Ditto from my previous post. Utah didn't didn't get a chance to play for the championship, despite the fact they were 12-0 at the end of the season. That would have still been true even if they had beaten every team by 50 points. Sure theoretically it's POSSIBLE, but a non-BCS team would need a miracle to play for the title game, because they're not going to have the same number of overall good opponents as those from the BIG SIX. That doesn't mean that such a non-BCS team isn't just as good. It just means they won't be given the same opportunity UNTIL there is a real playoff.
Or teams like Utah could up their strength of schedule by scheduling some top tier teams from the big six conferences. That's all they have to do. Playing let's say Georgia and a Wisconsin would certainly get them into the top two if they won the rest of their games.
FSU did this exact thing when they were building a program. They couldn't even get teams to play a home and home with them, so they agreed to go up to places like Michigan and play with the big boys.
Teams like Troy State and Southern Miss do it all the time as well. Fresno State scheduled USC rather than a weak non-conference team - this shows that Fresno State realizes that even going unbeaten won't be enough unless you've played a good schedule.
It's still not clear what this has to do with USC's claim to a 2003 championship. Are you trying to discredit the BCS in an attempt to legitimize USC's AP championship in 2003?
It doesn't matter if the BCS is totally bogus or not - it is the system that USC and Auburn signed onto through their conferences.