Reader comments
Shurtleff has talks about a BCS inquiry

57 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
Next >

BCS officials say... | 6:40 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Of Course they would say that. What do you expect them to say? "Oh shoot, you caught us... yes it is illegal."

Andrew | 7:08 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Keep going. Behind you one hundred percent. Break up the BCS.

Ken Goddard | 7:26 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

What a stoopid waste of effort and I guess money. Maybe all those operations clouded his brain.

Comments continue below

All the problems in the world... | 7:26 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

and I should care about the BCS and sports? Glad our politicians are on the ball...

JerBearGRR | 7:54 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

It's not a waste of money. The U of U is a state school, meaning taxpayer dollars help subsidize it's costs. When state funded schools are shorted money, they get it from the taxpayers. That means your taxes are higher because the U of U's conference is not an automatic BCS bowl school, thus effectively being shut out of the funds generated by the BCS (except for two exemplary undefeated years). Glad to see Shurtleff is on the ball!

Chris J. | 8:03 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

To Ken, stoopid is spelled stupid.

Otherwise, hopefully something good will come of this, like a real championship series.

egorr | 8:26 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

It is about money and recognition. Recognition eventually brings about more money and yes prestige. Like it or not the BYU National championship of 1984 put BYU on the academic and sports map of the nation. The effect upon the name and prestige of BYU was and is enormous. It is not just merchandising bucks, but access to all sorts of other grants, funds, recruits, and acceptance in academia, business, law etc.

Like it or not, the prestige and name recognition that comes from a national championship is profoundly beneficial to the school and the state.

To be kept out of the opportunity because of a monopoly and a stacked system is what anti-trust laws are all about.

Ute28 | 8:30 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Go for it Shurtleff and don't worry if you are accused of grandstanding which you probably are to some extent. It is still fight worth fighting.

jr | 8:51 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

IT IS a waste of tax payers dollars when we have people losing jobs and programs being cut - how selfish can one be? Sports should not be the top item on the agenda of the Attorney General. Yes, it would be good to see changes in the BCS but not at the expense of the tax payer. Sports is the least of this states problems -

hmmmm.. | 9:11 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I've always liked Shurtleff. I've always felt he had a good head on his shoulders and had good common sense. But this is a waste of taxpayer money. Looks like an attempt to gain some national publicity and exposure.

As much as we love the Utes and support their football program.. we have to admit that they were NOT the #1 team in the country.

Maybe he's been in office too long. He's starting to remind me of Rocky Anderson.

Eugene | 10:09 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Gor for it, Shurtleff! It's about time that the BCS system is tested in court! If fairness and sportsmanship is the mantra of NCAA sports, then they need to live up to their own standards.

Class action, baby, and all non-BCS conferences and teams will support you!

The way I look at it ..... | 10:22 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

This is all about money and breaking up an unfair monopoly that cost our state millions of dollars this year.

Why should College football get to break the law when White collar buisnesses would be broken up and heavily fined for doing the same thing?

rvalens2 | 1:33 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Re: hmmmm.. @9:11 p.m.

"As much as we love the Utes ... we have to admit that they were NOT the #1 team in the country."

Sorry but your statement is patently false. You cannot assume a conclusion for something which cannot be proved or disproved.

Until we have a playoff, there is no way to determine a REAL National Champion. It's all conjecture.

Legal Beagle | 5:12 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

The BCS was smarter than its opponents when it convinced the non-BCS conferences to accept the 5th BCS game model currently in place. Having the four major bowls + the NC game opened up one automatic spot for non-BCS teams into one of the four traditional BCS bowls as long as the non-BCS team met certain criteria (ranked higher than #12, etc). The non-BCS conferences jumped at this chance because of the promise of big $, which came Utah's way and oise's and Hawaii's in the past four years. The non-BCS conferences were so eager to get any piece of the BCS payout that they didn't stop to think that they were sacrificing their principles for $. Now the BCS is right when it argues that the current system cannot be legally challenged as "unfair" because all 11 conferences agreed to the current format. Had they turned down the offered $ on principle and challenged the BCS legally as a monopoly, they would have had much better moral standing. Now the non-BCS conferences have proven they are just as greedy and unprincipled as the BCS.

