The worst part is, we may never know who has the better team, Florida or Michigan. Not like it matters. Ohio State could play the Indianapolis Colts and still drop 42 points. What matters is that we have a college football system we created to solve problems- instead it has just created more questions. Beyond the arguments of Michigan fans there are severe problems with the system that propose many different questions.

The Detroit Free Press with the help of BCS guru's published an article today outlining the numbers of voters who were swayed last week. A rough estimate showed that 120 voters from the Harris Poll and the Coaches Poll changed their vote. Fine, I can deal with that- Florida is a good team- but what's to say this won't be a different, more unfair situation later?

Who says that next year 120 voters won't change their vote to a team lower in the polls? Maybe putting a two-loss team ahead of a one loss team? Who says 150 voters won't change their votes? Or all of them? Who says a one-loss team ranked fifth in the nation because a poor strength of schedule couldn't jump four spots because all of the voters wanted them too? You know the voters compile 66 percent of the BCS formula.

Across the board, coaches and Harris Poll voters across the nation said they didn't want to see a rematch between Ohio State and Michigan. I'm sorry, tell me in the BCS rule book where it says voters are supposed to vote for the most appealing title game? Voters aren't being asked to vote on what is appealing or not. They are asked to vote on the top 25 teams. If they want to vote on what is appealing they should go to Hot Or Not.com.

We've already seen what a flip-flop of votes can do to the system when people want to see a more appealing match up. This year at least. What happens next year when it happens to another team? To your team? What happens when another year of college football is wasted because of more unnecessary controversy?

Almost every year they change the BCS to fix potential glitches- usually after they happen. This year they expanded a game to give 10 teams a shot at the BCS and give mid-majors another shot- but still the potential flaws are still there. If only 10 teams can go to BCS games and there are guaranteed spots to six conference winners, Notre Dame if they are in the top eight , any team in the top four and any mid-major in the top 12- there are ways where the system mathematically cannot work. Yes it is highly unlikely, but lets not wait until hit happens to realize that the system is screwed up.

Another major flaw nobody seems to be talking about is how an 11-1 Wisconsin team is not allowed to go to a BCS game because Ohio-State and Michigan are already in one. I'm sorry since when does winning 11 games and only losing to the No.2 team in the nation on the road in September by 14 points mean you aren't worthy of a top tier bowl game? People will argue that Wisconsin had a weak strength of schedule, but Boise State did too, but we have different rules for Boise State because they are a mid-major. Their strength of schedule doesn't matter. Wisconsin's does. And what would have happened if Wisconsin finished in the top four? Do they still get neglected from a BCS game? And why didn't Wisconsin even get a shot at Ohio State? All those voters keep saying Michigan had their chance to play OSU, but Wisconsin didn't- what if 150 voters decided it was time to see Wisconsin in the national title game? Again highly unlikely but lets not wait until something like this happens to change the system.

I'll agree that the BCS has produced some lights out matchups over the years but so have regular bow games in the past. Had this been 1994 Ohio State would be headed to Pasedena to play USC, in a great game. If they won they would have the national title, no controversy there. Florida would get the automatic bid from the SEC and go to the Sugar Bowl and play the next best at-large team- Michigan. So if OSU lost, you could have a national champion waiting in the shadows.

Instead we are left wondering what should be the national championship game?

Should Jim Tresell had voted? Should coaches be allowed to skip voting?

Should we base or system on voting and people's often biased opinions- or should we get more standard criteria?

Should you have to win your conference to make it to the BCS title game? Its never said so before?

Should you have to lose a game early rather than late? Or do you just have to play better teams?

Do you have to play 13 games? Have a conference championship game? Or have to play all your teams in your conference like the Pac-10 did this year?

Are there too many discrepancies?

What about Notre Dame? Why do they have special rules? They don't even have a conference? Navy doesn't have special rules why do they have an unfair advantage?

What about Rutgers? Why were they so low at 8-0 this season, is it because they sucked in the past? How is that fair?

How is any of this fair? Why am I still typing? Why are you still reading?

Your not the NCAA, and your not a magic 8-ball. You cant answer these questions and neither can they.

Lets get a system that can.