Author: Jesse

Perhaps fittingly, in the last game of the first half of Big 12 Conference play, Utah coach Craig Smith faced off against another head coach getting his first taste of Big 12 action this season.

Steve Lutz and the Oklahoma State Cowboys got the better of Smith and the Runnin’ Utes on Saturday afternoon, beating Utah 81-72 at Gallagher-Iba Arena in Stillwater, Oklahoma.

This gave the two schools a split of a pair of games during the first half of the conference schedule. Going into the midway point, the Utes are 12-9 overall and 4-6 in Big 12 action, while the Cowboys, under first-year coach Lutz, are 11-10 and 3-7, respectively.

The Utes, admittedly, missed a solid chance to pull even in league play after an 0-3 start. They were a slight favorite on the road, a rarity in the conference, especially for teams like Utah, who was picked to finish last in the Big 12 this season.

That leaves disappointment in Utah’s program following Saturday’s outcome, though Smith, in his own way, was able to reflect on a loss while focusing on how a determined, focused approach could pay dividends.

“We were picked 16th out of 16. Now, being a part of it halfway through, we have a better feel for what you need to have to really climb to where you want to go,” Smith told reporters after Saturday’s game.

“I’m sure Steve has seen the same thing, and I’ve certainly seen it. We have some really good things, but there’s some things that we have to add if we’re going to do what we need to do as we move forward.”

Going into the second half of conference play, which begins with a game against last-place Colorado on Wednesday (7 p.m. MST, ESPN+), the Utes find themselves tied with three other schools (UCF, TCU and Kansas State) at 4-6 in the conference standings.

They all sit one game behind eighth-place West Virginia.

In the Big 12 basketball tournament in Kansas City, which runs March 11-15, the league’s bottom eight schools will be forced to play in the first round.

Teams seeded five through eight earn a bye to the second round, while teams one through four have a bye until the quarterfinals.

While Utah has shown through the first half of league play it is well behind the upper echelon of the Big 12 programs, there’s still that optimism that the Utes could — in theory — earn a first-round bye if they can grab that eighth spot in the league standings.

It’s a slim margin of hope at this point for a team two games under .500, but it also reflects the uncertainty that surrounds the Big 12 for every team that finds itself outside the upper crust of schools like Houston, Iowa State, Arizona and Texas Tech.

“I love it. I think it’s an awesome league,” said Smith, who led the Utes through their final three years in the Pac-12 Conference. “The brand of basketball, I love the physicality of it. I love the athleticism of it, the skill level of it.

“Lots of well-coached teams, that’s just the whole thing. Great venues, being on the road, venues that are really hard, and you feel the presence at certain places. It’s awesome.”

The reality is, Utah — a once-proud program that hasn’t played in the NCAA tournament since 2016 — is living through the hard times of learning how “to show up every day” in the Big 12, often considered one of the best two or three leagues in the college game.

That’s been reflected in the number of blowouts Utah sustained during the first half of league play. In that disastrous start, the Utes lost three straight by an average of 25.3 points per game.

Then came a three-game winning streak, which began with the aforementioned victory over Oklahoma State when it visited Salt Lake City.

The Utes followed that with a victory at TCU — thus far their only true road win of the season — and a home victory over rival BYU in overtime.

“I’m a big believer you can talk the talk all you want, but you got to go walk the walk, and actions speak louder than words,” Smith said.

When exactly progress may or may not pay off for Utah is difficult to tell, especially in the now 16-team Big 12, which plays a 20-game schedule in 10 weeks.

There are few times to catch a breather during the conference stretch, and the Utes are also headed into the tougher half of their conference schedule, according to national metrics.

Torvik rates Utah as having faced the 11th-toughest schedule in Big 12 play so far, and over the next half, the Utes will face the ninth-toughest.

That may not seem like a significant change, but KenPom helps paint the picture of what lies ahead for Utah. Of the Utes’ final 10 games, KenPom has Utah as the favorite in four of them.

Their most favorable odds for a win are a 78% probability of beating Colorado at home on Wednesday. After that, in two of the other three games Utah is favored, the Utes are a narrow favorite over Arizona State (53%) and West Virginia (52%).

