Utah Utes show worth of fighting ol' status quo

Published: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 5:45 AM     Updated: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 5:56 AM

What's a Ute?

You don't need Joe Pesci to answer that one. Any college football fan can tell you a Ute is a fighter. Scrappy. Tenacious.

Utah quarterback Brian Johnson loves his Sugar Bowl MVP award and, contrary to what they say, evidently the Utes' bosses like the BCS, too.

In fact, the Utah Utes are the best darn football program west of the Mississippi not coached by Pete Carroll.

OK, that may be a stretch -- but not by much. Just ask Nick Saban.

What's a Ute?

The biggest headache the BCS ever encountered.

Ever since an undefeated Utah was jilted at the altar for the second time in five seasons, the BCS has come under an attack led by those sympathetic to the Utes.

President Obama wants a playoff, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) just held a congressional hearing to explore the badness of the BCS.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wants to go a step further and file an anti-trust suit against the BCS.

"From the very first kickoff of the college football season, the BCS uses its monopoly powers to put more than half of the schools at a disadvantage," Shurtleff has said.

Academicians and legal junkies agree. The BCS is a monopoly. Ah, but there's a major flaw holding everything up.

What's a Ute?

It's a part of the BCS monopoly.

Make no mistake: the BCS is about two things. First, it wants to provide a sexy No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup that will excite college football fans and keep television networks coming back for more.

But that's secondary to the prime mission, which is to keep the six BCS conferences rolling in the dough.

That's why what Utah accomplishes on an annual basis is worthy of praise. The football team is worthy of BCS inclusion. The Utes do more with less, and twice in recent memory Utah has had a team that at least deserved to prove its worth on the field.

That would be possible if there was a playoff. But there is no playoff. There is only the BCS, which is closer to a beauty pageant, anyway.

And Utah and every other non-BCS program are part of the monopoly, an enabler of the conspiracy, by participating in the scheme.

Maybe some day the non-BCS schools will break off and hold their own postseason tournament.

Call it the real national championship. Ignore the BCS and ignore the revenue it generates. Do it for the good of the game, right?

To its credit, Utah's conference, the Mountain West, recently proposed an eight-team playoff.

Great idea, even if it was self-serving. The Mountain West plan quadrupled the field, but added its champion as one of seven automatic qualifiers.

The others? The six current BCS conferences.

(Sorry WAC, MAC, Sun Belt and Conference USA -- you'd better come up with your own salvation).

An eight-team playoff was even a great idea a year earlier when it was proposed by University of Georgia President Michael Adams. Yet a more plausible suggestion was the Plus One (four-team playoff) pushed by the SEC and ACC around the same time.

The Plus One even made it to a vote in April 2008. Guess who voted against it?

That's right: Nearly everyone, including Utah's own conference, the Mountain West.

What's a Ute?

A fighter of the status quo.

Utah's pluck and grit (not to mention political clout) are admirable. It would be even more admirable if Utah wasn't part of the status quo.

Join the conversation below or e-mail Doug at dsegrest@bhamnews.com.

Inappropriate post? Alert us.

Sponsored Links

More stories in Sports from The Birmingham News

Previous story
Barons split doubleheader with Braves
Next story
Hot Corner: Barons star should still be here

Most Active Users

What's this?

Users We Love

Popular Tags

What's this?