Bill | 6:09 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

It's simple. There is only one undefeated team in the nation. They should be number one. However, with the current system (which is prejudice and biased) only members of "the club" are allowed to be national champions even with losses.

Coaches are required to vote for "the clubs" winner. How is that not biased or prejudice? Can one of the BCS members explain that to me? Can anyone give an reasonable explanation?

Poor Urban Meyer having to live with a lie that his team is number one....also tebow is an idiot. I have never seen a player soo full of themselves as he is. I would love to see the Utes face off with them. But Urban declined. But, if he is really #1 he should have nothing to fear. Right?!

Great...the BS continues | 6:29 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

I'd love to see the BCS busted up in anti-trust litigation, but Shurtleff isn't exactly the sharpest attorney around and he's probably only leaving the investigation open so his name could be in the paper one more time. At the end of the day, the BCS couldn't have asked for a dumber attorney to get to defend itself against so I'm sure they're hoping he files suit. Hopefully it gets out of the planning phase for Shurtleff. A couple more headlines will be adequate for his purposes.

Mark | 6:43 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

It is to bad for the Utes but I don't get it. Add my name to the list of those who thinks there must be 100's of things that are better use of the AG's time. I find this unbelievble. Don't use my tax money!

Larry H. | 7:14 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Why is this a waste of taxpayer's money? Isn't the attorney general supposed to pursue cases of illegal actions against the state of Utah? Not only would this put Utah on the record as being opposed to the BCS in a way which would reach many more people than a sprots column could, but, it also has the potential to bring quite a bit of money to the MWC, which would benefit state athletics. When you start to let some crimes go in order to focus on "more important" crimes, the line between the two can become arbitrary. This must be pursued; it is obvious that the BCS was formed when BYU was awarded the national championship, to make sure only the traditional big football schools could win. Now, Utah has shown, TWICE, that the BCS does not do the job right. BYU and Utah working together? Well, I'm sure the players are OK with that; only the insane fans make Utah football so wacky..

re: Larry H | 7:21 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

News flash Larry, Utah got it's money! They have gotten it twice! Each year a MWC team has EARNED a bcs bid they got it! Say what you want, but the money is there! It's the "National championship" title their after!

As per Utah "showing" the bcs, does that mean they DID NOT spend the money they receieved as protest?

SEC # 1 | 7:28 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

I don't understand why a AG would get in volved in this? I think a state AG would have bigger problems he needs to address. This is a MWC problem to fix, they need to improve there conference by getting better teams and not have one or two teams that is the cream of the conference. Florida is the BCS national champions not Utah. Utah is not in the BCS. If Utah thinks that is unfair them do something about it, either go indendent or improve the MWC so that it can get into the BCS. The BCS worked, #1 played #2 and Florida won. Utah had a good year and beat a good Alabama team gettting their 15 min of fame, but not a national championship year.

re:re Larry H | 7:41 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

You must have forgotton that Utah got much less of the pie this year since they had to share their winnings with the other mid major schools. Every other team only has to share with their conference, so Utah didn't even get close to the money that Alabama got. How is that a fair system?

omar K | 7:42 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

The attitude of some national media was amplified by the reporter after the game asking Coah Whittingham, "So, this is a big win for the little guy?"
The title is immaterial when you know who you are and what you have accomplished.

Lap Dogs | 8:12 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Sure, all 11 conferences agreed to the BCS, only because the automatic qualifying conferences threw a bone to the non-automatic qualifiers by giving ONE of them a chance to sit under the rickety card table to collect table scraps if they jump threw all of the right hoops.

However, if you're a non-automatic qualifier, don't EVER expect to be invited to sit at the dining room table and eat from the good china.