In its five remaining road matchups, the highest probability for Utah to win is 27% at UCF, according to KenPom. By those numbers, it’s fair to assess that things could get tougher in the back half of the schedule — ergo, victories could be even more difficult to come by.

For Smith, he’s embracing the challenge of rolling up his sleeves and getting to work, a mentality he’s lived in his coaching career that’s included head-coaching stops at Maysville State, South Dakota and Utah State before landing at the U.

“It’s not for the meek. You better have a strong backbone, and you better have a strong spirit, and you gotta have the fine line of learning right through disappointment and learning through victory,” Smith said of the Big 12 grind.

Part of that learning process, Smith said, is figuring out how to handle both prosperity and failures.

“You’ve gotta be able to handle prosperity. I think that’s the thing that people don’t talk about enough. I saw this quote a long time ago — for every 100 men that can handle failure, only one can handle success, and I really believe that,” Smith said.

A couple weeks ago, things were looking good, as Utah was on a three-game winning streak and had established a presence as a team willing to be physical in the post and run its offense through the paint.

“When things are going good, it’s easy to forget why it’s going good, and (be like), ‘Oh, we got this, so you gotta be able to handle prosperity, but then you gotta also be able to handle failure. Sometimes when you get down, it’s either easy to feel the loser’s limp, it’s easy to feel sorry for yourself, and you gotta respond,” Smith said.

Since that three-game winning streak, Utah has lost three of its last four, with the setback to Oklahoma State the only conference game thus far that the Utes have lost by single digits.

That loss is arguably also the most discouraging — after all, the majority of Utah’s losses thus far have come against tough teams in No. 6 Houston, No. 3 Iowa State, Texas Tech (which just beat Houston in overtime) and two against perennial conference power Baylor.

The key, Smith reiterated, is that Utah can’t let losses and disappointments of the past impact potential future growth.

“With 20 games in 10 weeks, you learn and it’s on to the next and if you’re still worried about a tough loss or you’re still celebrating a big win, it’s probably not going to be very good for you the next game so you’ve got to be able to learn, but you’ve got to have amnesia,” he said.

That’s the reality of Big 12 play — one that Utah is halfway through in its inaugural season, and one in which Smith is unabashed in desiring to be better while also understanding the adversity his team will face in the next five weeks, plus the conference tournament.

“It’s a heck of a league. So pumped to be a part of it,” Smith said. “With the league, just like we’re learning, right?”

Superlatives from Utah’s first half of Big 12 play

Best win — 73-72 vs. BYU, Jan. 18. The Utes rallied from an eight-point second half deficit and used a physical presence inside to take the fight to the Cougars.

Ezra Ausar had 21 points, while guys like Hunter Erickson and Keanu Dawes made clutch plays at critical moments as Utah beat BYU for the second straight time.

This victory looks even better, considering BYU has won four straight since.

Worst loss — 70-36 at Houston, Jan. 22. While the Cougars are a headache for everyone they face and create issues across the board, it’s the way the situation unfolded that was discouraging.

Just four days after Utah had beaten BYU, the Utes went to Houston and were manhandled by a suffocating Cougars defense and rarely showed much fight. It resulted in the lowest-scoring game for Utah in more than a decade.

Best development — Ezra Ausar coming into his own. Ausar, the East Carolina transfer, had shown flashes of his potential to take over the paint during nonconference play.

In league action, he’s started to be even more assertive overall, though there’s still consistency needed from the closest thing the Utes have to a go-to player.

Ausar has averaged 15 points over the last five games, and that even accounts for a 1-point game against Houston.

Biggest issue – Turnovers. While Utah has defensive troubles keeping up in the Big 12, turnovers have been especially problematic.

The Utes are worst in the league in turnover margin at minus-6.2, well behind the second-worst team (Colorado) at minus-4.4. Utah is giving up 14.6 turnovers a game, and teams have consistently turned those takeaways into points.

What lies ahead — The Utes will play five home games and five road games over the next five weeks. That slate includes a road game at Arizona, two contests against previously ranked West Virginia, and the highlight — a home game against No. 11 Kansas on Feb. 15, as well as a road game at BYU to finish the regular season.

