With the biggest game being played in Mountain West history is taking place this weekend featuring two top five teams, Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is once again attempting to sue the BCS for violating anti-trust issues.There is no doubt Shurtleff is using this game to do some grandstanding of his own to promote his name. Before we get into the details 'Death to the BCS' makes some good points that trying to sue the BCS is quite difficult. Instead, Shurtleff should go about suing the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl for partaking in the BCS.
Back to Shurtleff's claim, he presented an idea to the Justice Department saying that the BCS is a monopoly that makes it impossible for a non-BCS team to participate in the title game:
Washington — Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has a hard time envisioning a scenario where the government doesn't sue the leaders of college football's championship system for being an "illegal monopoly." The question is whether the states have to go it alone or whether the U.S. Attorney General will join in the legal fight.
Shurtleff made his pitch to Justice Department officials during a meeting early Wednesday in Washington, D.C., and left optimistic.
"I was blown away," he said. "What I was very pleased to see is they are doing their due diligence on this thing. I didn't get that feeling initially."
No formal investigation or lawsuit is expected for some time, if Justice decided to participate at all. But the meeting marked a major milestone in Shurlteff's effort to put a case together against the Bowl Championship Series, which determines what teams play in the national championship using a combination of human polls and computer rankings.
Shurtleff thinks he is doing a good thing by presenting this to the Justice Department before a big game between two non-BCS team, but he may have wanted to wait until near the end of the season if it becomes clear that an undefeated non-BCS team will not have a chance to play for the title game. He should be even more aggressive if a one-loss Alabama team is the one that is jumping over the undefeated non-BCS team.
Whenever a lawsuit is mentioned, BCS
puppet Executive Director Bill Hancock comes out with a reason why this is a bad idea.
"It's hard to imagine a bigger waste of taxpayer money than to involve the government in college football, especially when experts believe a lawsuit is certain to be lost," he said. "A recent anti-trust case in men's tennis cost more than $10 million. Is that how the people of Utah want their tax dollars spent?"
What 'experts' say this is a lost cause? The BCS is not open to all leagues and the pay is not even close to being equal or fair in revenue sharing. Access has been loosened, but that could be threatened again if the Big East champ is unranked while the TCU/Utah loser could be sitting around the top 10.
Mark Shurtleff could have egg all over his face with this statement:
"There is no scenario whatsoever where it can happen under the current regime," he said. "It can not happen."
He should be hoping for Boise State and the TCU/Utah winner to be shut out of the BCS title game to give his case some legs. This has been your annual congressman attempting to sue the BCS update.