MWC coach blasts rejection from BCS

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Re: Virginia Ute
    June 30, 2009 1:48 p.m.

    If the MWC refused an invitation to the BCS, we would lose our argument for inclusion, and forfeit any stake in claiming anti-Trust issues.

    If we accept the invitation, our conference will have a vote in how the BCS is governed and moderated. We could then work from within to get that playoff we so covet, and shield ourselves from any potential long-range future expulsion from said body like the Big [L]East is currently facing now.

  • Scoobie
    June 30, 2009 10:09 a.m.

    REF: Virginia Ute

    Well said....As tempting as a tenured offer might be... to accept such an offer could be the wrong way to go. Now is the time to raise a big red flag and to go in and get the undefeated issue cleared up first and then build from there. The issue could be resolved before the end of the current BCS term in 2011. Trying to go for an 8 team playoff is just way too early right now and will delay any progress. The pressure has to be to get the undefeated issue resolved first.
    After that the ties that the "Chosen Ones"..i.e. those conferences which have the automatic bids due to the old arcaic system of conferences tied to certain Bowls must be weakened and eliminated. The BCS will drag their feet but eventually it will happen.

  • Virginia Ute
    June 30, 2009 9:27 a.m.

    In 2012 the BCS will "re-evaluate" the conferences and can offer automatic bids to those that currently are on the outside looking in. Assuming the MWC and WAC continue to churn out strong teams that crash the BCS and win, it is likely that the BCS will come calling, waving their money and offering the MWC and/or the WAC an automatic bowl berth.
    My only hope is that the MWC/WAC will have the strength and vision to stand up to the BCS and just say no. Accepting an automatic invitation would just make the conference part of the problem and continue to put down the other little guys. Imagine what a powerful statement that would make if the BCS offered them an automatic bid and the MWC/WAC refused it (and the cash that comes with it) in protest of the unjust system.

  • Sick of BCS
    June 30, 2009 9:19 a.m.

    So why don't all the good teams/conferences out there that are non-bcs break out of the system, and refuse to play any of the bcs folks? Give'em the silent treatment and boycott anything and everything bcs, they could even form their own bowl series with a playoff system to determine the real champion.

  • Scoobie
    June 29, 2009 2:18 p.m.

    Correction to my 1:57 p.m. posting

    The 2nd to last senence in the first paragraph should read as follows:

    .....He represents all of the OTHERS who are not part of a preselected group of schools and Conferences who have piously deemed us not worthy to play football with them.

    The Nick Saban's who are indicative of these narrow minded types have to be continuously reminded of their shortsightedness as well as their enemic piety.

  • Scoobie
    June 29, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    I'm really surprised that there isn't a lot more input from University of Utah and BYU fans on this subject. It's sad that some of you people can't seem to address the real issues here. But you are more than happy to rip each other on these sites over the rivalry. Just because the person who was man enough to stand firmly and denounce the corruption that permeates the BCS system is the Head Coach From Air Force should not deter you from speaking out. He represents all the others who are not part of a preselected group of Schools and Conferences deemed not worthy. Your silence suggests that you agree or just don't care anymore.

    I even miss the input from our Aggie and Smurf friends up North. This article still has a few days of life on this site and those of you who I know have extremely strong feelings need to express them. Good things can happen.

    I and others expressed our feelings about transfers of student athletes among High Schools and the needed regulations needed to finally bring some control over the recruiting of athletes into High School programs were implemented.

  • Scoobie
    June 29, 2009 9:27 a.m.

    REF: Where's Stockton???? 5:37 & 6:41 am

    Look friend... I don't mind you hitching to my wagon but let's keep perspective here. The Scheduling of Div II games among Div I schools is a whole different issue. Let's stick to one line of thinking here. Some sort of playoff has to be initiated. You can't expect any progress if you go in making a lof of demands or ones that are too big. You can't shotgun a bunch of unrelated issues. The most obvious flaw is the fact that you have Undefeated teams not given an equal shot only because they are not part of an exclusive club. Then to have those same teams still kick butt in a BCS game against a powerhouse only to be fed crumbs... (money isn't everything) a sham. I like Calhoun's perspective but to go in and expect a 8 team plyoff system is not's too big to swallow. The issue of undefeated teams not getting a shot is not only a blantent reality which is causing a boil on the BCS's butt... it's a lot smaller to digest

  • not dominating
    June 29, 2009 8:54 a.m.

    has everyone forgotten that utah only won by 2 touchdowns. That is not a blowout!!!!!

  • Where's Stockton????
    June 29, 2009 6:41 a.m.

    Another Division I issue that should be addressed that could effect everyone adversely just as much as positively with equality of fairness is the issue of scheduling games against Division II teams. Purists would argue that the practice should be eliminated completely and that the so called superpowers should divide their preseason scheduling equally among the so called bottomfeeders in Division I...and not scheduling the same team more than once in 5 years. There are plenty of tertiary and mid level teams within the Division I system for the Traditional Big boys to pick on, but I like to see the occasional Appalacha States ( sp )pasting the big boys once in a while, so would rather see an allowance to scheduling a Div II on an every other year or every 3 year approach approach.

