At this point, USC is obviously in control and all they have to do is beat UCLA.  But, let's look at this from last weeks' standings.  Last week at this time Michigan was still ranked second in both the BCS and AP polls after their loss to Ohio State (and just barely behind USC in the Media poll).  The voters in the human polls are supposed to vote based on who they believe to be the best team.  The voters obviously were still convinced that Michigan was still the second best team in the country.  Back in the good ol' days before the BCS (it's sad that a 22-year-old can use that phrase), this would not have caused much of a problem because the bowls each team would be playing in would already be determined for the most part based on conference standing.  (An interesting note: if the title game does end up as USC vs. Ohio St.  it will be the exact same matchup that would have resulted without the BCS--the Big 10 champ used to play the Pac 10 champ in the Rose Bowl every year)

Where we run into a problem is that the bowls are no longer determined by conference standing.  While the AP and Media voters continue to vote based on who they believe to be the best team, the BCS could be setting up a game between Ohio State and Michigan that has already been played.  We know Ohio State is better. Anyone who watched that game knows that the skill level between the two teams was greater than the three point victory would suggest.

It makes sense why the voters would vote based on skill, but the BCS is not set up for that.  Unfortunately, the voters are being pushed into a corner where they will have to vote for BCS matchups.  Instead of a voter considering who the best team is, they are going to think of what matchup they would like to see in the National Championship.  Does anyone else remember a few weeks ago when Cal was ranked ahead of Tennessee even though Tennessee demolished Cal in the season-opener?

The point to all of this is to show that this BCS system and the polls (both AP and Media), are not compatible.  Obviously I would like to see a playoff system, but the schools are too money-hungry to let that happen.  What I see as the only solution is for the two systems, the BCS computers and the human polls, to find a common ground in how to rate teams.  Do they reat teams based on skill or on matchups?  Either way people will be upset, but they need to choose one way.

Oh, and by the way, people shouldn't assume that a playoff system is the cure for controversy in college football.  If there is a selection committee, small schools will complain about not getting enough credit.  If it is based on polls like it is now, there will be problems just like there are now.  If it is based on winning a conference, there will be large schools who finish second in their conference (like Michigan or the loser of the upcoming SEC title game) who are clearly better than some of the mid-majors, but wouldn't be invited to the tournament at all.  No matter what there will be controversy, so people should just accept it instead of pushing for another flawed system that won't provide athletic departments with enough money to contribute to their schools academic pursuit of developing true student-athletes (insert sarcasm here).

As always, comments, critiques and suggested topics are welcome by replying here or by emailing me at KONsports@yahoo.com.