Anti-trusting the BCS

Sally Jenkins, a columnist for the Washington Post, writes a great article taking the BCS to task as an antitrust enterprise. Read the full article - here's a couple of quoted highlights:

• Try finding a mathematician, a master of ciphers, vector bundles or covariant derivatives, who can explain why TCU and Boise State never had a chance of overtaking Texas in those enigmatic BCS computers despite going unbeaten against comparable schedules. That's because it's a scam. The non-BCS schools simply did not start the season with the same mathematical opportunity of winning a championship as Texas.
  
  
• Over the last five years, the six favored leagues split 88.8 percent of the BCS bowl revenue. The other five leagues got just 11.2 percent -- no matter how good their record or performance.
  
  
• The bottom line is that under the current crooked, dishonorable scheme, the six favored conferences are guaranteed anywhere from $7 million to $10 million more apiece in BCS money than the other five. Period. No matter what.

Ms. Jenkins makes the case that in any other industry, were major competing manufacturers to act in concert with distributors to fix revenues in their favor, they would be committing anti-trust violations and held accountable by the Department of Justice. Yet this is exactly the arrangement in place powered by the six "BCS" conferences (plus Notre Dame) - the manufacturers - and their bowl partners - the distributors.

Are we getting closer to a critical mass of public and political pressure to bust the BCS once and for all?