An unappealing BCS slate should prompt change

Coordinator Mike Slive and the BCS are faced with a Nos. 1 and 2 matchup that in the eyes of many, may not determine who's the nation's best. AP

RELATED • REACT: Did the BCS get it right this time? • Complete 2007-08 bowl schedule

MAILBAG Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Just to be clear, the BCS was not responsible for the unprecedented rash of medioc ... er, parity, around the country this season.

The BCS did not choke away a national title berth against a four-touchdown underdog the last night of the season. The BCS did not lose to Oklahoma, rise all the way up to No. 1 -- then lose to the Sooners again.

The BCS did not lose on its own home field to Stanford. Or Arkansas. Or South Carolina. Or Illinois.

The BCS did not lose 48-7 in its showcase non-conference game.

The BCS did not win its first 11 games against a bunch of nobodies, rise to No. 2 in the country, then lose in its first and only marquee game.

The BCS did not soar to No. 2 in the standings, then implode upon losing its starting quarterback. The BCS did not give up 473 yards to Texas Tech -- then blame it on losing its starting quarterback.

It's not the BCS's fault that week after week this season, one highly ranked team after another "couldn't grab the brass ring," as SEC commissioner and BCS coordinator Mike Slive put it Sunday night.

But after all the excitement and intrigue caused by all those upsets the past 14 weeks, we've reached what should be the climactic point of the season, only to be treated to Ohio State-LSU and ... Virginia Tech-Kansas? USC-Illinois? Oklahoma-West Virginia?

For that, the BCS will and should be held responsible. And in fact, this year's utterly unappealing postseason may finally bring some much-needed change to the way the sport decides its champion.

I've never been a playoff guy. I've always bought into the notion that the sport's regular season -- the most gripping regular season in all of sports -- is a de facto playoff. But that notion was based on a long history of regular seasons in which at least two teams distinguished themselves as being truly great over 11 or 12 games.

That did not happen this season. Not in the slightest.

The two teams that will meet in New Orleans on Jan. 7 both lost their second-to-last regular season games. In any other year, that would be an absolute deal breaker. This year, 11-1 Ohio State and 11-2 LSU both endured those seemingly fatal wounds and still wound up the consensus Nos. 1 and 2 teams on Sunday.

Whether you agree or disagree, the reality is there was nothing egregious or indisputable about the voters' decisions. As Buckeyes coach Jim Tressel said Sunday night, "We tell our players, 'You better win all your games if you want a chance to play in the BCS championship game.'" As soon as you lose that first game -- nevertheless a second one -- you take your destiny out of your own hands. No detached party should be shedding a tear today for Oklahoma or Georgia or Virginia Tech or USC, because all wound up in the position they did by their own volition.

That being said, there's absolutely no way the voters can be certain they successfully selected the two best teams. How could they be, when there's so little to distinguish the No. 1 team (Ohio State) from the No. 7 team (USC)?

In light of such ambiguity, wouldn't it be great to see not only the Tigers and Buckeyes square off against each other, but also, say, Georgia and Oklahoma? Virginia Tech and USC?

1 of 2