  • Where's Stockton????
    June 29, 2009 5:37 a.m.

    REF:Team Jumpsuit
    The Undefeated issue has to be addressed and resolved in some fashion. Trying to go to a 16 team playoff is insane and would as you have stated ruin College Divsion I Football. Even an 8 team playoff is too big of an expectation for the BCS to swallow... and would be at least a decade away...if at all.

    The Bowls involved in the BCS and the TV Networks are the real powers especially the historical BIG 3 and their ties to the Television Networks, The Rose,The Orange and The Sugar. The Conferences tied to the automatic births have a stranglehold advantage that needs to be broken. The only way to break the stranglehold is to continue the BCS bashing by the Non BCS conferences. Right now the only conferences doing that consistantly are the MWC and the WAC. But due to the Two undefeated Utah teams and the Boise State undefeated team the blatant obvious that is not going unnoticed is catching up with the BCS. They will have to do something soon...or risk serious legal actions. A playoff to settle the undefeated issuehas to be the logical first step. RISE AND SHOUT

  • Re: Team Jumpsuit
    June 29, 2009 5:29 a.m.

    The Utes ranked #6 in the final BCS standings. They would have only needed to rank in the Top-8. They WOULD have been included in the playoff.

  • Ernesto de Bajo
    June 28, 2009 8:36 p.m.

    To those who think that the BCS stranglehold can only be loosened by legal action or an appeal to the congress, wise up! Get a grip and get focused on a better solution, one that you directly control.

    Carry with you when you shop a list of products and services advertised during BCS games. Then as you spend your moola--something that is completely under your control--make a point to avoid items on the list.

  • Team Jumpsuit
    June 28, 2009 7:43 p.m.

    I am a MWC and UTAH fan. I do believe the BCS needs work but going to a playoff system would kill college football. Last year if a playoff system was in place, UTAH still would have not been invited. With an Eight Team playoff it would have been-FLORIDA(SEC),OKLAHOMA(big12), CINCY(big east), VT(acc), USC(pac10), OSU(big10). Then the 2 at large bids would have gone to-TEXAS and BAMA, both ranked higher than UTAH at the time. Again a playoff system would kill college football. Bowl games, big or small, are crucial for college sports. There are reasons why schools will lose money- (FAU)- to go to them. Bowl games help recruiting not only in football but in every other sport. The BCS has problems that need to be looked at but saying that a playoff system is the only way to fix it is just wrong. Non-BCS schools need to just focus on themselves and when the chance comes along to play the big boys. We need to do what UTAH and BOISE ST did. Both of those schools and their conferences got paid. That is really all you can ask for

  • Re: BS 1:01 a.m.
    June 28, 2009 7:43 p.m.

    "How many first round NFL draft picks came out of the MTN conference?, just wondering."

    What an idiotic question! Yeah, the UTE scrubs just wiped the floor with the mighty Bama tide. Whoever you are, pick yourself off the turf and admit the UTES were 2008's best! Or, is it always about money to you??

  • Where's Stocton????
    June 28, 2009 3:54 p.m.

    REF: Scoobie 5:28&5:49 am 26 June Also 5:23;6:03am 27 June & 1:51 pm 28 June

    Dude, I don't know who you are, but those are some awesome comments about a revamp of the Present BCS System. I like your idea of the 2 game playoff for undefeated teams. We've seen 3 teams before who were undefeated at the end of regular season play, and your idea has a lot of merit. Dude could you even comprehend the possibility of 4 undefeated teams? The likelihood of that happening are astronomically remote but what if the Non BCS conferences had two and the BCS conferences also had 2. Could you imagine the implications??? Man I like this idea even if the Non BCS conferences only have one undefeate and got two additional shots at being in the title game in a BCS sponsored and sanctioned Bowl. I think you are right it would be fitting if they added the Cottonbowl. But could you picture the WAC and the MWC going head to head with say the SEC and the Big 12...and the little guys both went on to play in the BIG ONE

  • Once again
    June 28, 2009 3:42 p.m.

    oklahoma,florida, and texas, do not have the guts to schedule a team like utah. if those schools were so great why don't they just come out and prove us wrong? I dare one of those overrated jokes of a team to come and proves us wrong on the field? They can't they are too week. their only defense against a team like utah is to cluck like a chicken because when it comes down to it thats all they really are. Them and their idiot fans just try to beat us by word because we know and they know and everyone in the educated world know that they won't and can't do it. bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok.

  • Scoobie
    June 28, 2009 1:51 p.m.

