To the surprise of absolutely no one, Orrin Hatch wasn’t satisfied with Bill Hancock’s response to his BCS inquiry.
“Today, the BCS simply confirmed what most fans of college football have known for some time, that the BCS system is biased, secretive and harmful to schools and competitors,” Hatch said in a statement.
“I agree that university presidents and conference commissioners should be able to make the proper decisions regarding college football,” Hatch said. “The problem is that the small number of privileged schools that participate in the closed system have been unwilling to provide students, athletes and fans with what they deserve a fair, unbiased system like the kind they have in literally every other NCAA sport. No one wants to see Congress get involved here, including me. But if this response is any indication, there may not be any other option.”
Ooh, a threat! Whatever will they do?
Probably keep slyly passing threatening innuendos of their own through their buddies in the media.
… The smart people I know who are handicapping this thing tell me that if expansion comes, the odds are better that the conferences will go back to the traditional bowl structure (Big Ten, Pac-10 in the Rose, SEC in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, etc.) than forming any kind of playoff.
Hatch’s real problem is that he can’t legislate us into having to watch Utah football, which is a little lacking in viewership these days.
… Which brings us to the local schools. What are the odds that Utah or BYU would be invited to join, say, the Pac-10 or the Big 12?
Based purely on population — more specifically, on TV sets — neither school is particularly attractive as a primary target. The Salt Lake market (which includes all of Utah and parts of Idaho, Wyoming and Nevada) has grown. And moved up the rankings — we’re now No. 31.
But the estimated 944,060 TV-equipped homes here constitute only .822 percent of the national total. That doesn’t make a Utah-based school particularly attractive.
That’s what college football socialism is for.