Hatch Calls for BCS Hearings

by MeanBobMean on Jul 1, 2009 11:16 AM MDT Comment 26 comments

Woot! Senator be smacking on the BCS. I love it. See it here on "The HIll" blog. Said on that site:

The Republican addresses the argument of why Congress is tackling on the BCS at a time when there are other important issues on the table. He says there are "serious questions" surrounding the legality of the system.

"The Sherman Anti Trust Act prohibits contracts, combinations or conspiracies designed to reduce competition," Hatch wrote. "I don't think a more accurate description of what the BCS does exists."

Hatch also goes on to criticize the way teams are awarded money for being a part of the BCS.

Hearings are set for July 7th. See Sports Illustrated story for more details.

1 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

since i can't really complain to anyone else

Please tell this guy to shut-up. We’re all sick of his whining that doens’t hold any water. Why doesn’t he worry about more important things? congress? really?? What a joke this guy is becomming. Not y’alls fault, but silence is consent.

by hotdawgin on Jul 10, 2009 12:49 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Have to disagree with you

I’ve never voted for Hatch, but illegal is illegal. For the first time, I’m happy with Hatch for ignoring criticism.

The reason people are objecting is because college football is entertainment. But it’s also big business. Iif that business were say, making computer parts instead, no one would question why Congress is becoming involved in business enterprise where hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake and business entities are colluding, But because that business is entertainment, it is somehow beneath Congress’ concern.

by Ute in DC on Jul 11, 2009 7:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo

Crooked is crooked.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 11, 2009 8:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

hes masking whats really his motive

what he actually wants is money. if the mtn west had an automatic bid a team would get guaranteed money every season.
Some may think hes out for justice trying to avenge the evils done by the bcs by pushing for a playoff.
In the end, the mwc conf does not generate nearly enough money to have an automatic bid in the bcs. for a start, fans should start attending games. look at the numbers, they dont lie. the mwc doesnt deserve to take a piece of the money pie that the other conferences generate.
There is nothing illegal about the system. Everyone who signed up for it knew exactly what they were getting into.
Regardless, Utah did not get left out of the nat championship becasue of the bcs. they could have made it to the championship game with the current format. Not even their own coach voted them 1 or 2 in the polls prior to the game. They had some weak showings against bad teams. Y’all need to just play ball and quit whining.

by hotdawgin on Jul 13, 2009 12:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations or conspiracies designed to reduce competition.

The BCS prevents schools, such as Utah, from competing in an open market against other schools and is therefore illegal. Here is a good explanation of the illegality of it all.

Putting aside the legality issue, we will not have a playoff as long as the BCS stands in the way. The BCS has no interest in self-destructing and is not going to go away voluntarily; the government has to become involved. We need people like Senator Hatch to push college football towards a playoff.

by Ute in DC on Jul 13, 2009 8:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

While avoiding the playoff or not debate,

The thing with Hatch is that his call for a playoff and claiming that that Utah got ripped off by the BCS are related. Those are two completely different things. Utah did not get shortchanged by the BCS. The BCS vs playoff and Hatch trying to stick up for Utah are not relevant.
Also, its trendy right now to call for an 8 team playoff so everyone that acts like they know something about college football likes to push for it. In reality, experts like Phil Steele are completely against an 8 team playoff. I wish more “fans” would do some research before sharing their opinion.

by hotdawgin on Jul 13, 2009 10:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

For every “expert” that is against a playoff, there are two that are for it. What’s your point?

And you’re wrong. Utah did get shortchanged by the BCS. The fact is that they were prevented from proving it on the field. Any system that does not allow teams to prove their worth on the field shortchanges that team. College football is the only sport where a team can go undefeated and not be the champion.

by Ute in DC on Jul 14, 2009 5:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

they had plenty of opportunity to prove it on the field, and they didn't

It may be worth your time to look at this
They in no way proved that they were the countries best team. They had plenty of chances. Besides the games they played, they did not get the votes needed to play in the championship. Thats not the BCS’s fault. Thats the voters fault. So fault the voters/coaches of the mwc and utah for not giving them one single top 2 vote.

I’m also not very sure what definition of college football expert you are using, but Barack Obama and Michael Adams don’t exactly fit my definition. There is no one more expert than Phil Steele who advocates for an essential plus 1.

TCU knows whats up. they play ball. This is a program thats going places.

by hotdawgin on Jul 14, 2009 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

First off, getting the most votes does not prove who the best team is. It never has and it never will.

That link you provided to the SEC blog just shows what is wrong with college football. No one cares about margin of victory in any other sport. No team was able to beat Utah on the field and Utah should not have to apologize for its victories.

