"We just keep hoping that they turn that thing around (and institute a playoff). We're so strong at the end of just about every season, it's obvious why we'd support it.

"If we had a playoff system," Carroll added a moment later, "I don't know that we wouldn't have four or five of them (national titles)."

The Trojans won the BCS title in 2004, and lost to Texas in the best game of the new century the year after. In 2003, they had to make do with The Associated Press' version of the title, even though they were good enough to beat 2003 BCS champion Louisiana State and runner-up Oklahoma - on the same day.

Then, as now, Carroll wanted a playoff.

Yet even as the clamor for a tournament has grown - polls show roughly nine out of 10 fans, including President-elect Barack Obama, favor one; as well as most players and coaches - the BCS has steadfastly refused to loosen its stranglehold. Its latest TV deal with ESPN guarantees there won't be a playoff until 2014 at the earliest.

That's wrong in so many ways - as noted countless times before - that it isn't worth the time or space to recount here.

What's changed is that TV ratings for the four BCS bowls that don't crown a champion are slipping fast; with little chance any of the winners could leapfrog to the top of even the AP poll - as USC did in 2003 - they've been rendered more meaningless than ever. In the bargain, the BCS also made it tougher for mid-majors like Utah to win the national championship even when it's the only undefeated team left in the top division, the way BYU did in 1984, when the Cougars finished 13-0 after beating Michigan in the - get this - Holiday Bowl.

That's why Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Tuesday he's looking into whether the BCS violated antitrust laws by barring the Utes from the national title game.

"We've established that from the very first day, from the very first kickoff in the college season, more than half of the schools are put on an unlevel playing field," Shurtleff said.

So to recap: not only has the BCS failed to produce a clear-cut No. 1 often as not - its stated reason for even existing - it's ruining the other major bowls in the process.

But that's not even the craziest thing about it.

For that, read a column Dan Wetzel posted on Yahoo.com last month. He contends that college football "outsources its most profitable and easily sold product - postseason football" to the BCS so that the big conference commissioners can retain control instead of the NCAA.

Never mind that a playoff would generate higher profits and the NCAA could run a tournament or the current system for considerably less. What's shocking is that college presidents go along despite what a "boondoggle" the bowls have become. Wetzel's research shows the Sugar Bowl spent $1.3 million in employee salaries in 2006, including $453,399 in total compensation just for CEO Paul Hoolahan, in addition to $494,177 in unspecified "entertainment" in 2005 and another $455,781 on unspecified "special appropriations" in 2006.

"No sensible person," he concluded, "would ever continue to follow this business model."

But that's exactly what we've got as long as the BCS is in charge.