Utah Attorney General Investigating BCS for Violation of AntiTrust Laws

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Wow, that's an incredibly weak way to dismiss Utah's biggest accomplishment.

Yeah, they only beat Oregon State, BYU (who knocked off a pair of Pac 10 teams-one which they blew out), TCU, and Michigan. They had the 35th best offense in the country in total yards per game, and 11th best defense in the country in yards allowed per game.

It's not about what they would do in the SEC (they don't exactly play the best non-coference slate), it's about what they have done. Next year, they'll travel to Oregon and host Louisville. They also get a trip to San Jose State and their annual rivalry game against Utah State.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Yeah, they only beat Oregon State, BYU (who knocked off a pair of Pac 10 teams-one which they blown out), TCU, and Michigan. They had the 35th best offense in the country in total yards per game, and 11th best defense in the country in yards allowed per game.

It's about what they would do in the SEC (they don't exactly play the best non-coference slate), it's about what they have done.

Do you seriously think Utah played at the level they did against Alabama the entire season?

They beat a 3-9 Michigan team playing their first game with a new coach and a drasitcally new system by 2, referencing BYU's wins over 0-11 Washington (a 1 point win I might add) and 8th place UCLA doesn't help their case, and TCU's biggest accomplishment was Oklahoma didn't hang 60 on them. Lets not forget that 13-10 win over powerhouse New Mexico.

They obviously didn't play far and away their best game of the season in the bowl game and showed throughout the regular season they could finish at the top of the SEC...

[Young Drachma]

Ok, we get it. Utah isn't the best team in the country.

But to say that there is objective measure of this, when there is no evidence to support it, is a bit silly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

They obviously didn't play far and away their best game of the season in the bowl game and showed throughout the regular season they could finish at the top of the SEC...

Alabama did and Utah smashed them.

[SFL Cat]

If we still had only about half a dozen bowls or so, I guess I would come down on Izulde's side of the argument about college football and tradition. However, when you have 20-30 bowls each year and most of your bowl teams sport records barely above .500, and all this BCS nonsense is ostensibly about "crowing" a national champion on the field rather than in the polls (ho, ho, ho)...then it stands to reason that some kind of a playoff is the best way to go. After all, if the small college divisions can do it every year...I don't see why the big boys in I-A can't do it. I've even seen a number of scenarios where the traditional bowls are included as part of the playoffs.

[RainMaker]

Interesting article by Jim Caple:

Caple: The BCS is B.S. - ESPN Page 2

He makes a point and I agree with him a lot. I've been for a playoff for awhile, but I think it's because the BCS has destroyed the postseason. I could live with a bowl system if it was the old one. The bowls had traditions, real names, and histories to it. Teams like USC weren't bummed out to play in the Rose Bowl. Every team had their own set of goals before the season to make the specific bowl their conference is tied to.

I still prefer a playoff, but could live with us going back to the old system. The BCS solved none of the problems that the old bowl system had and simply devalued great bowls like the Cotton, Rose, and Sugar.

[Grammaticus]

Rainmaker, I think the playoff option would be much better. Although, I have to say the BCS is an improvement on the old system. It was routine for different polls to crown separate champion. I feel there was far more dispute under the straight bowl system.

Also, am I correct in seeing that only one coach in the coaches poll picked Utah as number one? I would say coaches have a pretty good read on the talent level of teams. Better than the average fan and sports writers. Seems like the coaches think although Utah is very good, they don't deserve to be number one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Also, am I correct in seeing that only one coach in the coaches poll picked Utah as number one?

Willingham IIRC.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Rainmaker, I think the playoff option would be much better. Although, I have to say the BCS is an improvement on the old system. It was routine for different polls to crown separate champion. I feel there was far more dispute under the straight bowl system.

Also, am I correct in seeing that only one coach in the coaches poll picked Utah as number one? I would say coaches have a pretty good read on the talent level of teams. Better than the average fan and sports writers. Seems like the coaches think although Utah is very good, they don't deserve to be number one.

The coaches signed an agreement that said they would vote for the winner of the BCS game no matter what. I wouldn't put their vote under much scrutiny because they are more or less forced to vote that way.

I think the problem with the BCS is that it destroyed the lure of the other bowl games. None of them matter. Sure we watch them, but no one cares. There was a time when the Rose Bowl meant something. Now it's the consolation game for USC. Back in the day, the teams knew what they were fighting for and what they wanted to accomplish.

I also don't think it made it better. There is still controversy, although now it's about who should be in the game vs who is the champ. A bunch of schools like Texas and USC could have made viable cases to be in the title game. So the BCS simply kept the same controversy and just made the other bowls mean less.

[Grammaticus]

I agree with the other bowls being less of a lure because of the BCS system. Although. Part of that is also attributed to the huge number of bowls we have now. Who can watch all of them?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I agree with the other bowls being less of a lure because of the BCS system. Although. Part of that is also attributed to the huge number of bowls we have now. Who can watch all of them?

