Question for BYU and Utah fans.

[Top Ute]

The BCS doesn't want a playoff and the cowards at the NCAA have allowed the BCS to dictate what happens in college football.

You are correct in that sponsors could step up and suggest it, but without the BCS and the six alleged better conferences in support of it, sponsors won't do it.

Unless the pussies in Indianapolis gain the testicular fortitude to take back control of college football, the only way to break the BCS will be for Congress to hammer it for anti-trust violations.

Indianapolis and the NCAA doesn't dictate policy and rule; they merely carry it out and enforce it. Policy and rule is dictated by member schools, ie, university presidents, athletic directors and faculty representatives.

The bottom line is that not enough NCAA member schools have spoken up in favor of a playoff. It has nothing to do with the pencil-pushers in Indianapolis.

[SeattleUte]

In 1998, Utah had a great run in the NCAA tournament, getting to the championship game. While Utah was a contender, it is likely that few observers picked them to defeat both Arizona and North Carolina in the Elite Eight and the Final Four. Not being from one of the Big Six conferences, and being in the West, Utah was not one of the "sexy" picks. No matter, the only thing that stood in Utah's way in winning the title was THEM.

In 2004, Utah was the first non-AQ team to get into a BCS bowl. Other teams had come close, but Utah was the first to break down the door. Yet if, in fact, the BCS has been good to non-AQ teams, why call Utah the "BCS Busters"? If the system was so good, why did it need to be "busted"? Why did a few Utah fans build a pirate ship and call it the "BCS Booty"? Why do some Ute fans look back and wish they had had a shot at Auburn or USC instead of Pitt?

After Utah busted the BCS, the powers that be relaxed the rules and Boise State and Hawaii earned BCS bowl bids with lower rankings than Utah did. But why was that necessary if the BCS has always been good to non-AQ teams?

In 2008, Utah was the first non-AQ team to earn a second BCS bowl bid -- and with the same higher ranking that they had in 2004. This time they were given a better opponent in Alabama. Few observers gave Utah a chance, and after Utah proved them wrong they started making excuses.

In 2010, Utah has been invited to join the PAC-10. But if the BCS is good to non-AQ teams, why make the move to an AQ conference? Utah has earned two BCS bids as a non-AQ team, and many AQ teams haven't even earned one, so what is so special about being in an AQ conference? Why are BYU fans still hoping to get a Big 12 invite if everything is so great?

The BCS has been good to non-AQ teams to a certain extent, and it might be a better system than what existed before, but there is a definite gap between the AQ and non-AQ teams in perception, money and opportunity. The BCS preserves if not creates a system where conference affiliation is more important than the quality of your program. Perpetual bottom feeders like Duke get a BCS paycheck every year. I think we can all agree that Boise St. has a much better program than Duke, yet it has only recieved three BCS checks in the life of the series.

Soon Utah will start getting the yearly BCS payout, but that won't change the inequities between the "haves" and "have nots."

too many words.

[il Padrino Ute]

Indianapolis and the NCAA doesn't dictate policy and rule; they merely carry it out and enforce it. Policy and rule is dictated by member schools, ie, university presidents, athletic directors and faculty representatives.

The bottom line is that not enough NCAA member schools have spoken up in favor of a playoff. It has nothing to do with the pencil-pushers in Indianapolis.

Those same pencil pushers have no problem trying to tell Utah and other schools with tribal nicknames to change them or they won't be able to host March Madness games. That sounds like setting policy to me.

You do make a good point, though.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Indianapolis and the NCAA doesn't dictate policy and rule; they merely carry it out and enforce it. Policy and rule is dictated by member schools, ie, university presidents, athletic directors and faculty representatives.

The bottom line is that not enough NCAA member schools have spoken up in favor of a playoff. It has nothing to do with the pencil-pushers in Indianapolis.

Ah yes. The university presidents haven't had the courage to bite the hand that feeds them.

I assume you understand a conflict of interest, yes?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Talking out my ass here...

If the free market wanted a playoff then there would be one. Get some sponsors together to back a playoff and offer the top teams more money than the BCS. Please just keep the government out of it. I would rather see sugar water and corn chips sponsor the post season games than the tax payers.

Such a quaint vision of the free market system.

I love capitalism as much as the next guy, but it does occasionally produce monopolies and cartels.

[il Padrino Ute]

I love capitalism as much as the next guy, but it does occasionally produce monopolies and cartels.

[Uncle Ted]

Such a quaint vision of the free market system.

I love capitalism as much as the next guy, but it does occasionally produce monopolies and cartels.

I admit that the current BCS is a bit of a cartel. The threats of anti-trust lawsuits will most likely force the addition of another BCS bowl and a few more AQ BCS conferences, IMO.

My point is if the market (and the NCAA) wanted a college football playoff then it would have one. Here is something to consider... In the sport of football both NCAA and NFL go to a lot of pain to not schedule their respective games on the same day (although it seem happens occasionally). A longer post season for college football could create competition for the same fans between the two since the playoff schedules could overlap. Should this cartel be ended as well? One of the two would most likely become no longer profitable or, at least, a lot less profitable.

[jay santos]

Here are the people who complain obsessively about no tournament:

1) A majority of Internet and TV sports journalists

2) Fans of a small handful of non-BCS schools

3) A few Ute fans like IPU and PortlandUte

Yeah, sometimes Whit has mentioned it (primarily as a non-BCS coach). But really not many people outside of these three groups are that passionate about a playoff. This is why there hasn't been one.

One more group of people should be on your list

4) Nearly everyone else.

[jay santos]

The bottom line is that no other sport, outside AYSO soccer, does not determine the champion by play on the field in an elimination tournament.

Spare me the blather that it's about the student athlete, that is the biggest lie out there.

If you think the system is fair, then you would assume that someone who should make it to the championship game always does. If you need proof of that fallacy you need look no further than virtually every year in the NFL.

As a thought exercise think back through the list of champions under the current system and think how different it would be if someone had to prove it on the field, under several weeks. For sure BYU wouldn't have won a title, they didn't have a QB after their one game. I doubt that Ohio St., Oklahoma or Michigan for that matter would have one because they have never strung two big games together ever. (OK, a bit of hyperbole there, but you get the point).

Finally the real travesty is you penalize teams that rise to the occasion, like the 2008 Utes. They were never gonna be anyone's darling in a poll or a computer, all they did was beat people on the field, and that is the real shame of the current system.

So even though we are moving into the haves, I will never stop championing the cause of a true elimination playoff in college football, because that just the way it should be, in fariness to all the teams.

I like how you edited the post for grammar.

[Hallelujah]

BYU fans, assume BYU gets in the big 12. How much would you complain about the BCS if BYU were in a BCS league? Would you care about non BCS teams getting more access? Would you are about seeing a playoff? Would you really care about the unfair nature of the BCS?

Utah fans, same questions to you.

The BCS isn't and has never been about crowning a national champion! To prove my point, how many BCS bowls are there and how many crown a national champion?

[Uncle Ted]

Bama blog article on Shurtleff...

Shurtleff believes the BCS violates antitrust policy by creating a virtual monopoly that keeps schools like Utah (before joining the Pac-10) and BYU — not to mention Boise State and others — from having a fair shot at competing for the national championship. He points out that an antitrust ruling against the BCS would bring a judgment of triple damages that could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

[...]

If Shurtleff has his way — if he actually convinces the Department of Justice to bring legal action against the BCS — he’s probably correct in that the BCS would rather fold than face the possibility of a legal judgment it could never pay.

[...]

If there is going to be a playoff, however, this isn’t the way it need to happen, with some loose-cannon attorney general trying to pander to his constituents and make headlines.