I do not think that there should be a difference between teams being a "BCS", or "Non-BCS". I think this because in the last couple of years the "Non-BCS" teams have provrn that they can beat the "BCS" teams. For exmple, in 2007 the Boise State Broncos defeated the Oklahoma Sooners in the Tostitos Fiesta bowl capping a 13-0 season for them, a feat that no one believed possible. Also, this past year the Utah Utes deafeted the Alabama Crimson Tide(the team that held the #1 ranking for the longets time in that season) in the Sugar bowl capping their second undefeated season in 4 years. So why are we still labeling these teams BCS teams and Non-BCS teams? If your school is rated as a BCS school then you alreadt have an advantage because voters are more apt to put your school in a bigger game because they are know to be "better". So, in these two seasons that I have mentioned about the winner of the national championship had a loos to their belt, and these two, so called "Non-BCS", schools beat a "BCS" school in a bowl game and finished the season undefeated. I think that it is just not fair to these schools because they continue to prove that they can play with anyone, but they are still left out of the discussion for the National Championship.