The ballyhooed BCS championship game came and went Thursday night. We have a national football champion. Or do we?

Excuse me for not celebrating. Pardon me for not embracing the newly crowned kings.

The beef here is not with them, but rather, the system that force fed them to us.

In the absence of a playoff, the champion at the highest level of college football is a product of weekly rankings, computer geeks and the formulas they devise.

Florida and Oklahoma met Thursday night because the numbers, convoluted as they are, mandated it. The Gators and Sooners emerged from a system which, while well-intended, remains imperfect.

That is understandable. Anything short of a playoff is imperfect.

Problem is, by pairing two teams in a winner-take-all matchup, and designating it the national championship game, you infer perfection.

You imply that only two teams are worthy of consideration, with everyone else, regardless of record or bowl game performance, playing out the string.

A playoff would determine who is worthy, rewarding the teams that survive their brackets and advance to the title game. Even President-elect Barack Obama, a guy with a lot on his plate, has trumpeted a playoff system, an indication of how weary we are of the status quo.

Like the rest of us, Obama has seen playoffs work at every other level of college football and no doubt wondered, "Why not?"

Why not select and seed a 16-team field, same as the smaller divisions? Or, have an eight-team playoff? It would be better than none.

At the least, why not have the winners of the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose bowls advance to a four-team mini-playoff, leading to a championship game?

Why not?

For one, timing is a concern. A playoff, mini or otherwise, would stretch into mid- to late-January, a period dominated by the National Football League playoffs.

A bigger factor is the long-standing argument a playoff system would negatively impact the tradition and "sanctity" of the major bowls.

Don't buy it.

There is no sanctity left for games stocked with teams pre-determined as "also-rans" by the current BCS setup.

Utah's 28-17 win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl was impressive, earning the 13-0 Utes respect nationwide. Yet, unless voters in the Associated Press Top 25 poll vote them No. 1 - they reserve the right to do so - the victory meant nothing in regard to the national championship.

Even should the AP vote favor Utah, which is unlikely, the championship trophy goes to the winner of the BCS title game.

Similarly, fifth-ranked USC's 38-24 victory over No. 6 Penn State in the Rose Bowl stirred talk the Trojans are the best team in the land. Texas coach Mack Brown was touting his 12-1 Longhorns after edging Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl.

Again, all either can hope for is a pseudo No. 1 from AP.

Any playoff system incorporating the major bowls would give them meaning. It would add to the prestige and "storied" histories we hear so much about.

Dare say, they might not have to move to Jan. 2, 3, 5 or 8 to find a television audience. We could disband the search parties, knowing the big boys were back on New Year's Day.

Unfortunately, a playoff may never come, and if so, still seems years away. In the meantime, we would do well to revert to the pre-BCS era.

Let the bowls play out and have the "champion" decided by results of the coaches and AP polls. The bowls would mean something then, too.

Is it imperfect?

You bet.

Subjective?

Absolutely.

But so is the BCS. At least the pretense would be gone.

Randy Kindred is a Pantagraph columnist. To leave him a voice mail, call 820-3402. By e-mail: rkindred@pantagraph.com. The Randy Kindred Blog is at www.pantagraph.com/blogs