Jacko | 8:27 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

If Utah loses to Alabama and Boise beats TCU, you think Mark Shurtleff still investigates? The problem I have with this is that everyone in Ute country (including myself) thought Utah would struggle with Bama, so where was all this sentiment about Utah getting jobbed for a National title shot BEFORE the Sugar Bowl,when they were deciding bowls? Utah loses and the BCS gets it right again. I feel fortunate that we had a shot at playing a legit SEC team. Fact is we had a heckuva football team this year, but I still want no part of Florida or USC.

Bill | 8:36 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

The Attorney General needs to stop positioning himself for a future office run, and concentrate on truly important legal issues/priorities facing the state.

Conrad | 8:41 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Its easy to sit there and say we should be National Champs, when before the game all I heard was, "We're, gonna get killed." Yes Utah was the better team, and yes I think we deserve the No. 2 spot, but you guys shouldn't have a problem with the system after the game is over and the outcome is decided, we should have all been outraged when we were not in the Title game, before the bowls started. I still feel overall the BCS normally gets it right but the system still sucks though. We may have to have 2 perfect seasons before we get to play for a National Title and thats not right.

right... | 8:42 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

How can you say that this is not a pressing matter for the state when PUBLIC universities lose money because of the unfair system in place? There was article earlier this year printed in the Desnews that showed how almost no college football program made money. Who picks up the tab when Utah, or Utah State are not self sustained programs? The tax payers.

The bowl system only really benefits sponsoring companies that essentially get cheap advertising out of the deal. There is no real regard for teams or competition.

K | 8:47 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Legal Beagle is right on the Mark. Remember the good old AT&T days? We had to put up with them because there was no other dance in town. Just because we put up with them does not mean we agreed. We had to play in order to have service. Same thing here.

Will | 8:48 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

What truly important legal issues?

Is this a joke? | 9:02 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

At first I was amused, now I am amazed. If all 11 conferences agreed to the system in the first place, how can you then allege unfairness later on? Mark, this is dead on arrival in the courts.

Re: Is this a joke? | 9:21 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

All 11 conferences agreed to it basically because the BCS said, "take it or leave it". Since it was the only shot the non-BCS schools had at the BCS Money Pie, they agreed. It still smacks of antitrust and is unfair.

Economics 101 | 9:26 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

What is the good or service here? People want to have a football game and charge people to come watch it? Football programs and providing a service (entertainment). What is preventing the U. from setting up a football game with any team that is willing? Nothing. This is like saying U2 wants to have a tournament of bands with some other groups but they can't have one with certain groups who have already agreed privately to have their own party. No monopoly, just jealousy.

NebraskaCoug | 9:27 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

All the chatter about Utah will be matter-of-fact in less than two months! What we need to be hearing is actual support coming from AG's from other states supporting "the Shirt". If not, then, yes, it would appear to be nothing more than grand-standing! If not, this whole dialogue will be like a (poof) in a wind storm!

Concerned Citizen | 9:35 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

The AG needs to fight this fight! Utah is the poster child of victim status from the current set up. If he does not fight it, no one will. It is a noble cause. The BCS functions as a cartel and monoply. FIGHT ON!!!!!

re: SEC #1 | 9:57 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Really?! The MWC worst team in Wyoming went down to Tennessee and beat the Volunteers at their place! Then Utah clobbers the heck out of #4 Alabama in the Crimson Tides' own back yard! Yeah the SEC is #1 and the Mountain West Confernce is 2-0 versus the SEC this year! What a pathetic argument! the 5 Division Conferences need political/legal help to get rid of the BCS! It is a huge monopoly and completely corrupt! I'm sorry, but Florida would have lost to Utah this year and this coming from a BYU fan! Get a freakin' clue and go back to the SEC country where you think you are number 1, but still 0-2 against the Mountain West!

and? | 11:17 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

It's too bad things are not fair. What ever BCS wants to do is cool with me. They can call it a universe championship it doesn't matter. What is wrong is claiming it's something it's not to sponsors and involving sponsor $ based on something it is not ie a true national championship game. championship is defined as
A competition or series of competitions held to determine a winner. So in reality it is a 6 conference championship. There is no evidence to support othervise. and the anti trust issue is that having 6 conferences in sole possesion of the Title "national champion" is exclusive and unfair because like it or not advertizer dollars want to be associated with national titles not 6 conference titles or Non BCS national titles.
Just a thought starter why not share revenue 100% all revenue to all participating schools. Just like the NFL.