    It's a whole lot easier to pull off a 64 team basketball tournament... you will never see a sixteen team Division I football playoff system and will be lucky to see an 8 team Playoff. The present Bowl system will not budge to allow that to happen. There are too many bowls and too many conference ties to the Bowls so lawsuits would be all over the place if they tried. To initially start the process the first issue to address is the undefeated issue and then work to get it to a four team playoff. The BCS will drag their feet the whole entire way so getting them to first address a playoff bowl for undefeated teams before the final selection is the right course to go. See my opening post at the beginning of all these posts.

  • IdaoAggie
    June 28, 2009 1:15 p.m.

    There are eleven D-I conferences. All conference deserve a place in any playoff format. A sixteen team playoff is the only way to go to be fair. All conference champions should be included along with selected at-large teams just as done in the basketball playoffs.

  • Re: Juancho
    June 28, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    What you just described is the FCS league. I don't think dropping down to that league will reinforce the competitiveness of our non-AQ conferences. Besides, the Big 6 wouldn't care. They'll continue to draw the better athletes, and we'd make less money. So bad idea.

    The way to go is the way we've been going. First propose a draft to the BCS, wait for the dismissal of said draft, and, after exhausting all avenues, procede with anti-Trust lawsuits and congressional hearings.

    I believe the BCS knows their days are numbered. They're just dragging this out as long as possible before having to share the access. Once shared access has been mandated, they won't be required to "back pay" any of the non-AQ conferences, so really...what do they have to lose? They have only to gain during those periods their sham will be allowed to continue.

  • Juancho
    June 28, 2009 6:27 a.m.

    Thw non BCS teams must start their own championship, play each other and not ever play a BCS team. Find sponsors so that the money mande on our bowl games will be descent and create enoguh interest so that our fans will watch more our own games instead of wishing to be accepted. Lets chart our own course, our own path. So what is they do not want us, we should not want them either. The whole nation will come to support us eventually and we will weaken thier stance. We, in the mean time, shoul also be happy anytime one of our schols beat their teams.

  • Selective Equality
    June 28, 2009 12:51 a.m.

    We seem to be very selective when it comes to providing equal opportunity. I mean it's ok for us to support affirmative action and other programs focused on leveling the social and economic playing field yet when it comes to major collegiate sports we tell the mid major conferences to put up or shut up? We tell them they must schedule extremely difficult road games and win on the road in Oklahoma, Texas, or Florida. And when teams like Utah do beat the power conferences they get a "that a boy" and a pat on the back and are told that if they keep it up one day things might change. Where is the equality in that? I'd love to see that happen in the work place...tell a minority to keep up the good work and one day they qualify for the same pay as the rest of the office workers.

  • Scoobie
    June 27, 2009 10:34 p.m.

    REF:WAH WAH I'm sorry but the Big 12 hasn't done so well against MWC conference and a couple of WAC teams in recent years.... and the SEC doesn't play us very often especially since FSU and Miami couldn't pull out a couple of wins while being highly ranked but that's been ages ago there haven't been that many games since to really base anything on. They're gun shy in the SEC when it comes to the MWC. Your sense of mightness is over rated. I will admit that the SEC is the strongest with 4 big guns and the Big 12 has 3 but there just isn't a whole lot of big guns out there anymore in all the other conferences. Both the PAC and The Big 10 have been cut down to size in the past several years....really the SEC is the only conference of any real significance.

  • SEC strength?
    June 27, 2009 9:42 p.m.

    It is expected that Florida will be number one throughout the season. They have such a rough non-conference schedule playing at home against Troy, Charleston Southern, Florida International. Why do they get all the accolades when they have such a whimpy shedule? Of course they may go undefeated, but just because they win in the SEC shouldn't give them a free ticket to a National Championship. USC has the right idea. At least they have the guts to play at Ohio State this year.

  • Re: Wah Wah
    June 27, 2009 8:40 p.m.

    So, in other words, you have no valid, immutable, or irrefutable argument against my previous post at 6:48.

    I thought not. And evidently, neither does Phil Steele, who ranked the 2008 MWC the 4th best conference in the nation. In 2007, the 4th best conference in the nation was the Big 10. At the time that year's NC was played, Ohio St. was ranked #1. In 2004, the 4th best conference was the PAC 10, yet USC met [and DESTROYED] Oklahoma for that year's title.

    If the Big 10 or PAC 10 can play in the NC as the 4th best conference, there can be no compelling argument any other conference can't.

    Go MWC.

    GO UTES!!!

  • Wah Wah
    June 27, 2009 7:56 p.m.

    The MWC is a joke when compared to the Big 12 or the SEC conferences. Undefeated in the MWC or WAC conferences has little significance on a national level.

  • Re: The BCS is fine
    June 27, 2009 6:48 p.m.

    "You guys play an easy conference schedule..."

    The Utes' 2008 SOS was ranked #31. By way of comparison, Alabama's was #32. Had Alabama not blown their late 4th Qtr lead, they would have played Oklahoma in the NC, and you wouldn't have suggested they didn't deserve to be there. Penn State's SOS was #39. If they hadn't blown THEIR late 4th Qtr lead against Iowa, THEY would have played in the NC, and you wouldn't have panned THEIR worthiness. USC's SOS was #40. Had USC not lost to Oregon St, would you have protested THEIR NC appearance? No!

