Suck it? I'd rather not, thanks.

I noticed about a week ago that a blog called Ohio State OTR took me to task over a post I made regarding my frustration with the BCS. Of course, they weren't the only ones who noticed -- Ryan Ferguson at Fanhouse also addressed my missive.

I'd like to respond, however belatedly, to the blogger with the clever handle "FuhQ2" at Ohio State OTR, who wrote thus:

According to "Best of the SEC Blogs", the BCS system is broken; what a new and unique thought. It is time this talk of Ohio State having a cake schedule be put to rest. It may be easier than most, but OSU still has to win all 12 games to make the national championship; they cannot suffer a loss, or they will only receive an invite to the Rose Bowl. On the other hand, someone from the SEC with one or maybe even two losses has a chance to make the national championship this year.

First of all, a simple style point -- how juvenile is a handle like "FuhQ2"? It's fun to watch guys like Loser with Socks spew profanity and innuendo -- they are really good at it, it's funny, and it's their shtick. But "FuhQ2"? That's just so cute, I'll bet his 7th grade classmates think he is the shiznit.

But now to the substance. First, Mr. FuhQ2 (can I call you Fuh?), I wasn't trying to innovate here. I understand that other people don't like BCS any more than I do, and have said so long before I have. My point, though, is this -- the BCS is supposed to place the best two teams against each other in the championship game. If Ohio State wins out, that will very likely not happen. It just seems wrong to me, Fuh, that while OSU gets to play a relatively easy schedule, SEC teams must toil in the toughest conference in the land, where even mid-pack teams are good enough to defeat the best teams in the nation.

It also galls me that OSU is trading primarily on reputation, not on accomplishments. Not really OSU's fault, that's just the way they are perceived, and justifiably so -- they are one of college football's historical elite. But at some point in a given year, accomplishments have to trump reputation, and you seem to be unconcerned about that. Accomplishing an undefeated season in, say, the Big East can't be seen as equivalent to even two losses in the SEC. And many would argue that the Big 10 is no stronger than the Big East this year.

Fuh, you assure us that an SEC team with only one or maybe even two losses will have a chance to play in the BCS championship game, but how do you reach this conclusion? If OSU and, say Boston College win out, how do they find themselves below LSU, who is currently third? And if LSU manages to lose again, but still win the SEC, their chances of playing in the championship game become vanishingly small.

Your conclusion is that any team that goes undefeated in a BCS conference deserves to play in a national championship. I'm sure Boise State appreciates that position after going undefeated last year and finishing 6th in the BCS rankings.

Frankly, I hope OSU does wind up in the game with Boston College or maybe Arizona State. Perhaps then, we'll get sufficient outrage in the SEC to force change, even if we do have to drag the Big 10 and Pac-10 along kicking and screaming by the scruff of their collective necks.