New parents are careful who they invite into the hospital room after a delivery. Doctors and nurses have permission to enter. Friends and family, too. But what about police officers, for-profit research companies and the Pentagon?

Under state law, all of these third parties have backdoor access to the blood of every Utah child. The intrusion starts within 48 hours after birth, when maternity ward workers prick an infant’s heel to collect blood for laboratory testing.

The mandatory screening allows for early detection of rare conditions like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. This testing is uncontroversial. All states do it — and the results no doubt save lives.

But afterward, rather than destroy the paper cards used to collect bloodspots, Utah keeps the samples without telling parents, creating a secretive database with potentially millions of entries.

Parents cannot opt out. Once the Utah Department of Health receives the paper cards, state law says the blood becomes the property of the state. If parents refuse to participate, they can face charges of medical neglect.

Utah currently keeps the blood for seven years. But information from the paper cards remains on file for 22 years. The state does not say precisely what happens during this period, but the potential for abuse is high.

Plaintiffs caught Texas officials turning over DNA data to the Pentagon for a national registry. Michigan was selling newborn blood for research. So was Minnesota. Court rulings forced all three of these states to stop.

More recently, New Jersey was caught turning over infant blood samples to police agencies without a warrant, leading to criminal charges for at least one father. Our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, represents New Jersey parents in a class-action lawsuit to stop the abuse.

Erica Jedynak and another New Jersey mom are leading the fight. Jedynak says she was blindsided when she learned the state was keeping her son’s blood for unknown purposes.

“There is something morally not right that the government would be tracking him or almost assuming the guilt of babies,” she says. “I have to protect him from what appears to be a very creepy database.”

The Constitution provides ammunition in her fight. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. If states want to keep blood in a government database, it can. But first, the state needs a warrant or parental consent.

The first option is a nonstarter. No judge would sign off when no crime has occurred. This just leaves consent. To satisfy the Constitution, this consent must be voluntary, informed and obtained before a state retains blood.

Some jurisdictions respect parental rights in this way. Indiana, for example, asks parents whether it can retain their children’s bloodspots for specific medical research purposes. If parents decline, their child’s bloodspot is destroyed.

Delaware and South Dakota enforce similar policies. But holdouts, including Utah and New Jersey, remain. In both states, the government has taken the choice about retention away from parents, claiming the government should automatically keep the blood of every child in a state-run facility.

Technically, New Jersey parents can opt out by asking the state to destroy the bloodspot. Utah previously allowed this, but the state no longer accepts requests for destruction because it says the policy is “undergoing legal review.”

Courts in other states have rejected the “opt-out” model. As a Michigan judge explains: “The silence of (parents) might well have been the product of the opacity of the system, the infants’ nascent existence in the world, or the result of the overwhelmed state of their new parents.”

In other words, parents cannot opt out of something they do not know exists.

Utah must fix its unconstitutional retention program. Blood belongs to the individual, not the state.

The Clippers also ship out a future second-round draft pick and cash in a deal that puts them below the luxury tax with an eye potentially toward the trade deadline.

Originally Published: February 1, 2025 at 2:59 PM PST

The Utah Legislature should refrain from “reforming” Utah’s excellent judicial selection and retention system.

Our “merit-based” system was adopted in 1985, the culmination of a long process begun in 1945 to establish a selection system devoid of partisan influence. Our Constitution requires selection of judges be “based solely upon consideration of fitness for office without regard to any partisan political consideration.” A nominating commission winnows applications and forwards a short list to the governor, who selects the final candidate, which the Senate must confirm.

The application process is robust. Applicants must not only give their education and work history but also provide judicial and attorney references — including lawyers who have been adverse to the applicant, and for judge applicants, attorneys who have appeared before them. After screening, the commission interviews applicants. Before certifying the list of nominees to the governor, the commission publishes the names for public comment and may remove a name if the commission receives new information that the applicant is unfit to serve as a judge.

Finally, all judges stand for retention election after a number of years. Before that retention election, there is a robust performance review conducted by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, or JPEC. JPEC surveys lawyers, court staff and jurors; gathers data regarding judicial education, time standards and discipline; accepts public comments; and conducts courtroom observations. Judges are rated on a five-point scale regarding legal ability, integrity and temperament, administrative skills and procedural fairness, and a ranking of 3.6 or higher is required to meet the standards for retention. Commissioners use a “blind” evaluation process in reviewing materials and voting on whether each judge has met the standards for retention. All this material is made available to the public prior to a retention election. Judges may decide not to stand for retention election after they have reviewed their performance evaluations and JPEC’s recommendation.

