What follows is a rant about college football. But for the very first time, BTP is going head-to-head with Joetown, my buddy Joe's blog.

Earlier this week, he gave us his take on the BCS Championship game. Below is my response. We'll continue this back and forth at least until one of us gets bored. You can join the fun by adding your own comments to either - or both - sites.

Agreement

First of all, let's be clear on where Joe and I agree: Michigan is the second best team in college football and should be preparing for the Game of the Century, Part II against those Suckeyes from that school down south.

Instead, college football's Bowl Championship Series has, through a relatively convoluted and highly subjective process, chosen Florida to be demolished by the Big Ten champs in Glendale.

Why is Michigan the true number 2? I thought Joe made a great case:

Michigan has an 11-1 season record. Its marquee wins came against Notre Dame (11) and Wisconsin (7). Michigan’s only loss was to Ohio State, which is ranked 1. Florida, by comparison, is 12-1. It had marquee wins against Tennessee (17), LSU (4), and Arkansas (12). But Florida lost a game, too, against Auburn (9). Moreover, Florida almost lost to both South Carolina and Florida State, two teams that are utterly atrocious.

Basically, Michigan performed better against superior competition. Plus they have those cool helmets. That has to count for something.

Michigan is the best team ever and they got hosed this year. On that much, Joe and I agree. However, for two guys that are often accused of sharing the same brain, we actually have pretty divergent opinions on what to do about it.

Let me tackle each of our disagreements in turn.

Disagreement 1: Picking Florida to play in the title game this year is inherently illegitimate.

Michigan fans feel like the BCS rules were changed in the middle of the season. It sure seems like the BCS has tried, for nearly a decade, to match up the two best teams in the championship game.

Suddenly, the BCS voters decided to put Florida in this year's title game over Michigan. That would be fine, except the justification used by most sportswriters and pundits is not that Florida is a better team. Typically, the commentariat uses some form of the logic that Michigan has its chance at the national title when they played the Suckeyes a month ago.

In fact, I challenge any BTP reader to find even a single article that unabashedly argues that Florida is better than Michigan. I know I haven't been able to.

This understandably feels like a slap in the face to Michigan fans. For 10 years, the rules have been "Be one of the two best teams, and you'll be in the title game." Now, when it looks like that rule would produce a rematch, the BCS voters seem comfortable voting for a match-up they'd rather see. This just doesn't seem fair to your typical Michigan fan.

This is, I believe, the essential crux of Joe's argument against Florida. I also agree with this logic entirely. If I were a BCS voter, I would try to rank the teams in precise order.

The only reason I'm labeling this a disagreement is that I'm not sure the voters are actually under any obligation to rank the teams in precise order. It seems that the official rules (Harris, Coaches, BCS) do in fact allow for some wiggle room to game the system and achieve a more desirable match-up.

It's unseemly and breaks with the established expectations of the BCS. I don't agree with it, but a lot of Michigan fans are arguing that it's somehow against the rules or inherently illegitimate. On that point, I have to disagree.

Disagreement 2: The BSC system, in general, is inherently illegitimate.

If you pay any attention to college football, you know that basically everyone thinks the BCS is broken beyond repair and that it simply cannot pick a legitimate national champion.

Actually, Joe and I both agree with this broad principle, but for different reasons. And it leads us to entirely different conclusions.

"The BCS," Joe says, "has reduced college football to a form of figure skating." Because human voters play such a big role in determining who gets to play for the championship, it takes all the "who-scored-more-points" objectivity out of the sport.

According to this logic, the only legitimate way to crown a champion is through the head-to-head competition of a playoff. I'll address the wisdom of a playoff system in general in the next section, but I want to clear up a few misconceptions that go along with this thinking.

First, college football already has a playoff, albeit one with a very small field of just two teams. Expanding the playoffs to include more teams would almost certainly maintain the human rankings or institute a new NCAA selection committee. In other words, the same arbitrary system would just pick more teams!

If you think that using human rankings to pick BCS championship game teams is wrong, it's also wrong to use them to pick the field of a 16 team playoff.

Joe's basic premise, however is right. The BCS is a terrible way to pick a champion. The reason is because there are almost always more than two teams who can make a worthy claim at the top two slots. But in the BCS's two-team playoff, those teams are always left out.

This year, for example, the Suckeyes are the clear #1. We're all arguing that Michigan or Florida is #2. But what about one-loss Louisville? Undefeated Boise State? Heck, even 2-loss LSU is probably playing better right now that Florida is. Don't those teams have at least some claim to being the #2 team?

I believe this phenomenon is the result of college football's substantial growth over the past 10-15 years. More teams are better than ever, which makes for great football every saturday. But it also means that some of the best teams never play each other or even common opponents to establish a clear pecking order.

By using a system that shoehorns a two-team playoff onto an environment where there are almost always more than two teams that deserve a title shot, the BCS will never be without controversy.

It's certainly worth noting that there's nothing really wrong with controversy. Where else could I have this much fun writing 1,000 words on playoff seeding?

Disagreement 3: College football should hold a playoff to crown its national champion

I don't think there should be a college football playoff. There, I said it.

Essentially, I love college football the way it is now. I'm worried that if we suddenly change not only the method used to crown the national champs but also the overall emphasis placed on the postseason, we'd lose what makes the sport so much damn fun.

Establishing a playoff would diminish the season in two important ways.

First of all, it would ruin a whole bunch of good games. Last month, the nation's top two teams met in the Armageddon South of Ann Arbor. It was the Game of the Century, Part I. It was probably the most hyped game ever, and it lived up to its billing: Two titans battled to the final whistle. The winner prevailed by a scant three points. I was angry and sad that the Wolverines lost, but it was truly a game for the ages.

But imagine how much less important that game would have been if both teams had already wrapped up playoff spots? Chances are neither team would want to go all out and risk injury. After all, they're bound to meet a few weeks later in the playoffs right?

And remember, college football serves up Games of the Century on a weekly basis. By way of warning, nothing in the NFL's regular season even comes close, and the Super Bowl is an annual dud.

Be careful what you wish for, playoff advocates.

Finally, I like the fact that at least one of the America's big-time sports doesn't put all its eggs in the playoff basket. I have always thought that regular season championships, rewarding a season of sustained excellence, were much more impressive than titles won by teams that got hot for the right two weeks.

This year's St. Louis Cardinals won 83 games. The Detroit Tigers won 95. Yet who will history remember as "the champs." I think the Tigers did a whole lot more throughout the season to be more deserving. Even under the current system, I think it would be a shame if Florida was crowned the champs based on one victory achieved after scraping by for the final 6 weeks of the season and sneaking into the title game.

I've always liked that college football puts a premium on undefeated seasons, conference championships, and trips to the Rose Bowl.

Conclusion

The argument about the BCS is now back in Joe's court. I have said my piece for now.

I just want to close with a few important thoughts:

1. Michigan is the best team ever and they deserve to be in the title game.
2. Michigan will demolish USC in the Rose Bowl.
3. Florida will get demolished by the Suckeyes.
4. Lloyd Carr should call up Jim Tressel and set up a REAL title game on a neutral field after the bowl season. I'm certain that Michigan would win.