all hail the BCS.

Without it, we wouldn't have half as much to talk about it when it came to college football.

After two highly entertaining Big East Thursday-nighters (especially that Louisville-Rutgers game), the college football "experts" on ESPN and everywhere else have settled into the CW that even if Rutgers stays undefeated, they have no business in the championship game.

Fine, I get that. Rutgers has a weak schedule, compared to Louisville, and they still have West Virginia on their schedule in two weeks.. But they should be talked about as a contender and allowed to make a case. Like most casual college football fans (didn't go to a D-I school, I root for teams in places I've lived, mostly -- CU being my open secret, this Buffs' season just hurts me) , I'd be the perfect advocate for a playoff system, because this system makes no sense.

However, outside of the obvious money reason, there are two actual reasons to not go to a playoff system in Div. I-A college ball:
1) There's something oddly inspiring and comforting about watching a sport where, as a team, you'd better not lose more than one game if you want a shot at being called the champion. You'd better play strong teams and beat them.
2) Half the fun of college football now is the vehement arguments over seeding positions in the BCS. Even haters like yours truly enjoy the vagueness of the standards required to make a dent when it becomes clear that only one power team is going to make it to the Fiesta Bowl undefeated this year.

Also -- Boise State may make a BCS bowl this year, which seems to give some folks the urge to retch, but it's not like Texas has played anyone better in their conference (at least they schedule Ohio State). The Big 12, collectively, has licked balls since Nebraska's Tom Osbourne decided to take his play-calling skills to Congress (although they are getting better, goddamnit, with a former Raider coach at the helm, of all things). There's always been one power team since, and Texas has filled the void.