David | 11:27 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

With Utah leading the nation in Child Molestation and fraud related crime wouldn't this fools efforts be better spent on rooting out molesters and real criminals?

SEC # ! | 11:37 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

You are right, Wy did beat TNN and Utah beat Bama. So what. To TN or BAMA thats no big deal, they had nothing to win or loose. Now back to your "legal/political help" to get rid of the BCS. The Coaches and AD voted and approved the BCS system like it or not. Now, how can you say the BCS is "corrupt", when it worked # 1 and #2 played, or is it "corrupt" that Utha didn't play for the NC? If Utah doesn't like the system, then change the conference they are in or go independent like Notre Dame (they don't have a problem getting in the BCS games)it is the MWC holding Utah back not the BCS. Yes, I have a "clue" the SEC has three NC in the past 5 years, MWC has how many???

ediddy | 11:46 a.m. Jan. 14, 2009

I have commented on this many times before, but it ought to be noted. This nis not about Utah being the national champion this year. It is about a monopolistic effort to direct millions of dollars into the coffers of a select few. That all 11 conferences agreed to the deal, does not make it less anti-trust liable. The system precludes, in its nature, all institutions a fair and equal access to those dollars generated by the BCS series. Those dollars, as JerBer noted earlier, are used to fund educational institutions which provide public jobs and services. Less dollars means less jobs and services. I think Utah should be the "public" national champion, but if you think this is about a trophy, you have been hoodwinked by the BCS spin machine. Shurtleff is dead on the money, and it's about time someone opened their eys to what this is really about. The BCS will never release its hold on the money until it is legaslly forced to by someone who understands the Taft/Hartley Antitrust Act. They are in violation and it cost each of us in the wallet.

RE: SEC# ! | 12:03 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

News flash, when's the last time Notre Dame went to a BCS game, and if Notre Dame actually had a decent season they wouldn't have a problem getting in because they were granted an automatic bid by the BCS if they finish in the top 10, no matter how many wins or losses they have or who they played. Utah or any other non-bcs school has to go undefeated to even be considered, i.e TCU(10-2) #9 in the country with losses to OU and Utah, but no invite. Boise St 12-0, ranked in the top 10 no invite. While ACC and Big East schools go 8-4 and get a guaranteed bid. If no change is made in the BCS all the Utes really were able to do is make it so none of the big schools would play a mid major because what would happen if they lost. The system is terrible.

To SEC #! | 12:14 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Utah should have played for the national championship in 2004 and again in 2009. (2008 season) The MWC could very well have two championships in the past four years, but the BCS system is set up to keep teams like Utah out of NC games. Your SEC teams that won those championships may very well have been the best in the country, but the problem is no one will ever know for sure. I think the BCS schools are afraid of playing teams like Utah and Boise State because it is becoming more and more obvious that the so called "mid-major" schools have caught up. The BCS system is an unfair monopoly and needs to be changed.

SEC # ! | 12:27 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

You do make some good points, however it is the MWC job to make their conference stronger not the BCS. Now again I point out that the Coaches and AD's voted and approved this BCS system. It didn't just fall from the sky. You brought up the ACC, that's what they had to do when they added Maimi and and Boston Collage to the ACC. The MWC needs to do the same thing. THE MWC HAS TO DO IT, not a AG and the BCS do it for them. The Big East added two team to make their conference stronger, Why can't the MWC?