    BTW --> The Utes beat Oregon St.

    "The utes would have ended up with at least 2 or 3 losses and been left out anyway."

    Well, since we're speculating based on NO REAL EVIDENCE, what would have happened is we would have went undefeated, and played [and won] the National Championship. Brian Johnson would have won the Heisman, peace would have been achieved in the Middle East, and the apoplexy in cougartown would have resulted in 7 million fatal cardiac arrests.

  • mwc is weak
    June 27, 2009 1:59 p.m.

    Your little conference is weak. There is no national interest in your conference, so why should the national media care? You guys have the midas car care bowl in vegas, so be happy.

  • The BCS is fine
    June 27, 2009 1:55 p.m.

    You guys are whining that you should have played in the national title game. Are you serious? It's utah!! You guys play an easy conference schedule every year, granted its not as easy as boise. Since you played Alabama and won by 2 touchdowns, what would utah have done if they played an SEC schedule? The utes would have ended up with at least 2 or 3 losses and been left out anyway. Be grateful for the trip to the sugar bowl against an unmotivated alabama team!!!!

  • Dumbest Argument for BCS Ever
    June 27, 2009 10:17 a.m.

    Graham Watson, the ESPN blogger that is supposedly for the non-bcs conferences, made the laughable argument that all the conferences agreed to the BCS formula so the non-BCS conferences shouldn't complain. I'm sure the non-BCS conferences agreed to the modifications that gave them more access (which was part of an incredibly one-sided compromise where the BCS conferences gave up just enough to keep congress off its back). But saying that means everyone agreed to this structure is like saying people who vote for a tax cut have intrinsically thrown their support behind every aspect of the Internal Revenue Code. It's ridiculous. All the non-BCS conferences agreed to a broken system with slight access because it was better than a broken system with no access. ESPN is in bed with the BCS so I don't know why Watson even pretends to sound objective when her agenda is so transparent. I did note that ESPN no longer posts a link to the independent's blog on their college football homepage. It's bad enough that they rarely show non-BCS team's highlights. It's just typical ESPN.

  • @Utah | 1:05 a.m
    June 27, 2009 8:28 a.m.

    Your insomnia has made you delirious.

  • Re: Stop it.
    June 27, 2009 8:21 a.m.

    Utah would gladly play teams like Georgia,Florida,or LSU. But those teams are too chicken to schedule a team like Utah because they know that their season could be over fairly quickly. Many "elite" schools shy away from utah because the risk of losing to them is way too high. Utah openly challenged Florida to a game after they won their "national title" but the "national champions" didn't respond obviously they chickened out.

    June 27, 2009 7:52 a.m.

    Re: Utah - That's cute. Did you calculate 1984 as 100 years ago all by yourself or did you ask your Utah math professor to calculate it for you? I'm just kidding, you probably never even graduated from highschool.

    Re: BS - You must be a Ute putting up a straw man so others bring up your #1 pick. Or you're a cougar who wants someone to bring it up so you can mock them. Either way, it's funny how you ask the question as if you don't know the answer.

    Re: PP - If BYU had beaten TCU and Utah they'd have moved up significantly rather than getting jumped by other teams. The pollsters were right to wait until BYU proved itself (which BYU failed to do). Once you're in the top 10 it's all about quality wins.

    Re: Don't Worry - As much as I'd like to see market factors drive the BCS out of existence, college football is more popular than ever so the "nobody will watch" strategy isn't going to work. The BCS is unfair and biased and the NCAA shouldn't allow it to continue to exist.

  • Scoobie
    June 27, 2009 6:03 a.m.

    REF: UTAH Continued

    You see that's the stick that got stuck in the Big New Years boys craw... That win against Michigan on DEC. 27, 1983 in the Holiday Bowl broke all the traditions. Having to give the 1984 NCAA National Championship to some little team from the Rockies that didn't even play in one of the Sacred Big 3 Bowls on New Years Day was unheard of.

    I've already mentioned that the Brain Child of the BCS is a former Ohio State alum who also has held the positions of OSU president and Big 10 Commissioner. The big Ten traditionaly won or lost their National Championship games against the PAC 8 or the PAC 10 on New Years Day in the ROSE BOWL ... and on National Televison no less. Not some little podunk stadium in San Diego in December.

    So unless your extremely slow on the uptake... you should understand the logic here...and thus the growing call for a revamping of the present system that in 2008 / 2009 denied another little school from the Rockies a legitimate shot. BYU is not the problem Brother.........the rivalry will take care of itself....Try changing your focus

  • Scoobie
    June 27, 2009 5:23 a.m.