I would like to see them move a lot of the crappier ones to before New Years. There are still a few that are played after that are worthless (International Bowl?). I'd also make a push for putting more games on New Years Day. That was always my favorite day of the year because you literally had 2-3 games at all times on TV all day.

I honestly have little interest in the other bowl games after New Years (besides the BCS title game). I'll watch them if they're on, but won't build my schedule around it like I used to on New Years. I think my college football senses are built to shut off after New Years as I'm into playoff football.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Rainmaker, I think the playoff option would be much better. Although, I have to say the BCS is an improvement on the old system. It was routine for different polls to crown separate champion. I feel there was far more dispute under the straight bowl system.

In the past there were usually co-champions because the polls voted different, or one team would complain it was left out. Now, with some parity in the sport thanks to scholarship reductions, and the big teams feasting on more cupcakes to make the big bowls, we regularly have 3 teams with a legitimate gripe about why they aren't champion. A system put in place to crown an undisputed champion by getting the top 2 teams into the same bowl hasn't met its promise. And it's ushered in lots of new bowls and crushed the importance of the existing ones (outside of the Rose Bowl), rendering the argument of "not destroying tradition" moot. Plus they've already extended the football season, killing THAT academic argument.

Even taking the top 8 teams in BCS ranking (or simply the 6 conference winners + top 2 mid-majors; the second place BCS conference teams can suck it since they already lost their conference championship) and turning that into a playoff would be better than what we have. You can have games spread across the existing 3-weekend Bowl schedule, and/or start a week earlier with that big gap already in the schedule, and not run into the Super Bowl or anything else.

And I don't see how the seven playoff games rake in less money than the existing structure, and might rake in far more. And you can keep the other bowls going as they are now.

[RainMaker]

Another problem the BCS brings is non-BCS conference teams scheduling carefully so they can go undefeated and get the payday. A playoff with winning your conference getting you a bid would mean great out of conference games. Teams like Boise State would stack their schedule to get their team ready. Big time BCS vs BCS schools every year. You wouldn't see FCS schools on everyone's schedule.

[Noop]

I think they should have a 12 team playoff (with the top four getting byes) remove auto bids for conferences and let the top 12 get in. This removes the possibility of having a conference champion who isn't ranked high.(I'm looking at you ACC) However even with this system there are holes but I always felt like it was the one that made the most sense to me.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Willingham IIRC.

Kyle Whittingham, the Utah Coach. Not Ty Willingham, the fired Washington coach.

Just to be clear.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Kyle Whittingham, the Utah Coach. Not Ty Willingham, the fired Washington coach. Just to be clear.

Glad you cleared it up, I really did (mentally at least) hear it as Willingham & thought "well, why should he care if they kick him off the panel"?

[kcchief19]

We're all being naive about one thing. This whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with football. JiMGA is the closest when he brings up attendance. This is about money and power. The BCS was not created to crown a national champion or pick bowl matchups. It was created to make more money.

The BCS conferences don't care about anything but money and power. They want to keep as much of both as they can. The original Bowl Coalition/Alliance completely excluded the smaller conferences and made it impossible for a team like Utah or BYU to play for a national title. I would contend that the only reason the BCS even has included the second tier of conferences is to avoid the action that Utah's AG is talking about now. If the BCS conferences thought they could have a bowl series without the non-BCS schools they would do it in a heartbeat. They created the rules and the rules favor them.

The BCS conferences will never agree to a playoff in almost any form because it gives away too much money and power. They want to share the money with as few schools as possible.

The second tier conferences really only exist to provide a foil for the BCS conferences. In 2009 there will be 120 D-I schools, 65 of which are BCS conferences. Right now, the BCS conferences qualify for bowls at about a 75% rate, which ensures that the BCS schools control most of the bids. You eliminate teams and conferences and you eliminate the number of BCS teams that are considered "bowl-worthy."

Personally, I think the BCS conferences are short-sighted because a playoff could enhance their revenue stream significantly. They just don't want to share that stream with Utah or UNLV.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Noop

I think they should have a 12 team playoff (with the top four getting byes) remove auto bids for conferences and let the top 12 get in. This removes the possibility of having a conference champion who isn't ranked high.(I'm looking at you ACC) However even with this system there are holes but I always felt like it was the one that made the most sense to me.

My problem with that is that it really devalues conference play. I'd be for a system like D2 has called "earned access". It basically says a conference champ gets an auto-bid if they are ranked at some point or higher. This would alleviete teams from the Sun Belt, MAC, etc getting automatic bids. It was also give teams like Boise State and Utah legitimate shots.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

We're all being naive about one thing. This whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with football. JiMGA is the closest when he brings up attendance. This is about money and power. The BCS was not created to crown a national champion or pick bowl matchups. It was created to make more money.

Ahhh, but they SAY it was to create a true national champion. Which opens them up to this whole debate. Just cut out the "national champion" part of the BCS and we're not arguing about it nearly as much. Yes, they used it as an excuse to make more money, but it's biting them in the butt right now.