So far all Utah's President is talking about is the Mountain West's success "the last two years".  And this justifies the inclusion of Sun Belt teams, howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww?

LOL antitrust lawyer "the BCS has nothing to do with amateurism or education".  Neither does major college sports!  Weak.

"The BCS excludes competition" Wrong.  The BCS is an economic venture that relies on economically compelling matchups to generate the revenues it does.  Sponsors aren't going to fork over anywhere near as much money if they risk getting saddled with games involving non-lucrative teams.  This is the market at work.

Nebraska President Harvey Perlman made a great point about how despite Nebraska's limitations, it has built a successful (financially and athletically) football and overall athletic program.  They've done it through hard work and he doesn not feel the BCS in any way hampers any other program from ascending similarly.  In addition, the BCS has actually opened up certain bowl games to programs that had never had such access before, providing them national exposure before unknown.

Second antitrust lawyer --- the antitrust statutes are set up not to protect the programs, but the consumers.  College football consumers are not harmed by the BCS (duh).

Revenue distribution is not the concern of antitrust, but output.

Irony of antitrust victory is that it would actually destroy any opportunity for a playoff since championships rely upon agreements between the conferences and the playoff would be much more restrictive than the current BCS setup.

Nebraska Prez --- in discussing with TV, advertisers etc. in mentioning the other five conferences, the BCS revenues would not increase.

Aaaaand first appearance of whining about VaTech/Cincinnati game, perhaps the worst BCS matchup and a severe outlier.  In that scenario yes, Boise State vs. whoever does better financially but thats the outlier compared to even say, something loathed like USC/Illinois.

Senator Hatch just made some strange argument that the BCS championship game accepting the end of season No. 1 and No. 2 teams somehow disqualifies many teams before the season.  The only thing that disqualifies teams from achieving that is performance, a process of elimination that happens through the regular season.

Utah President criticizing polling, saying some voters admitting never having seen a Mountain West team play.  Uhhhh, ok, so kick those people out of the polls, let people like me be a voter.  Next!

Now saying he doesn't know what more Utah could have done last year.  For starters, not escape Michigan, TCU and Oregon State by the skin of their teeth.  The same standard worked against powerhouse USC last year who failed to gain traction in the polls not simply because they lost to Oregon State but because they had disastrous halves against Stanford and ASU, and did little against California and Arizona offensively in victory.  Utah is not immune from having to face nationwide judgment for their overall performance, and win-loss record is not the bottom line, not when we have 120 programs and no process for even scheduling.

Senator Hatch says state universities were created so that students had the opportunity to attend college.  YES!  And in college football every school has the opportunity to participate in the regular season.  It is regular season and program performance (financially, record, on-field play) that guides their postseason opportunities.  The postseason is a reward, not a right.  If we are to say the BCS is exclusionary, so is the entire bowl construct, since not everyone is eligible to participate.

Look, bottom line is we have 120 programs in college football's upper division.  So long as we stick with such a high number, any notion of equitable participation is necessarily greatly prohibitive.

Senator Hatch is making another strange point about the BCS being a monopoly.  It is but one agreement, there is no prohibition against the Mountain West, Western Athletic Conference etc. creating their own agreement similar to the BCS.  Additionally, those programs are no longer excluded.  On top of that, the current setup is basically welfare to the smaller conferences, who receive monies regardless of whether they qualify to participate.  Those are monies they would unlikely earn on their own and in fact are diverting funds that otherwise rightfully should go to the major conferences as reward for their drawing power.