    I like the way that Utah has emerged from a long drought and has had a couple of really good years... and because the BCS is such a commercially rigged monopoly it was not given the oppurtunity to run the board like it should have...but let's get serious... showing up a couple of times in the last 30 years hardly makes it a dynasty....and until you actually posess a National Championship trophy or a Heisman or an Eastman Kodak award no matter what the sport your still just wannabes. Last season, in my mind you should have had the oppurtunity to have played for the N.C. But it didn't happen...that's what this article is about. I'm envious of your NCAA N.C. in Basketball but if you will look at your trohy it has a lot more dust on it than our 1984 NCAA National Championship Trophy in Football. The real problem here is that the NCAA hasn't stepped up to the plate and taken back control of a lousy situation.. That 84 National Championship is theonly one historically outside the Sugar the Orange the Rose or the Fiesta

  • Utah
    June 27, 2009 1:05 a.m.

    Utah has surpassed anything the Cougars havde ever done including that fake national championship a 100 years ago. When you think of football in Utah you think of the U. BYU is now an after thought.

  • BS
    June 27, 2009 1:01 a.m.

    How many first round NFL draft picks came out of the MTN conference?, just wondering.

  • Next Excuse
    June 27, 2009 1:00 a.m.

    Stop it | 3:31 p.m. June 26, 2009
    So Utah beat Alabama good for them, try playing that schedule week in a week out. Florida, Alabama, LSU, Gerogia.


    Well Utah beat #7 TCU which was better then #13 Georgia.

    Utah beat #18 OSU which was better then un-raked LSU

    Actually, Utah had an easier time beating a #6 SEC team Bama then those two ranked teams and they were home games.

  • BCS Booooo....
    June 27, 2009 12:48 a.m.

    Stop it | 3:31 p.m. June 26, 2009
    ...anyone of the top teams could go undefeated in (MWC).

    Any top team? NOT true!! I can name one top team from the SEC that wouldn't have gone undefeated in the MWC in 2008 by simply pointing at the scoreboard: Utah 31 Bama 17

    Hmmm... there goes that logic.

    If the MWC is so weak then I would love to see the likes of FL and Texas playing AT Utah or TCU.

  • BYU Fan
    June 26, 2009 10:04 p.m.

    Utes deserved a shot at the national championship! No doubt about it!

    You could make the argument that Alabama was down when they played... But it's a pretty lame excuse.

    I would have voted em #1

    a BYU Fan

  • @ 5:49
    June 26, 2009 9:06 p.m.

    "...if it wasn't for a bogus call at the end of the game Utah would have never won."

    No bogus call. The reply showed P.I. The color commentators noted that it was the correct call. OSU Coach Mike Riley neither contested the call, nor suggested it was questionable following the game. Utah won the game because they were the better team.

    "You barely beat a very bad Michigan team..."

    A win is a win. Michigan scored all their points on short fields due to turnovers. Those errors were subsequently corrected. A narrow victory over Michigan, AT THE BIG HOUSE, does not diminish BLOW OUT victories over Alabama and BYU. Neither does it detract from the fact the Utes had 2 victories over Top-10 teams, and an additional 2 more over other teams ranked in the Top-25.

    "Your [sic] trying to tell me Utah would have gone undefeated with the likes of Ohio State, Florida, USC,Georgia,Penn State..."

    NOBODY played a schedule facing all those teams. If you want to dispute the Utes claim to #1, then THAT RIGHT THERE is justification for a playoff. Because otherwise, you'll have NO EVIDENCE to the contrary.

  • Scoobie
    June 26, 2009 6:59 p.m.

    That's the whole point that needs to be appreciated Last year Utah could have played with anybody but because they are from the MWC they weren't given the chance. A a Cougar Fan I couldn't have been prouder of the Utes the way they stuffed Nick Sabin's own words down his throat....and the whole nation watched them do it...It was great.

  • Coach of the Year
    June 26, 2009 6:46 p.m.

    Calhoun has my vote. That guy has a bright future, and it will be great to see AF continue to improve to the same level as TCU, BYU and Utah. The only way to get respect is to consistently earn it on the field.

  • BYU Blue
    June 26, 2009 6:17 p.m.

    Utah deserves every accolade that's come their way. They took it Alabama and I'm convinced they could have played with anybody in the country at the end of the season. The BCS is a crock and as un-American as it gets by not allowing teams to compete for a national championship in a fair way.

  • RE: Utah-blood red
    June 26, 2009 5:49 p.m.

    You call the Oregon State game a stomping, if it wasn't for a bogus call at the end of the game Utah would have never won. You barely beat a very bad Michigan team, where is this stomping coming from. Your trying to tell me Utah would have gone undefeated with the likes of Ohio State, Florida, USC,Georgia,Penn State..I will give you Alabama but lets see if you can keep it up for more than a year. I'm guessing 4 losses.

  • Re: Stop it
    June 26, 2009 5:45 p.m.

    "Utah would have never gone undefeated in the SEC, PAC 10 or the Big 10."