Why have automatics? | 12:34 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

If these so-called BCS teams are so good then why do they need automatic bids? Pitt wouldn't have played Utah in 2004 without a the automatic and didn't even finish the season in the top 20. They clearly didn't belong. Keep the two teams from a conference limit and invite all other top programs into a playoff until you reach the 8, 12, or 16 needed for a playoff.

Dont use Tax $ | 1:30 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Here is the answer for Shurtleff and Pres oboma - spend your own pocket money! If that is what it takes then those two guys and whoever others should do the same out of their own pocket money. Oh, I forgot, why waste those money - give it to the needy!

Cali Coug | 1:43 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Why make such a fuss about the 4th ranked team in the nation...its' utah...the AG should wait until the Real University of Utah aka (BYU) is ranked higher in the BCS poll before he has a hiss fit over the BCS system.

Anonymous | 1:56 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Guys, guys, everybody calm down.

Mr. Shurtleff's effort is not about whose number 1, who won which game, which conference rocks and which one stinks, how to create a playoff format, etc.

Forget all that.

It's about the money.

No, it's about the MONEY, really big money. Where the money comes from, how the money is divided up, where the money goes, all that good stuff.

It's kind of like white-collar crime which, just like much of that crime, has been disguised, planned for, hidden, and even made to look "legitimate" with the help of lawyers, politicians, and others.

I don't know about all of you, but I think it's a good use of the Attorney General's time to, as they say, "follow the money" and get to the bottom of how the BCS "system" works.

NOT because it will lead to a playoff or give a MWC team a chance for this or that, but because the time is long since past in this country where good ol' rich boys should be able to use something like the college football postseason to line the pockets of their cronies and their teams.

Follow the money, Mr. Shurtleff, follow the money.

USC Trojans | 2:27 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

I pray that all athletes will be treated with equality. Every other sport with the NCAA has a playoff for all its teams/athletes. Can title IX be used to bring a playoff to Division I football.

I'm concerned with the relationships that are being made between a certain Conference and ESPN, because they along with other Networks want to insure that teams that they are affiliated with make the National Championship game. Opinions by theses networks way heavily with those who cast votes in the human polls.

Mr. Shurleff, please get to the bottom of this and break the monopoly/good old boy system that is currently in place.

College Football Fan

Go Shurtleff, SEC #6 | 2:44 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

Get the facts right everyone. Shurtleff is not using taxpayer money but anti trust funds that have been set aside for this type of thing. He said so in a tv interview. The SEC is not the best conference, at least not this year. SEC #1 is myopic to think the MWC is at fault here. They have been kept out due to corruption, injustice and downright unethical behavior. Just wait and see. Ultimately, truth will prevail and the BCS will go down. We need at least an 8 maybe a 16 team playoff. But get the facts straight, tax money is not being used and the three titles SEC #1 claims are merely BCS championships and not NC. These days a BCS championship is being exposed for the sham that it really is. This isn't just about the mwc either, just ask Texas, or USC. Utah's proceeds were diluted among all non bcs conferences, how about Alabama's proceeds? Or Florida's or any other BCS school. How is that fair? If Utah earns their way in, they should be treated equally. It is discrimination at the highest level. Anyone who speaks to the contrary is dilusional.

Newsflash | 2:50 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

The BCS would have allowed Utah to play in the NC game had they been ranked #1 or #2 in the final BCS standings. While I understand that a team like Utah faces constraints that make that more difficult, they also didn't play during the regular season like a #1 or #2 team. So, Utah is a victim of the system, but they were also a victim of their own inconsistent play against teams like Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon State, and TCU.

Re egorr: | 3:04 p.m. Jan. 14, 2009

What BYU did in 1984 (beat a 6-5 Michigan team)did not translate to one bit more academic recognition. If you don't believe me just ask the athletic powers at Harvard, MIT etc.

BYU was, and still is, a non-research institution that cranks out a ton of undergrads each year.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.