Next, a “plus one” is a playoff; a small four-team playoff, but a playoff nonetheless.

Finally, there are many coaches who are in favor of a playoff. Pete Carroll knows whats up. Joe Paterno knows a thing or two about football as well.

So you’re against a playoff. Why don’t you make an argument for the BCS and the bowl system instead of linking to other people’s opinions?

by Ute in DC on Jul 14, 2009 4:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

i've very much enjoyed our discussion here-cheers

Actually, Mark Richt is on record as now being in favor of a playoff instead of our current format. If you recall 2007 was a bit of tough pill to swallow for the dawgs drawing the sugar bowl. Coaches are expert coaches, I wouldn’t trust coaches to do whats best for college football. They’re biased.
This is a little nit-picky, but margin of victory does matter in soccer which is the world’s most popular sport. It actually matters a lot. but we can’t compare college football to other sports, nothing is like this.
And when said playoff I just assumed an 8 team, i think that is what most people mean at least when they throw around playoff.
Maybe links to sec sites piss you off, but there has just been so much said already about playoffs and bcs that I could not say it better than what has already been hashed out in other places. The best idea to find a national champion i have read to date has been in phil steels magazine. he advocates a plus-1 with slight modifications to avoid rematches and such. its definitely worth your time if you haven’t already seen it. He has several near genius ideas and i think college football should follow it to the “T”.
My only point with the bcs not screwing Utah this year was simply that they still could have made it to the championship game with our current format. There did seem to be a consensus to everyone in college football that utah was not one of the two best teams in the country, that includes coaches of the team who didn’t vote them like they thought they were better than a florida or oklahoma.

by hotdawgin on Jul 14, 2009 8:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

short changed??

didn’t you guys play in the Sugar Bowl?? Haven’t you already played in two BCS games??

"First, there are winners and know they are winners. Then there are the losers who know they are losers. Then there are those who are not winners but don’t know it. They’re the ones for me. They never quit trying. They’re the soul of our game."– Paul "Bear" Bryant

by bammer on Jul 18, 2009 6:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

So we should be happy with what we’ve got and never push for anything more?

by Ute in DC on Jul 18, 2009 7:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

i didn't say that..

im only pointing out that you didn’t get left out…there were just two teams that were ranked ahead of you all year and was more deserving….

by bammer on Jul 19, 2009 6:32 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

A poll does not make you more deserving. That’s the problem with college football.

by Ute in DC on Jul 19, 2009 10:01 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

well dude..im sorry..

This is how’s it been since the beginning….The BCS just wanted to get the #1 and #2 teams to play in the NC…for the most part, that has happened. It also wanted to give the other teams who had a great season but not good enough, a way to make a lot of money..,,you guys wouldn’t have sniffed the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta 20 years ago, so yeah…i would think you guys would be some what thankful…How much money did Utah make off of the Sugar Bowl and Fiesta?? Probably more then all your other bowl combined!

Where was Utah’s complaint 20 years ago….or Boise St’s….or TCU?? You can’t come late to the party and complain all the good food is gone. College football is changing…its not going to be fast but the BCS has given us a great place to start when we are ready to input a playoff. The Mid Majors are the newcomers..like it or not. At least this time, when the format is changed, you guys will be part of the equation.

by bammer on Jul 19, 2009 10:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't even know what you are trying to argue here.

Are you saying that college football is a party that is already over? If all the food is gone, it must be winding down and the days of college football are numbered.

I’d like to think that I have something to look forward to each season. That each season is a new party. But I guess because Utah was not very good in 1989, we should just shut up.

If you weren’t good twenty years ago, you should just be happy to even play a game at all, right? After all the “party” started without us.

It’s not like there are ever new national powers born. Since the dawn of American football it has been the same teams that are good. It’s why Princeton or Yale or Rutgers win the national championship every year.

Are you arguing against a playoff? All we want is a playoff and we are saying the BCS is not good enough. If you don’t want a playoff, make an argument in favor of it. Don’t tell me, “This is how’s it been since the beginning.” So what?

Times can and do change. They also used to have the same personnel play both offense and defense, play with leather helmets, and only pass the ball ten to fifteen time per game.

It’s time for a playoff. It’s simply a better way.

by Ute in DC on Jul 19, 2009 2:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

im sorry again..

Are you saying that college football is a party that is already over? If all the food is gone, it must be winding down and the days of college football are numbered.

Its a pretty simple thought….if you didn’t care 10 years ago, why should we take you seriously now…its about being consistent in winning over a long period of time. Something that Utah is on its way to doing. But it will take more time…

I’d like to think that I have something to look forward to each season. That each season is a new party. But I guess because Utah was not very good in 1989, we should just shut up.

