At first glance, based on what you hear and read from various sports commentators, it would appear I’m going to attempt to defend the indefensible — I’m going to defend the Bowl Championship Series. The BCS, an acronym that some say would be better served without the C, has come under a lot of fire (again) after pitting Oklahoma against LSU in the championship game.

But it worked. The BCS did exactly what it was supposed to do for many reasons.

* It treated all losses equally. To the BCS, a loss is a loss is a loss, no matter where. USC’s loss to unranked Cal, which was 2-3 at the time (and finished 7-6), equals Oklahoma’s loss to No. 13 and 10-3 Kansas State. In fact, when you approach it like that, suddenly Oklahoma’s loss doesn’t look nearly as bad. The difference in human eyes is that USC had a chance to recover. Oklahoma didn’t.

Stewart Mandel of CNNSI.com said it best: “The whole reason the BCS formula was created in the first place was because people were fed up with the traditional polls and their whole ‘the earlier you lose, the better’ tendency. Finally a year comes along where the computers manage to override that flaw — and everyone’s up in arms about that!”

It’s funny to be talking about problems with three one-loss teams when last year we were a half-game away from three zero-loss teams. Iowa State almost single-handedly saved the BCS last year with its comeback win over Iowa, which went undefeated after that. As a side benefit, Iowa State also helped prevent a cry of outrage over the Big Ten having two undefeated teams, both of which would have had a shot at the title, but more on that later.

* It recognized the weakness of the Pac-10. So USC won its conference. It would be more impressive if the conference weren’t the fourth-strongest of the BCS six. USC’s strength of schedule is the lowest of the top seven, and second-lowest of the top 10. The Big 12, Big Ten and SEC all have five teams in the top 25 (about 42 percent of each conference); only USC and Washington State make the list for the Pac-10.

The Big 12, Big Ten and SEC were 9-5 against Pac-10 teams. Oklahoma and USC share one foe, 6-6 UCLA. Oklahoma won by 35 and USC 25 against a team that beat eventual 1-11 Illinois by the powerful score of 6-3.

* It measured the season as a whole. The BCS effect on this is evident in how it treats the losses but also how other teams can help illustrate how good another one is. Not only that, it makes us care about otherwise-pointless matchups.

USC’s strength of schedule dropped after Hawaii, which USC beat, lost to Boise State. In fact, that loss dropped USC’s strength by just enough for LSU to get in. Why shouldn’t it? Why shouldn’t the relative power of the teams you played affect how well you think you are playing? Once again, it’s an effect of other conferences and schedules being stronger than the Pac-10 and USC. It works both ways — LSU’s rematch with Georgia improved its strength but USC could not do the same.

* It mitigated the disadvantage of conference championships. “But Oklahoma didn’t win its conference,” you say. That’s correct. But that loss came as Oklahoma played an extra game. In fact, it’s the second time a championship game has screwed up the standings. The first came in the Big 12 as well, when No. 1 Kansas State lost to Texas A&M, knocking the Wildcats down to the Alamo Bowl. The SEC is the only other conference with a championship. That means at least two (and probably three or four) BCS teams have to play an extra game.

That extra game puts that conference at a disadvantage because not everyone has to play it. In regular-season conference play, Oklahoma was undefeated, and Kansas State lost to Texas — whom Oklahoma creamed, but that’s not as important as the loss itself.

This championship inequity is illustrated with last year’s BCS standings. What would have happened if Iowa had gone undefeated in 2002? Suddenly there are two Big Ten teams undefeated at the top of the list. However, unlike what would have happened in the Big 12 and SEC, Ohio State and Iowa end just like that. Now who should play Miami for the championship? You can’t put two conference foes in the title game. Either all conferences need to have an additional championship game or none of them should count. Oklahoma won out during the regular season; USC lost a game. LSU’s additional win gives it that much more credibility for playing in the Sugar Bowl, but USC has the luxury of one fewer game, leaving less room for argument.

In 2001, when Nebraska did not even win the division because of its loss to Colorado, and then beat Colorado by a tiny margin in BCS standings to get into the championship, there was a much better argument there for keeping the Huskers out. But here, Oklahoma has clearly been the dominant team during the regular season, and it has a giant lead in the standings.

The BCS did what it had to do. The computers ignored the weakness in the human polls and their idea that a loss to a Top 15 team in an extra last game should open the door to a team from a weaker conference who lost to someone who finished with a record barely over .500 in late September.

And besides, would you have otherwise cared about a WAC game not even played on the North American continent?