Utah AG to Sue BCS

[Marshal Dillon]

Here we go again. Another "great" football power with hurt feelings. Who's next, Samford, JSU, Slippery Rock?

[NJRollTide]

I know some of you won't like this, but the bcs has no shot at winning this.  They are a monoply and they don't have an antitrust exemption. 

[2Stater]

I know some of you won't like this, but the bcs has no shot at winning this.  They are a monoply and they don't have an antitrust exemption. 

I've wondered from the beginning how the BCS could get away with this. It was a violation of ant-trust laws from the get-go.

[cbbama99]

I agree, but I honestly don't know what else could replace the BCS right now. All of the playoff scenarios I have seen don't look like they could work, although I don't buy the whole "miss too much class" or "lose money" arguments made by NCAA presidents. I'm just not sure what the best option is at this point.

[2Stater]

If they win the lawsuit, which I think they will, they will either have to broaden the playoff scenerio or do away with it completely and go back to the polls.

[ricky023]

Well polls aren't doing to bad now. They usually wind up having the #1 vs #2 team in the Championship. RTR!

[XBAMA]

this is a win/win for me ... BCS ? sucks .. Utah ? sucks ... I can't lose !
how many times does that happen in a week ? 

[Reelvalue]

BS in the First degree...

[ricky023]

If an anti-trust suit works then they make college football revamp don't they? If they go to a play-off system won't we lose Spring Training because it goes so far into the New Year? I thought this is what the Presidents of the Universities didn't want. If we are to do anything why not do what CNS suggested, we have a Plus One? RTR!

[XBAMA]

every time I hear Utah it brings this picture to mind that someone posted on TS

[SUPERCOACH]

I agree, but I honestly don't know what else could replace the BCS right now. All of the playoff scenarios I have seen don't look like they could work, although I don't buy the whole "miss too much class" or "lose money" arguments made by NCAA presidents. I'm just not sure what the best option is at this point.

Just go ahead and give the crystal football to who ever wins in the GA dome that first week in December.

[SUPERCOACH]

All they really need to do is go back to the old bowl system that we used to have pre-BCS and make one small tweak.  Any conference that has a contract to send their best team to a certain bowl game (ex SEC #1 to Sugar) has the option to opt out of the game if that team happens to be #2 in the poll.  Whichever bowl game happens to end up with the number one team can then invite the #2 team to come play, and they will be able to get out of their conference's normal bowl game in order to accept the invitation.  I'm not saying I like this system, just pointing out that the BCS stuff they came up with was a complicated and apparently illegal solution to a simple problem of being able to play #1 vs. #2 in a bowl game.

For example, let's say Alabama ends the season as the #1 team.  As the #1 team they would go to their conferences top bowl, the Sugar Bowl.  Now let's say that a Pac 12 team like Oregon ends up #2 nationally in the poll.  In this case Oregon would not be required to go to the Rose Bowl and would have an out clause.  Then the Sugar Bowl could invite Oregon.  However if Oregon finished #1 and Alabama finished #2, then the game would be played at the Rose Bowl and Alabama would exercise their out clause.  The bowl would also need a similar out clause for their contract with the other conference.  In this case the Rose Bowl would be able to opt out of inviting a Big 10 team.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but it sounds like all that was needed in the first place were a few well placed and co-ordinated out clauses in the existing conference/bowl contracts.

If the #2 team wants to decline the invitation, then they just play the normal bowl games and the #2 team would probably be punished in the final poll for not accepting the challenge.  So if #1 lost, then the next highest team to win their bowl game would jump #2 in the final poll.

[2Stater]

I like it SC. Call the BCS and tell 'em this this is the way it's gonna be. 

[cbbama99]

All they really need to do is go back to the old bowl system that we used to have pre-BCS and make one small tweak.  Any conference that has a contract to send their best team to a certain bowl game (ex SEC #1 to Sugar) has the option to opt out of the game if that team happens to be #2 in the poll.  Whichever bowl game happens to end up with the number one team can then invite the #2 team to come play, and they will be able to get out of their conference's normal bowl game in order to accept the invitation.  I'm not saying I like this system, just pointing out that the BCS stuff they came up with was a complicated and apparently illegal solution to a simple problem of being able to play #1 vs. #2 in a bowl game.

For example, let's say Alabama ends the season as the #1 team.  As the #1 team they would go to their conferences top bowl, the Sugar Bowl.  Now let's say that a Pac 12 team like Oregon ends up #2 nationally in the poll.  In this case Oregon would not be required to go to the Rose Bowl and would have an out clause.  Then the Sugar Bowl could invite Oregon.  However if Oregon finished #1 and Alabama finished #2, then the game would be played at the Rose Bowl and Alabama would exercise their out clause.  The bowl would also need a similar out clause for their contract with the other conference.  In this case the Rose Bowl would be able to opt out of inviting a Big 10 team.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, but it sounds like all that was needed in the first place were a few well placed and co-ordinated out clauses in the existing conference/bowl contracts.

If the #2 team wants to decline the invitation, then they just play the normal bowl games and the #2 team would probably be punished in the final poll for not accepting the challenge.  So if #1 lost, then the next highest team to win their bowl game would jump #2 in the final poll.

Sounds like a winner to me. I also think there are FAR too many bowl games, but that is a whole 'nother argument all together.

[ricky023]

Hey SC that is a great gmae plan. I vote for it. This is as you say the old system and the bowls still make all the money. RTR!

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...