USC is No. 1 in the Associated Press and coaches’ polls, so the Trojans will be playing for the national title, right? Well, sort of.

Despite their top-ranked status, the Trojans were passed over for the Sugar Bowl because they finished third in the final Bowl Championship Series standings. Thus, either LSU or Oklahoma will automatically finish on top of the coaches’ poll, while the best USC can do is beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl and hope it ends up No. 1 in the AP poll.

Many NBCSports.com readers weighed in on the BCS finish and the possibility of co-national champions. To voice your opinion, reply in the box at the end.

The BCS should have a playoff system which involves the teams that make up the Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and Orange bowls. The four winners would then be matched based on a pre-arranged format (like the Final Four in the NCAA), and then the two survivors would play for the national championship at a pre-arranged location. This would keep the bowl people happy and the public would have a much greater interest in the quest for college football’s national champion.

— Paul Weintraub from Las Vegas

Yes, I think the system works. I don’t think USC or LSU should be ranked higher than Oklahoma. Why should Oklahoma be made to suffer just because its loss was the last game of the season? Why should teams with one or two losses early on stand a better chance? Teams should be rated on their overall season and Oklahoma had the best season!

— J R Henson from Independence, Mo.

This is what I think the BCS stands for:

Biased

Corrupt

Stupid

— Danny Robles from Pico Rivera, Calif.

The current system does not work. All it takes is a very simple solution, no BCS at-large team can play for the national championship. This assures that only conference champions are eligible for the national championship game regardless of the BCS stats.

— Harold Walker from Washington D.C.

Return to four major bowl games played on New Year’s Day with traditional matchups (e.g. Big 10 vs. Pac 10 in Rose Bowl) as quarterfinal games. Winners move on to the semifinals and final at rotating bowl sites. This system retains tradition and allows for a championship within reasonable limits. (No computers allowed!)

— WJ from Iowa

Leave the C out and that is what this poll is. Either go back to the old system, or set up a productive way of settling it on the field. A Sweet 16 is my idea. Keep the bowl games for the lower ranked teams, incorporate the major bowls into the playoff system and decide this issue where it matters the most. ON THE FIELD!

— Brian Logan from Richmond, Va.

The system works. It takes the emotion out of the ranking decision, or at least minimizes it somewhat. We humans vote with our hearts and our loyalties. The BCS computers make hard cold measurements. Based on who had the toughest schedules and who dominated throughout the season. How were their opponents ranked, etc. Could it be OU beat more Top 25 teams than USC or LSU and of higher caliber? The only true way to determine a national champion would be a playoff system. But then, there would be even more controversy as a 10-3 team could possibly win because they finally got it together with healthy star players — much like Kansas State has done this year.

— Skip Steiger from Springfield, Mo.

The BCS is BS. There should be an eight team playoff with the seeding based on the BCS formula. Incorporate the big bowl games into the brackets with the championship game being held at each venue on a rotating basis. As it is now, the only real champions come out of 1-AA, II and III.

— Dan Lautner from Louisville, Ohio

The BCS works just fine with some degree of objective criteria included with the subjective opinion polls — unlike the AP which is nothing but a subjective opinion. BCS is better than a playoff since it makes all the traditional bowls just as important and interesting as the 1 vs. 2 bowl game. I love the controversy. It makes it an attraction worth watching even if my favorite team is not in the Sugar Bowl

— Eddie Crumbley from Montgomery, Ala.