    Neither would ANY team in the SEC, PAC 10, or Big 10. So why should Utah have to? Florida didn't go undefeated in the SEC. Should they have been eligible for last year's NC? USC didn't go undefeated in the PAC 10. Should they have been eligible for the Rose Bowl? Neither Penn St. nor Ohio St. went undefeated in the Big 10. Should they have merited BCS bowl appearances? Your logic doesn't hold water.

  • Utah - blood red
    June 26, 2009 4:47 p.m.

    Stop it - how can you say that when they played schools in each of the confrences you related and by the way stomped them... the trouble with the conferences getting automatic bids is it takes away from the schools that do strive for a hard schedule but still don't get the nod from the "rulers" - SEC ie the BCS -- the sum of conferences have completely out grown the BCS... and everyone knows it... the "rulers" are afraid to play with others because it makes them look extremely weak when they lose. Money begets money-- right SEC a lum.?

  • Wiser that Cougars
    June 26, 2009 4:38 p.m.

    Y all have forgotten that Utah has proven themselves in every sport including Football. What other team went undefeated twice in four years in the past decade????

  • lightmann
    June 26, 2009 3:54 p.m.

    The BCS schools will keep things status quo for as long as possible. Only legal action will force them to change. It is too sweet of a deal for those schools as is for them to want to change anything.

  • Stop it
    June 26, 2009 3:31 p.m.

    Utah would have never gone undefeated in the SEC, PAC 10 or the Big 10. Being undefeated doens't mean your the best team in the country when you play in a conference that anyone of the top teams could go undefeated in. Remeber Hawaii everyone was proclaiming them national champs because they were undefeated.Gerogia made them look like a high school team. So Utah beat Alabama good for them, try playing that schedule week in a week out. Florida, Alabama, LSU, Gerogia..

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 3:13 p.m.

    Why don't the the non-BCS schools start their own championship tournament? They could invite the BCS schools (who will undoubtably turn them down). They play the games, crown a winner, yes a NATIONAL CHAMPION. If the non-BCS schools stopped going to the non-BCS bowls there would be a lot of angry sponsors who could press to make changes. Oh wait, what am I thinking, even the non-BCS schools like their non-BCS bowl games and miniscule payouts.

    Seriously, non-BCS schools should consider their own championship tournament. Would be interesting.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 2:44 p.m.

    As a starting point they should get rid of preseason rankngs intstead rankings should begin at midseason.

  • The BCS
    June 26, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    Is BS

  • PP
    June 26, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    -----If a non-bcs team is deemed good enough at the beginning of the year and went undeafeated, they would play for a national title. utah wasn't even in the top 25 to begin the year. If they were ranked early they would have made it.----

    Actually BYU was deemed good enough at the beginning of the year, and they quickly shot up into the top 10, but then they sat there for 3 weeks (before they lost to TCU) while teams jumped over them. The same thing happened to Utah over the last 2 weeks of the season. Also, the Coaches and Harris polls only had Utah 7th in their final polls and the Coaches was after the sugar bowl. So no, all the evidence shows that Utah got as high as they were ever going to get, no matter where they started the season ranked.

  • Croc
    June 26, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    Right on Coach Fairchild. Tell it like it is.

  • RE:@ Anonymous | 11:14 a.m.
    June 26, 2009 1:39 p.m.

    If I remember right Boise State taught the Utes a thing or two the Ute's own house to boot!

  • Ignorant=Ignorant
    June 26, 2009 1:20 p.m.

    You have made everyone's point with your own arrogance.
    And the revenue difference is...small?
    Did you type that with a straight face?
    According to your logic, schools with 93,000 (who lost) vs a school with 50,000 ( who beat the school with 93,000) should have a better/easier chance at a national championship because.......
    Wait and watch how 'Bama will again be ranked higher than Utah, because of their 93,000 capacity.
    Let's go back to the days of teams having to prove themselves year in and year out, excluding nobody.
    Regardless of size of stadiums.

  • Scoobie
    June 26, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    REF: Ignorant Non BCS Fans
    That was rather interesting...I especially loved your ignorance of the facts. in almost all pertinent cases of the money issue. Just because Alabama has a stadium that will always hold 93,000 plus fans and Utah for now only has a Stadium that hold's 45,000 has very little to do with the creation of the BCS.
    Just because BCS Schools have more donor contributions has little to do with the creation of the BCS.
    I will concede the bigger fan bases may have somewhat of an effect of actual attendence during BCS games but it had nothing to do with the creation of the BCS First and foremost the brainchild of the BCS was /is and always will be associated with Ohio State University and the big Ten conference. The 1983 Holiday Bowl is the only Bowl in the history of NCAA football that produced a National Champion that wasn't from The Present 4 BCS Bowls. The Big Ten and Bowl coalition are the basis of the BCS. The Pac 10 came in on the skirt of the Rose Bowl. TV Revenue is the THE PRIMAY REASON FOR THE CREATION

  • Scoobie
    June 26, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    REF:Scooby at 5:49am @11:06 a.m.
    JACK....FYI I graduated BYU 1981....was there during the Gifford Nelson, Marc Wilson and Jim McMahon years...I'm not a so called Yoot Fan...but you ... you're an embarassment to be associated with as a either show a little more respect or keep your mouth shut. Utah was unfairly denied a rightful shot as will be the case for all future MWC and WAC teams until the BCS is forced or broght to it's knees. These two Non BCS conferences are the only conferences who consistantly keep bashing in the BCS doors and that is what has to kep happening. Yes I want it to be the MWC... and I want it to be BYU... but Dude the BYU Utah rivalry is second nature....and it will always take care of it'self on it's own. It doesn't take a frigging bunch of loudmouths to keep it alive.

