Question: What do you call it when the richest segment gets to determine all the rules, and they do so in a way that prevents members of the less rich from accessing the advantages available to the rich? A sham? A travesty? Un-American? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the BCS.After Monday's barn-burning overtime takedown of Oklahoma [watch the legendary fourth-and-18 hook-and-lateral one more time], Boise State provides a slew of new reasons why a more egalitarian post-season schedule makes sense: (1) Obvious Cinderella possibilities. No matter how under-rated they may be at a certain point in time, a team from a "power" conference could never truly be a Cinderella. Who wouldn't want to watch Boise State get a chance to go toe-to-toe with Ohio State? (2) Gun-slinging play-calling. Even if Steve Spurrier would have run the hook-and-lateral on 4th and 18, he would have never called the (modified) Statue of Liberty when going for 2 with the game on the line. Outside of Spurrier's occasional chicanery, you just don't see that kind of stuff, ever, except by inspired teams with nothing to lose; (3) The chance to see a mid-major administer a crushing beatdown to Notre Dame. Enough said.This much is clear: College football is more like professional boxing than like college basketball. Many competitors, many belts, much confusion as to who is champion. For both, impartial regulation would be better for everyone *except* the people who currently run the sanctioning bodies — the WBA, the WBC, the IBF, and the BCS.