Not shut up…but stop acting like you’re being picked on. When the BCS started…there wasn’t a good enough mid major conference or team, that needed to be considered when determining the automatic tie in format. The BCS changed its mind after the mid majors showed their strength and added the at large bid….so besides not being a playoff…im not what more they can do…cause really..not all conferences are equal. ..i actually don’ think any conference should get a tie in …but thats not either here nor there.

If you weren’t good twenty years ago, you should just be happy to even play a game at all, right? After all the "party" started without us.

I think you should be happy in how far your team has come. And stop acting like 2 good years = automatic respect. College football is about tradition and consistency. Thats whats great about it. Even in basketball, it takes some teams (Davidson) YEARS of consistently playing well in the tourney, before they start getting a higher seed.

It’s not like there are ever new national powers born. Since the dawn of American football it has been the same teams that are good. It’s why Princeton or Yale or Rutgers win the national championship every year.

Ok your sarcasm is getting old. Ive been very nice and haven’t acted like an ass…. yet…

New national powers…It has taken teams like UF, FSU, UT, Oregon, Clemson, Va Tech, etc more than just two really good seasons to get to where they are. Utah/ and the likes, are wanting it now…again,college football it doesn’t work that way. You can like it or not, but that will never change…playoff or not.

Are you arguing against a playoff? All we want is a playoff and we are saying the BCS is not good enough. If you don’t want a playoff, make an argument in favor of it. Don’t tell me, "This is how’s it been since the beginning." So what?

Sure, a playoff would be nice. Im all about improving the BCS. But not an 8 team and no more than 4 teams. College football is unique in that the regular season actually matters. Baseball and Basketball is all about the post season, making the 6 month regular season terribly boring. Sure teams have to perform good enough to get a good seed, but unlike football, they can take a game off here and there. I love the fact that every saturday, its a big game to every team..cause you virtually have to win them all. I don’t want to see another 2 loss team play for the NC like LSU…that was a shame…If you can’t make into the top 4 ….then who really cares.

All i know is this….if the NCAA makes college football into NFL..more people are going to pissed than like it….sure we will appease a few…but will ruin a very unique format…one that has been around for a 100 years.

Times can and do change. They also used to have the same personnel play both offense and defense, play with leather helmets, and only pass the ball ten to fifteen time per game.

Yeah thanks for the football lesson…I had no idea they played football before 2004…oh wait…

Yep they do change…but it takes time. Heck man..the MWC might actually get an automatic bid if it keeps it up. And the Big East might just lose it if they keep suckin it up. That would be a freakin huge change.

It’s time for a playoff. It’s simply a better way

You’re only sayin that cause your team almost had a shot at the title…again, did you complain about the BCS being a bully in 2007.06..05.01..99….

by bammer on Jul 19, 2009 3:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re only sayin that cause your team almost had a shot at the title…again, did you complain about the BCS being a bully in 2007.06..05.01..99….

Short answer: Yes. But no one was listening.

We’ve been complaining about the BCS from the beginning.

by Ute in DC on Jul 19, 2009 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

well I have

that natural built in ability to ignore people.. it drives my wife crazy!

by bammer on Jul 19, 2009 5:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I don’t think it’s just you.

No one cares what a 9-4 team (or their fans) has to say about the BCS, but we were saying it just the same.

I don’t think you would be over here on Block U unless Utah plays Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Otherwise, you would have no idea whatt we are saying about the BCS or college football.

by Ute in DC on Jul 19, 2009 6:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

Good answer buddy.

What is true though is that the BCS defenders have clearly tried to paint this as Utah whining when in fact the entire nation pretty much has called it a crap system from inception, including quite a few college football and sports-writing professionals, even those who cover BCS programs.

It aint us when it’s happening in California, Oregon, Texas, Michigan, New York and Washington DC. Obama, truth be told, is not a Utah fan.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 21, 2009 10:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

bcs defenders?

not true, i’d like to classify us as college football defenders. What we have going on right now may or may not be best for college football, its debatable to say the least. But we do know that although the b.c.s. has flaws, its not terrible, it hasn’t ruined the sport, and its much better than most alternatives that others have suggested. College football is great for several reasons, one of which being tradition which utah doesn’t really have, no offense. Whatever happens, we must be careful not to do more harm than good. bowls are tradition, sec rivalries are traditions. I dont ever want to see those go.
My main problem with the “utah nation” is that the amount of noise (whining) that it makes in congress and elsewhere does not match reality. Many more teams have had much legitimate gripes about the format of the post season and have gone about it in a much more childish way than the utah-temper tantrum throwing, talk a big game, and sign the contract anyways-utes.