Utah’s system of selection, review and retention is a national model. Professor Jordan Singer, consultant for the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, states:

“The Utah Legislature wisely committed to a comprehensive judicial performance evaluation program. That program is a national leader today, helping Utah’s judges improve on the bench and helping Utah’s citizens maintain the accountability of their judiciary. The JPEC is an outstanding model of thoughtfulness, balance, and vigilance in the service of the broader public. Utah has a remarkably effective and trustworthy system for selecting, training, and maintaining the accountability of its judges.”

Forty years ago, I moved to Utah to oversee the University of Utah College of Law internship program, which I did for over three decades. Each semester, I received multiple reports from our students about their experiences and what they were learning. They were uniformly impressed that their judges were intelligent, hardworking, thoughtful and ethical, and came away from their internships with high respect for the jurists. Judges also made presentations to classes I taught. I was able to observe our judiciary from a unique perspective and was consistently favorably impressed by the high quality of our Utah judiciary.

Moving to an elected system would jettison all the merit-focused work of nonpartisan nominating commissions. It might mean fewer excellent people would be able to mount a campaign. It would surely require that funds be raised and time be spent campaigning, taking judges away from their central job. It would create ethical challenges, as judges could be asked to hear cases brought by companies or law firms who had contributed to their campaigns. Judges would have little incentive to participate in the judicial performance evaluation process, since their retention would be based in politics, not an objective assessment of their performance. Presumably judges would campaign on political positions thought to appeal to the public. But since the vast bulk of a judge’s or a justice’s work is not “political” in the traditional sense, such a system would risk reducing the quality of the judiciary for the possibility that more judges would have the “right” political views. This would be a step in the wrong direction.

The Utah Legislature should not try to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

Clayton Keller had two assists while Nick Schmaltz and Alex Kerfoot scored for Utah (21-21-9), which has now lost four games in a row (0-2-2). Karel Vejmelka made 20 saves.

“It’s frustrating for sure,” said Keller. “I think we’ve talked about it. We’ve had the right mindset. We’ve just got to keep going, learn from it. Having confidence, believing you can make the play in the [third period]. I think that’s the next step.”

“Today we had seven scoring chances in the third period,” said Utah head coach Andre Tourigny. “We need to finish more. We need to find ways to take quality shots. We need to find ways to get on the rebound and hit nets and stuff like that. But there’s stuff we can do better.”

Schmaltz opened the scoring on the power play 41 seconds into the second period, as he took a pass from Barrett Hayton and beat Tarasov glove side to give Utah a 1-0 lead.

Kerfoot made it 2-0 Utah 29 seconds into the third period as he put in the rebound off a shot from John Marino.

“I think that last game we took a step, this game was all right,” said Kerfoot. “They got a couple bounces, and then that put us on our heels a bit, but we were still pushing. We controlled the majority of the game. We’ve got to find a way to get two points.”

Marchenko scored at 6:25 to cut the lead to 2-1, firing in a loose puck in the slot for the goal.

The sponsor of the school “reallocation/strategic reinvestment” legislation that’s gleaned attention for months calls Utah’s system of public college and universities “a huge blessing” to the state’s students and citizens.

But there’s room for improvement.

During her presentation Friday to the House Education Committee, Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton, said HB265 asks a fundamental question: “How do we make a good system better.”

In the end, the bill prompted fairly limited debate from committee members and the public. By majority vote, the committee passed along the bill for an eventual vote on the House floor.

Friday’s successful presentation may have moved at a speedy clip, but Peterson’s Higher Education Strategic Reinvestment bill evolved slowly.

There were “months and months” of conversation and collaborations between lawmakers, the state’s higher education leaders and institution presidents, noted Peterson.

A few key developments in recent years were catalysts for HB265.

First, said Peterson, the state’s higher education budgets — including tuition and state appropriations — have almost doubled over the past decade.

