'); } -->
I'll take Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, at his written word: He believes the Bowl Championship Series reduces competition and "intentionally and explicitly favors certain participants," thus running foul of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as he wrote in a Sports Illustrated essay.
That's why Hatch pushed for Tuesday's Senate subcommittee hearing on the BCS. It probably also has something to do with keeping Utah and BYU fans - his constituents - happy.
Hatch writes "almost anything would be better than what we have now."
On this point, he's wrong.
There is a worse alternative and it is the old bowl system. Remember that one where bowl games picked teams before the end of November and the Rose Bowl always matched the Pac-10 champ against the Big Ten champ and split national championships? That's worse.
And a possibility. As Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, the chairman of the BCS' Presidential Oversight Committee, told the Nebraska StatePaper: "The alternative is not a playoff. The alternative is to go back to the system we had. That's fine. Many of us would not think that's a bad outcome."
The BCS, like it or not, has improved access to premier bowl games for Boise State, Hawaii, and Utah and other "mid-major programs." Can you imagine a scenario where the Broncos could play in the Fiesta Bowl under the old bowl system? I can't either.
Sure, the BCS can be improved. It should be. It has been. It will be in the future.
Just not by grandstanding politicians - however well-meaning - trying to score points with the folks back home.
Sports columnist Brian Murphy can be reached at 377-6444 or bmurphy@idahostatesman.com
Story Comments
We welcome comments but ask that you remain on topic. Some comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. Comments that are profane, personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate or are off topic are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Do not flag comments merely because you disagree with the comment.