The Bowl Championship Series system we’ve known for 11 years will likely face major changes or could be completely dismantled after this season.

Since its inception in 1998, the BCS has been surrounded by controversy.

This spring, Utah attorney general Mark Shurtleff started an investigation that is becoming a strong lawsuit against the BCS. He asserts that the system shows obvious favoritism to six conferences.

The six major conferences are the ACC, the Big East, the Big 12, the Big Ten, the Pac-10 and the SEC. The conference left out that has caused the BCS the most problems is the Mountain West Conference, which includes Utah, Texas Christian University and Brigham Young University. Boise State, from the Western Athletic Conference, has also made arguments against the BCS.

Complaints against the BCS are not new, but what makes Shurtleff and Utah’s latest attempt different from the rest is the angle of attack.

Shurtleff asserts that the BCS breaks national antitrust laws by favoring the six major conferences for money earnings and prevents others from getting a piece of the pie.

He might have a solid point there.

The Utah Utes went 13-0 last season but did not get a chance to play in the national championship game and a shot at a big share of the $18 million revenue. To be clear, I’m not a supporter of BCS busters, but I can see why Utah was mad that two one-loss teams, Florida and Oklahoma, played in the big game instead of the undefeated Utes.

The lawsuit hinges on whether or not Shurtleff and the state of Utah can prove the BCS has a chokehold on the system, giving teams from the favored conferences better placement for bigger chances at the huge revenues.

The lawsuit has piqued interest in Washington, D.C. A congressional judicial committee met in late summer and plans to meet again soon to discuss the BCS and whether it violates antitrust laws by favoring the major conferences.

It’s a lot of legal jumble-jargon, but essentially they’ll look at whether the BCS system gives overwhelmingly preferential treatment to the major conferences. It will examine the BCS rankings that have traditionally favored the six conferences with higher rankings, robbing the smaller teams of big postseason chances. It’s all about the money, and the big six conferences are getting most of it.

The argument against the lawsuit is that the big conferences are better from top to bottom, meaning the teams that finish on top to get the big berths have a stronger schedule and beat better teams on their way to the bowls. For this reason, teams in the lower conferences have been trying to beef up their non-conference schedule, giving us BYU-OU and Utah playing Oregon and Louisville.

An undefeated Utah team denied a shot at the national championship, whether or not they played in the Mountain West, raises some concerns.

I think the BCS will have to make some changes, regardless of the outcome of this pending lawsuit. It also gives President Obama the perfect chance to put in place the playoff system he’s been touting.

I don’t think a 16-team playoff would be a bad thing. Eliminate the bye week, extend the college football schedule by a week and keep the best bowls to host the playoff games.

Or it must work. The future of college football in December and January hinges on the outcome of this lawsuit and could dramatically change everything.