  • Ignorant Non-BCS fans
    June 26, 2009 11:52 a.m.

    The difference between BCS and non-bcs conference revenue distribution is smaller than you think. Being in the BCS doesn't mean a school will get tons of millions more than non-bcs schools from their respective conference. The BCS stands as a collection of schools who have the more resources (bigger stadiums, bigger fanbases, and more donor contributions)than non-bcs schools. Before the bcs was created, there was clear difference in the wealth of football programs across the country. Now that those programs are defined in the "BCS" people think its the BCS that created that wealth. Fact is, Alabama will always have 93,000+ at their home games, while utah will always have 45,000+.

    If a non-bcs team is deemed good enough at the beginning of the year and went undeafeated, they would play for a national title. utah wasn't even in the top 25 to begin the year. If they were ranked early they would have made it.

  • TheHailstorm
    June 26, 2009 11:43 a.m.

    "Utah, in my mind, was the best team in the country last year," Fairchild said. "What they did to Alabama right after Florida struggled with them says it all. And I'm not sure if you play our league over again last year if TCU doesn't win our league. So we've got some extremely talented football teams. It almost seems like a lawsuit in terms of trying to hold revenue back from certain conferences."
    Great Quote !
    What's holding The MWC back from a class action suit for due process and revenue sharing ?
    Is there a reader here that knows the law and could look into it ?
    Again this seems to me like a case that Gerry Spence from Wyoming would love to take to court, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
    Perhaps our state Governors could clan up and do the same.

  • BCS is Good
    June 26, 2009 11:42 a.m.

    First off, things can be improved, but the BCS is there to allow those teams who have great fan bases to capitalize on that interest. Granted each conference has a team or two that resemble non-bcs teams in attendance (i.e. Washington State avg 2009 attendance=30k, boise st avg attendance=30k)

    A poster said earlier the Pac-10 doesnt deserve to be in the BCS. The Pac-10 has had 6 teams in BCS bowls (4 have wins): Washington, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, USC.

  • SEC fan on the loose
    June 26, 2009 11:36 a.m.

    Anonymous Rocket Scientist at 10:19 a.m. says, "MWC should just shut up and go back to playing regional games that nobody cares about."

    Pardon me, but your Crimson Tide is showing.

  • Bee's want in to
    June 26, 2009 11:22 a.m.

    Maybe we should let the triple A baseball leagues qualify for the baseball playoffs. We all want a SL Bee's vs. Morgantown Bandits in the finals.
    Just like football would like to see Utah vs. Bowling Green. hahahahah

  • @ Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 11:14 a.m.

    Yep, the MWC should just go back to playing regional games tht nobody cares humiliating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Or maybe it was the Big Sky, and Boise State teaching Oklahoma how to play, or perhaps anonymous wants to avoid the repeat of his so-called BCS wonder teams getting a dose of smack-down from MWC teams.......

    What do you think?

  • RE: Scooby at 5:49am
    June 26, 2009 11:06 a.m.

    "there is no excuse to have an undefeated team that is not the National Champion."

    Says most Yoot fans who still whine about 1984 and the only National Football Championship trophy ever to come to the state of Utah...

  • Re: Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 11:05 a.m.

    The BCS should go back to living in their fantasy world, instead of getting their butts kicked in the real world. Go Utes!!!

  • Obama what?!
    June 26, 2009 10:58 a.m.

    Obama said a lot of things he didn't mean on the campaign trail. My personal favorites being that he is a self-described "fiscal conservative" . . . what? Or the time he accused the Bush administrations of running up too high of deficit, then he goes and quadruples Bush's highest deficits. So don't hold your breath on him fixing The BC$.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    MWC should just shut up and go back to playing regional games that nobody cares about.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 9:48 a.m.

    You should rip on any conference that has an automatic bid. I don't care what happened in the past, all teams should earn there spots in the post season and the only fair way is through a playoff.

  • re: anonymous @ 7:49
    June 26, 2009 9:02 a.m.

    You shouldn't rip so much on the PAC 10, rather, the ripping should be on the Big (L)East, and the ACC. They have proven nothing from the beginning of the BCS. They have only been in there by association, that is basketball association. They have never been consistent in football strength, so why is it that hardly nobody complains about their involvement year in and year out in the BCS closed club. That is where the focus should be, eliminate the Big (L)east and the ACC form the BSC - they are useless in football!!

