The BCS, the Opponant Utah doesn't need.

Mike Sorensen at DesNews seems to believe the BCS needs to be upheld. He suggests that Utah should be rooting for a lower ranked BCS conference champion in whichever game it plays in. I assume this is because he holds to the BCS motto that non-BCS teams are inferior and they have no right and therefore deserve no possibility to compete for the national title. The BCS may very well sack Utah in this position again, but Utah shouldn't hope for this scenario.

In 2004, Utah was made to play Pitt (a team that should have been in the Armed Forces Bowl or the Poinsettia Bowl). Utah won that trip to the BCS soundly, but that win was highly discreditable by the BCS, elitist coaches and sports writers. In that sense Utah's 2004 BCS bust wasn't much of a bust in at all -- more like a toe in the door. Personally I think this is why the BCS gave Utah Pitt in 2004 -- a Utah win would be discreditable, and a Utah loss would solidify the BCS' legitimacy.

The BCS is like sports' apartheid. In order to defeat this discriminatory system, Utah, BSU, and other teams that get chances to play in the BCS need to defeat credible foes. Utah is to second highest ranked team in the polls. They should, if not play in the title game, at least be allowed a playoff with other teams (BSU should be included) in contention for the title game. Only by playing and defeating teams in higher echelons of the BCS can the BCS be truly busted.