Sorry, but there is no way to convince me, and many others, that OU is better than Utah. And I'm not even sure that OU is better than Auburn. OU barely beat an A&M that Utah whipped(though away vs. home could be an issue), only beat 12-0 a Texas that barely beat a 8-3(now 8-4) Michigan(blown out by a down year Ohio State) by a point. An OU that all the 'experts' were claiming were so great until they laid an egg against K. State. And for that matter USC wasn't that impressive against VA Tech, especially if you take away the zebras. I'd rank USC #1 right now, but there is no way to definitively know if they are the best without a playoff. Same for LSU, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and all the other mythical champs from prior years. They won a beauty contest, nothing more.
The problem with the BCS this year was that four teams went undefeated. Practically unprecedented. Without scheduling an additional bowl there was never any way to sort that out based on W-L records.
I think Utah could have given any of the others a real fight, but I agree with someone upthread who remarked that a playoff system will never happen. The conference ties to bowl payouts is too strong for them to give that up. If you don't think the Pac-10 is pissed about Texas sneaking past Cal to play in the Rose Bowl, you're not paying attention to fundamental economics.
I don't disagree with you that a playoff system would be better for us armchair quarterbacks. It would. But it's up against overwhelmingly powerful forces and the best they can come up with now is a compromise called the BCS which is never going to satisfy everyone. It's doomed because of the conference bowl ties.
Still, the BCS managed to schedule a game between two unarguably great teams with the first matchup between Heisman Trophy winners in history. And it will have two of the finalists at running back. It may not be a great game on the field, but it sure is on paper.
In theory, you are right. But I don't think Auburn could have put a lick on Oklahoma the way USC has.