  • Cindy on Obama and BCS
    June 26, 2009 8:15 a.m.

    This would be a much easier problem to solve than health care, and think the good favor it would win him here in Utah, where he is generally vilified, and all the MWC. He really oughta take it on now and get it done. It's a no-brainer.

  • SS
    June 26, 2009 8:09 a.m.

    Unfortunately the greed of the BCS teams is going to result in government intervention. Same thing with health care, the greed of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, as well as many physicians, is resulting in massive govt intervention. Will people ever learn?

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2009 7:49 a.m.

    Other than USC, what did the PAC 10 do to earn access? Nothing. This requires a legislative solution. I still think this is an antitrust issue. The NCUA can't do anything because the BCS resulted from a lawsuit on similar grounds by the BCS crowd, complaining of stuff they are now guilty of. It's a mess.

  • Obama
    June 26, 2009 7:43 a.m.

    will set the record straight and bring fair and balanced college football revenue earning and recruiting to all teams in the NCAA. he promised us he would do that during his campaign. he promised us a playoff system.

  • RR
    June 26, 2009 7:00 a.m.

    Greed, pride, money. These rule the BC$. It almost wants to make you boycott college football, yet networks like ESPN treat it as a god and totally worship the system. It's hard to keep loving such a sport when it's controlled by such selfish people.

  • Where's Stockton????
    June 26, 2009 6:18 a.m.

    The issue can no longer be left in the hands of the BCS....The NCAA needs to take the beast by the horns and show some leadership here... and if need be... THEY... (and not their members attempting to go it alone) should be ones in the courts getting this anti trust mess that they allowed to happen...cleaned up. A simplified 1 or 2 game playoff would be a great start to fixing this hugely oversized bias of favoritism that plagues college football today.

  • Don't Worry
    June 26, 2009 5:57 a.m.

    Bias Media will soon see the down fall of viewers. Attendance at smaller bowls will soon go smaller and same on tv. I lost interest watching any other big bowls games or so call bcs games (except UTAH). And yes more bcs fans will do the same. Only those fans will follow their own favorite school playing their bowl game. College football will fall. I love my BYU team year after year win or lose! It is like this - utah got rob and Florida and U. Meyer is a thief! Or how about this - do I care that LA FLAKERS winning the nba title? No, Kobe is a raper and D. Fisher is a trater. Rich people getting richer and will be more ignored.

  • Scoobie
    June 26, 2009 5:49 a.m.

    One more point of clarification. If there is only one undefeated team left at the end of the regular season regardless of whether they are BCS or non BCS and no matter where they are in the BCS rankings at the end of regular season play then they get a shot at the then current BCS number 2 in a playoff game. If still undefeated after the playoff they automatically play for the National Championship. You really only need to add one or two games to the current BCS system to make it fair. Figuring out the other top 25 standings when it's all said and done doesn't really matter... but there is no excuse to have an undefeated team that is not the National Champion.

  • BCS
    June 26, 2009 5:41 a.m.

    Has and always will be a joke! I just hope as the years progress, that the MWC just goes out there and clobbers teams from the ACC, Big 12, Pac 10 etc

    Had the WAC never allowed the merge of 14 teams at one time, I can only say the WAC now the MWC would be a power house.

  • Scoobie
    June 26, 2009 5:28 a.m.

    The udefeated issue needs to be the only issue the BCS needs to address and they can easily do that by forcing a playoff in either a 1 or a 2 game format depending on how many undefeateds there are to place in a pre BCS final selection playoff. The winner or winners would either play one more game against each other or would automatically get either the no. 1 or the no.2 slot in the BCS. It can be accomplished without realigning the current BCS bowl venues... can be accomplished by adding one more bowl venue to facilitate the playoffs....which is what I suggest...and I think the Cottonbowl would traditionally be the best choice to add to the BCS Bowl alignment. Regardless of wheter or not a team is BCS or Non BCS it will address the undefeated problem that is a canker to the present BCS selection format. There should only be one possible undefeated team and no matter who that is they are the National Champions if they can remain undefeated.

  • Montanan
    June 26, 2009 12:11 a.m.

    No lawsuit. We only need Utah and Boise State to thump Oregon this year. The whole Mountain West and Boise State need to show well against the BCS. I'll be in Eugene wearing crimson. A Utah man am I.

  • true blue
    June 26, 2009 12:08 a.m.

    The end of the article didn't seem to fit with the topic.

  • Idahoan
    June 25, 2009 11:52 p.m.

    "There was no overall support for the proposal, although some conferences were interested in considering certain elements of it in the future particularly those related to revenue, access and governance of the BCS arrangement," said University of Oregon president David Frohnmayer, the outgoing committee chairman.

    Wow, only some conferences interested in revenue and access? Arrogant automatic qualifier conferences continue to stomp on and belittle the non-AQ conferences. This hypocrisy and arrogance just is inviting a smackdown. Lawsuit anyone?