In the late 2000s, public and political debate around the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) intensified, with the Mountain West Conference questioning whether the system unfairly favored larger conferences. Despite this criticism, some observers argued that the BCS had actually done more than any prior system to elevate mid-major programs into the national spotlight. Much of that debate centered on the role of the major BCS conferences, whose influence shaped access to high-profile postseason opportunities.
Between 2004 and 2009, four non-automatic qualifying teams — Utah (2005 Fiesta, 2009 Sugar), Boise State (2007 Fiesta), and Hawaii (2008 Sugar) — earned BCS bowl invitations, a remarkable shift compared to previous decades. From 1950 to 2003, only a handful of mid-major schools had appeared in major postseason games with comparable prestige. These breakthroughs were directly tied to the BCS eligibility rules for non-AQ teams, which outlined the specific criteria allowing programs like Utah, Boise State, and Hawaii to qualify for BCS bowls.
Congressional Hearings and Antitrust Claims
In 2009, the Mountain West Conference urged the U.S. Congress to investigate the BCS on possible antitrust grounds, claiming the system limited competitive access. Congressional hearings were convened, with Utah Senator Orrin Hatch among the most vocal critics. Attendance at these hearings, however, was sparse — with many lawmakers treating the issue as symbolic rather than actionable.
At the center of the debate was whether the BCS structure violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Supporters of the system argued it did not — pointing out that the BCS had increased exposure and financial rewards for smaller programs. In the previous season alone, non-automatic qualifying conferences had shared $19.3 million in BCS-related revenue.
The Utah Effect and the ESPN Deal
A turning point came after Utah’s upset win over Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl, which capped an undefeated season and reignited criticism of the BCS. Around the same time, all 11 Division I-A conferences had voted to approve a new multi-year BCS television agreement with ESPN, but the Mountain West hesitated to finalize its signature following Utah’s win — citing ongoing concerns about fairness and access.
Under the proposed deal, conferences had until Thursday of that week to sign on. Failure to do so would mean exclusion from future BCS participation and revenue sharing. Bill Hancock, then the BCS spokesman, stated that ESPN’s financial terms would remain unchanged whether or not the Mountain West joined.
The Broader Context
While critics labeled the BCS as an exclusive system, others maintained that it had expanded opportunities for mid-major programs more than the traditional bowl framework ever had. Historically, before the BCS’s creation in 1998, postseason matchups were determined largely by regional bowl contracts, leaving most smaller conferences without access to high-profile games.
Advocates of the BCS argued that abolishing the system would not necessarily lead to a playoff, since university presidents at the time opposed such a format. Instead, they suggested, college football might revert to its earlier model — one that gave mid-major programs even fewer chances to compete for national recognition.In this light, the BCS was portrayed not as an adversary, but as a complicated ally to conferences outside the traditional power structure — offering a limited, but unprecedented, pathway to national prominence.
