(01-16-2019 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 04:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The current access only exists because the power structure at the time feared the justice department was going to investigate the BCS for anti-trust issues. The BCS immediately added Utah and added non-power access to blunt that move. So it would appear the power structure has some serious concerns about their vulnerability from that type of attack. A law suit filed by non-power schools essentially does the same thing through via the civil courts.

The BCS changed its formula in 2004 because of Senator Orrin Hatch. Hatch mattered because he was a powerful senator, the judiciary committee chair, with the ability to possibly *change anti-trust law* to make the BCS unlawful. It wasn't a judge the BCS was afraid of, it was a politician.

And even that power can change. E.g, in 2009, after unbeaten Utah was passed over for the BCS title game, Hatch raised another stink about the BCS, but this time things were different - there was a democrat in the White House who could not be counted on to sign a GOP-inspired bill, and Hatch was now in the Senate minority, and the majority chairman made it clear he had little interest in what Hatch wanted to do. So it went nowhere and the BCS didn't change anything then.

Since the formula was changed in 2004 - and a very mild change it was, as it did not even guarantee non-AQ a spot in a BCS bowl, much less the BCS title game - there hasn't been any threat to the structure of the post season from Congress.

I don't think its entirely a coincidence that Utah got a P5 spot around that same time.

And, did he drop it when Utah joined a P5 conference? Was the Anti-Trust threat just a means to get Utah to a higher level? Haven't heard much, if anything, since then.