For the first time in the history of the Bowl Championship Series, the national championship game will feature two teams from the same conference. Undefeated LSU still stands as the top team in the country, while second-ranked Alabama beat out Oklahoma State for the number-two slot, despite the fact that LSU beat the Crimson Tide in Tuscaloosa earlier this year.

Although this title game match up between conference foes is unprecedented, the controversy generated by the BCS isn't. Is the BCS really the best way to decide a national college football champion, or would a playoff system give us the true measure of a champion?

The BCS Works Because:

The game is a true #1 vs. #2 matchup.
In its thirteen-year history, the BCS system has produced only one of the dreaded "split national championships" (2003: USC & LSU). Before the inception of the BCS, the national title was split three times in eight years (1990, 1991, and 1997). The BCS championship game gives the fans what they want: a match up featuring the top two teams with a champion decided on the field, not in a computer or on a coach's ballot.

Fans, players, and schools enjoy the bowl games.
For those teams that don't get a shot at the big prize, they can still pursue their postseason dreams in any of dozens of bowl games throughout December and January. Players get to travel and play one more game to close out their season, schools receive payouts from bowl sponsors, and fans get to watch a plethora of games throughout the holiday season. A playoff structure would disrupt (and possibly eliminate) many of these bowl games.

Regular season games matter.
The biggest reason behind the support for the BCS is that it makes the regular season games count for so much more than they do in other sports. In a playoff system, a team with one or two losses could still reach the postseason and reach the championship game. With the BCS, every regular season game can dictate whether a team plays in a high-visibility game in January or in a minor bowl before Christmas.

Playoffs are Better Because:

Every other college sport has them.
When BCS apologists claim that an extended playoff season would "take study time away from student-athletes," they conveniently ignore the fact that every other college sport has some form of playoff. Men's basketball has "March Madness," baseball has the College World Series, and hockey has the "Frozen Four." The NCAA already has football playoffs for Divisions II and III as well as the "Football Championship Subdivision" (formerly known as Division I-AA). Only three reasons exist as to why schools value bowls over playoffs: money, money, and more money.

More teams can participate.
Instead of having a one-loss team shunted off to the Poulan Weed-Eater Bowl or the Beef O'Brady's Bowl, that team can play an important game and take a step closer to the national championship. The bowl sponsors can still participate in the earlier rounds of the playoffs and, with a ticket to the next round on the line, more viewers will watch for their commercials during the game.

More games, less politics.
The biggest reason to resort to a playoff system is that it's more fair than the current setup. Some teams in the "Automatic Qualifying" conferences wouldn't stand up to those in the "non-AQ" conferences, but they get a break because of their conference memberships. A playoff system would level out the competition between the "haves" and the "have-nots."

With the continuing trend of conference shrinking and realignment, as well as each conference's pursuit of lucrative championship games, the seeds of a playoff system have already taken root. Will this blossom into a money tree for schools, sponsors, and TV networks, or will BCS greed kill it before it can grow?

Which is better for college football?