Many Beehive State sports fans are fuming over the BCS system that denied the University of Utah's football team a real crack at the national title. Among those fans are elected officials, some of whom are now pondering an antitrust legal action to force the system to change.

Would that be a justifiable use of the government's time, money and power?

What stirred up this ire is one undeniable fact: The Utes are the only undefeated big-time college team. They capped their season by thrashing an Alabama team that had been ranked No. 1 for much of the season.

The elite national championship, however, was more or less reserved for the winner of last night's game between the Oklahoma Sooners and the Florida Gators, each of which has lost a game.

Utah could, in theory, still be picked as champion or co-champion in the final polls, but it's a real long shot because of the way the system is set up.

How could an undefeated team not be No. 1? Because of rules that favor certain schools. A complex system ranks teams and decides who squares off for the title, but it tilts strongly against non-BCS programs.

Utah is perhaps the school with the most reason to bristle at the setup in recent years. At the end of the 2004 season, the BCS slotted the undefeated Utes for the Fiesta Bowl, where they walloped the University of Pittsburgh. U fans say their team deserved, but didn't get, a shot at the championship by playing the University of Southern California, the eventual winner.

Utah politicos jumped in back then. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff made noises about probing the BCS, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, then head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, held hearings.

This year at least one Beehive State politico jumped even before the game. In November, Utah Rep. Jim Matheson joined with two other representatives to send a letter to President-elect Barack Obama asking the new administration to invoke the Sherman Antitrust Act against the BCS, and push for a playoff system. The letter was a follow-up to legislation they introduced earlier in the year.

After the game, Hatch reiterated his complaints, and Shurtleff says he's going to have his office look into an antitrust investigation of the BCS.

Why might government get involved? Because the BCS appears to be an unfair monopoly dominated by conferences such as the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern -- conferences that not only hog the championship and the best bowls, but by extension the most money.

Some critics even hint that the BCS and its predecessors are a reaction to BYU's national championship in 1984, and that the rules are meant to keep such Cinderella teams out. In light of this unfairness, the federal government must step in, advocates say, just as it would in the case of a business monopoly.

And make no mistake: College football is big business.

On the flip side is the view that government should keep out of this.

First of all, with the state's economy shaky and the world economy trembling at the brink, with war in the Mideast and tension on every continent, don't our elected officials have better things to do?

Second, it's argued that the BCS issue is in the private sector, where government doesn't belong. Private organizations of all kinds are not only prime sources of energy for our society but bulwarks of freedom. They allow people to work together to accomplish a wide range of activities without the government's interference. Perhaps government has meddled too much already.

But most schools involved in this question, whether BCS or otherwise, are state schools funded with tax dollars. Doesn't government therefore have an obligation to ensure fairness?

On the other hand, the big BCS bowl payoff dollars come from the private sector. Perhaps millions in federal aid for those schools should be reduced by whatever amount the school wins in its bowl. Reducing federal spending is certainly in line with what Washington ought to be doing right now.

In the long run, however, government probably will move too slowly to solve their problem, or it will only make things worse. It's probably up to the U, BYU and other non-BCS universities to deal with this.

In the end, however, the best place to press for change is still the football field. This year Mountain West teams went 6-1 against opponents from the vaunted Pac 10. Utah's Sugar Bowl victory over the Crimson Tide shows it can play with the best in the much-hyped Southeastern conference. If the Utes and Cougars and other non-BCS teams can play up to those standards, over time they may force the other conferences to give them their due.

Or not. Maybe it's time for that antitrust lawsuit.

Do you agree?