an outside shot at a title game in a down year for the rest of football, because they're not marketable. It's no secret that M fans want to see a Rose Bowl against USC, that Florida fans want to play Texas or OU, and that's how it'll stay set up.
Yes, now. But the lawsuit is focusing on letting similar teams to Utah pre-2011 have a shot at the title, which will not happen if you remove the BCS. The BCS has been good to the Boise's/TCU's/Utah (before the next season) in a way that an open competition for high level bowl bids would not be.
It's a bizarre move to make now, because Utah is now one of the "in" crowd and it's probably favorable to newly independent BYU to not grant more access to lower tier conferences.
I have a tough time believing that Utah's AG has so little to do that he's doing this for any reason other than improving his public profile.
Maybe Orrin Hatch was really p/o'd on principle (instead of being the ones left out) and he's flexing some muscle in the state? Or it could really just be that unpopular in Utah, who knows?
You're right that it's very odd, considering the timing.
No it hasn't. Go read up on how many years these teams ran the table and got nothing but a "thatta boy" from the Cartel.
The BCS has done nothing but keep serious money from being made my everyone in a legitimate playoff, so a few conference commissioners and their shady bowl cronies can keep control of less lucrative pie.
The public sees through the farse. Look at the crowd at the Orange Bowl this year. It looked like a Marlins home game.
TCU and Boise prove you wrong, I believe. They have gotten to bowls that they would never have a shot at in the days before the BCS/BC/BA.
If somehow this lawsuit got the BCS disbanded, the conferences would move right away to secure bowl bids for the next 15-20 years, and the MWC and WAC would always be going to very low prestige bowls, while the B1G and Pac would be in the Rose every year (like 1984 Utah).
This isn't about playoff/BCS, this is about BCS/open market. The smaller teams are doing better now than they would if bowls were openly bidding on contracts to go to the Rose/Sugar/Orange Bowl.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^
The Utah AG is wasting taxpayer dollars for political gain here. Having talked to antitrust experts, the BCS does not violate antitrust laws. Not even close. If there is an antitrust case to be made against anyone, it is the NCAA, which is a blatant monopoly and whose rules, specifically regarding recruiting, limit the ways in which institutions can compete.
April 21st, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^
I'd prefer not to go to open competition, but if these jackwagons want it. Ok. Let's see how many bowls competitively bid for Utah State. The fact is that it's totally a cartel. And yes, I don't think the cartel is run for the benefit of others. But, in true competition, the Utah States of the world won't get anything. (I don't see how he has any standing concerning BYU, and well maybe he hasn't heard, but Utah is in a BCS conference.)
April 21st, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
The law student in me says "they don't have a prayer," but the fan in me says "they don't have a prayer, AND I couldn't give less of a shit."
Could BCS auto bid conferences sue the State of Utah for fielding only teams that play other shitty WAC or Mountain West teams and then think that they deserve a shot at the MNC game? Just saying
No. Reason: there aren't any damages in your hypothetical suit. Plus, Utah would do embarrassing discovery about how ADs from these big conferences have milked their unfair advantage in the current system by avoiding playing decent competition in September to host the likes of Northern Colorado.
This is such a waste of time and money ala Barry Bonds trial look at the millions spent on that case and what hes going to get a max of 10 months in prison? probably dealt down to house arrest.
You all are missing the point for the most part. Utah wants to turn on the spigot of money for everyone where it is now being horded by the privileged few. Worse, th privileged only share by invitation-only using some of the most foggy criteria in the history sports. That is the very definition of restraint of trade and monopolistic practices.
It has nothing to do with prestige from dorky so-called "BCS" bowl game or being allowed to share turf with Wisconsin or Alabama once in a while in January.
It has everything to do with so many athletic departments struggling to make ends meet and the outright ignorance by the BCS kingpins of the obvious windfall a legitimate national playoff system would be for every Division 1-A school. Conservative estimates place the TV rights alone to be worth 3 times the total revenues of the current system.
Even Delaney and Slive and the rest of the bandits acknowledge everyone would make more money.
The power of government and courts exist for situations like this. When you have state tax payers supporting red ink in athtletic departments who field a football team, it is a big deal to more people than just Utah or the little schools. It is everyone's business, including law makers.
Death to the BCS and bring us a legitimate national playoff that settles a champion on the field. (No. Rolling through 4 hand picked patsy home games in September, then inflating the difficulty of your own league schedule arbitrarily doesn't settle it on the field. Sorry.) And not a moment too soon. I hope Utah solicits donations or has a bake sale to pay for this. I'll take 10 dozen brownies.
But the BCS took mid-major access from 'zero' to 'some.' Entering a field with NO competition, and implementing a system that does not create absolute equality, does not seem like grounds for the sort of remedy they're asking for.
The "privileged few" argument doesn't sit well with me. Boise, Utah, TCU, et al. built themselves up from obscurity and are fast becoming national title contenders. If you want to be part of the "privileged few" then go and earn the status and work your way up to a bigger conference.I don't buy the argument that you're being segregated against when you're trying to make that case that your big win over San Jose State is equal to a win in Tuscaloosa or Happy Valley.