Does the BCS comply with the law?

I believe it will address a number of important issues, not the least of which is the legality of the Bowl Championship Series.

Well, so would it not be safe to say that a reasonable case can be made under both the per se and rule-of-reason analysis that there is a violation here?

I believe there are real antitrust issues here that are not going to be solved unless the folks at BCS start to work to resolve these matters.

I have to say I am having a lot of troubles with the BCS approach because... there is kind of an arrogance there that I see that just should not be there.

These disadvantages are not the result of fair competition, but of the inherent structural inequities of the BCS system.

The law is that competition, and not a group of self-designated competitors who should be competing, makes the rules.

Not if you have a playoff system.

As a result, the team that finished at the bottom of the PAC 10, which did not win a single game last year, was guaranteed before the season even started to receive more BCS revenues than the University of Utah.

Once they do that, then you have to comply.

The BCS proponents have claimed that the current BCS system, including the distribution of BCS revenues and the system for awarding BCS bids, is required by the marketplace.

No, but they can decide what is right and wrong.

However, last year both the PAC 10 and the Mountain West had exactly one team qualify for a BCS game.

That is a long time away.

If you have a----

You tell Osborne I want a University of Utah game.

The BCS continues to place nearly half of all the schools in college football at a competitive and, perhaps more importantly, a financial disadvantage.

We are sick of it, to be honest with you.