The student population over the same period did not experience commensurate growth. Meanwhile, administrative costs at Utah’s colleges have jumped.

“We’re going to give (school presidents) the flexibility to make sure this matches their campus and their role and mission within our system.”

—  Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Clinton

Given those trends, Peterson and other lawmakers asked the school presidents and the state’s higher education leaders to examine two guiding questions:

First, are the programs in the state’s higher education system still meeting the needs of both students and the state?

And second, are there opportunities to cut some administrative costs and low-performing programs — and then reinvest those savings in programs that may have high capacity, long waiting lists or high industry demand in Utah.

Strategic reinvestment

HB265 begins by establishing a strategic reinvestment fund.

The state’s base budget approved by the House earlier this week removed $60 million from the combined budgets of Utah’s eight degree-granting colleges and universities. As expected, the amount “cut” from each institution’s state appropriation was different — a nod, in part, to each school’s unique size and mission.

The state’s flagship school, the University of Utah, for example, had $19.5 million pulled from its budget. The regional Southern Utah University had $3.1 million pulled. And the state’s largest two-year institution, Salt Lake Community College, had $5.2 million pulled.

But the dollars cut from each school’s budget are not necessarily lost.

The fiscal amount pulled from each school’s budget, explained Peterson, remains earmarked for that school “with the opportunity for them to have all those funds back as they work through a (reallocation) process.”

The appropriation dollars pulled from the schools’ budgets were moved to Utah Board of Higher Education, where it will go through an iterative process as each college or university develops their respective strategic reinvestment plans.

The institutions will then bring those plans to the board and then the Legislature to have those funds reallocated.

Peterson expects the institutions to begin presenting their plans to the board in July for approval, before moving them on to the Legislature.

“We’ll see those plans in higher education appropriations in August, according to the bill, and then the Executive Appropriations Committee will have a chance to review those and then release the funds back to the institutions for them to execute on those plans.”

Reallocation criteria

As institutions begin building their respective reallocation plans, they will evaluate factors such as enrollment, high-demand programs and job outcomes of graduates of specific programs “and then decide where they need to invest more — and where they don’t,” said Peterson.

The schools will also be looking at institutional structures and inefficiencies — seeking opportunities to, say, combine colleges or administrative positions.

“We’re going to give (school presidents) the flexibility to make sure this matches their campus and their role and mission within our system,” assured Peterson.

The second part of HB265 limits bachelor’s degrees to no more than 120 credit hours — with an exception that they can go up to 126 with board approval if they require accreditation or licensing.

Peterson noted that some degree programs have started to creep up to 140 credit hours.

The bill also tasks the Legislature to look at performance funding.

The state already has a uniform performance model — but the same model is used for every institution.

“It’s time for us to have a conversation about those performance metrics and really think thoughtfully about what we want each of these colleges and universities to do within our system and how we reward them — especially for completions of students and getting students through their programs,” said Peterson.

Ensuring higher ed’s high ROI

During Friday’s committee meeting, Utah’s commissioner of higher education, Geoffrey Landward saluted the Legislature and its ongoing investment in the state’s higher education system.

“We also recognize, as a system, that we don’t have unlimited resources for higher education, and we bear a significant stewardship as a board for these resources,” said Landward.

“Every dollar appropriated to higher education we recognize is $1 that’s not being appropriated to K-12 or social services or infrastructure,” he said. ”Knowing that, and feeling the weight of that responsibility, means that we have to ensure that every single dollar that is invested in higher education, whether that’s from the legislature or the students who are paying tuition, provides significant value to the students and to the state.”

Landward noted that the budget reallocations outlined in HB265 allow for a reasonable reallocation approach, “not catastrophic adjustments.”

The bill also provides institution presidents with the discretion that they need to craft a reinvestment plan within a matrix of several criteria — rather than a single formulaic approach.

There are also strategic allowances for nuances, such as the demand for durable skills that can come from general education and the liberal arts.

The bill also allows for a “teach out” period where students who are already enrolled in a degree program won’t be impacted by possible program cuts.

“We will continue our work as a system,” Landward concluded, “to try and ensure that the students who attend our institutions — and the taxpayers who support our institutions — are getting the very best and highest value.”