Saying that a playoff is simply better sums up waht is wrong with most of the playoff proponents. I’ve never heard a good reason for a playoff (save the almighty Phil Steele plus one system). The most common answer we hear is that “its simply better.” Everyone else does a playoff, why not college football? well because college football is not like anything else. no other sport has to deal with 120 teams that play only 11 games each, some of which have been playing for over 100 years. Just because Obama says so, just because pro-playoffers make their opponents seem completely unreasonable doenst for a second make a playoff better.

I really do think this is a battle of tradition vs change. I have found it so that the general college football fan is in favor of a playoff and is enamored by the national champion question. Nothing is wrong with that. On the other hand, i have found that the fan who cares mainly about their team and only their team, or their conference, their rivalries, fans who take a sort of ownership in teams, are essentially part of the teams in very distant sort of way, want to keep things more like they are now and resist any sort of change. i think this is so because to the serious fan of a team or conference or region or coach, cares about rivalries, cares about the 100 yr old tradition that makes these rivalries truly hateful and fun. They know what a postseason disaster would do to the things they look foward to most during the year. I would also argue that those fans are those that make the sport great and what it is today. that was a little complex and abstract, but fans make the game what it is, their the base and foundation, if we take that away, the sport dies. no tv contracts, no ticket sales, no one cares. the casual fan only cares because its been made interesting by others and they’re jumping on board. Its great. A playoff would “simply” ruin 100 year old rivalries. it makes the sport more about who is the national champion, not about pride.

bottom line, ive never met a 50 yr utah fan…

by hotdawgin on Jul 21, 2009 12:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Condescension Drips from your Post

I’ve never met a 50 year old Georgia fan either, but that’s hardly good evidence. Spend more time in Utah and you’ll find some old timer fans.

We are passionate about Utah football. I do not appreciate being told I do not care about my team, the Utes, because I am in favor of a playoff.

Your complete dismissal of the Utah’s history shows that you don’t really know anything us, our rivalries, or our traditions. Just because you just now became aware of Utah does not mean that the program is brand new. It’s had 115 seasons now.

A playoff won’t affect rivalries. Whether a playoff has four, eight, twelve, or sixteen teams, you will still play the same conference schedule. Teams will still have a couple non-conference games for other rivalries.

A playoff will do nothing to the old time rivalries. The SEC will continue and the same teams will play each year.

And yes, we care about preserving rivalries too.

by Ute in DC on Jul 21, 2009 6:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

rivalries foundation is history.

they’ll stick around through the playoff, but for how long? they’ll be able to stand for a while, but it depends on the foundation that has already been laid throughout history.
i am simply of the opinion that a big playoff would make regular season games less important. i think we can all agree on that.

and ya that was condescending, but i know it pisses off other fans, thats why i do it. i really dont think utah is second rate. rather, i know yall have a solid fan base, a good team, and have been playing ball for an awfully long time. so dont take it personally. you seem pretty into football yourself. i just couldn’t resist taking a jab simply for the reaction.

However, maybe you care, but as a whole, utah doesnt care nearly as much as most other big bcs schools. the attendance and money spent numbers of the big ten and sec dwarf the mwc. so, yeah, in a certain way yall dont care like we do.

I know yall got history and probably people who have been fans for 50+ years, but bammer did have a point, utah is in large part late to the party, or maybe more accurately new to the show. yall have been good the past few year no doubt. but you just haven’t done as much to build the sport of college football as many other schools. Because of that, i think you still need to prove yourself year in and year out and your voice will be as loud as your contribution.
utah just comes across as childish when this bcs hating has been around for years but utah never made much of a stink until they felt they got robbed. I think your motives are more selfish than the senator makes them out to be for the greater good of football, freedom, and mankind as a whole.

plain and simple, a playoff diminishes the regular season (look at the nfl, nba, nhl, mlb) however it may be necessary. so what is the most reasonable evil we can allow? its a 4 team playoff; does the least amount of damage to regular season, solves national champion problem in most years. seldom will the fbs have 5 or more teams with a real stake in the national championship.

by hotdawgin on Jul 21, 2009 9:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

What you're really saying is . . .

“Status quo, it’s screwed, it was built on poor premises, but hey, we can’t stand change!”

Evolve or fuel my car baby, it’s that simple.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 22, 2009 8:41 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

any utes care to translate?

sounds like popularity of playoff call has gotten to most every ute these days.
by the way, Georgia was screwed was worse that Utah could ever imagine in 2007. Don’t hear us whining to congress.

by hotdawgin on Jul 22, 2009 10:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs