My case for Rutgers

When Rutgers beat Louisville on Thursday, it appeared that no Big East team would play in the BCS Championship Game. Then Cal lost...and Auburn lost...and Texas lost. All of a sudden, the opportunity to play Michigan or Ohio State was up for grabs.
And damn it, if Rutgers runs the table, they should get their shot at the Big Ten champ.
Generally, the problem with the BCS system is the use of the computers. But this time, the computers seem to be getting it right...kind of. The computers top three: (1) Michigan, (2) Rutgers, (3) Ohio State.
Now, obviously Ohio State being number three is absurd, but the reasoning behind the computers is correct: if you're undefeated and have a quality win or two, you should get your shot at that big crystal football.
In the eight years of the BCS Championship Game, one-loss teams are 1-4, with the only win coming from the 2003 LSU team over another one-loss team (Oklahoma). No one-loss team has ever beaten an undefeated team in a BCS Championship Game. The 2003 Fiesta bowl was supposed to be one of the most mismatched championship games ever, because even though Ohio State was undefeated, they hadn't been nearly as impressive as Miami. We all know what happened in that game, so why shouldn't Rutgers get the same shot at Ohio State (or Michigan) this year?
Unfortunately, for this to happen, USC would have to lose to Cal or UCLA and beat Notre Dame. Florida would probably have to lose the SEC championship game, even though they needed two blocked field goals and a blocked extra point to beat South Carolina.
After their dreadful past, Rutgers would probably be happy just to play in a BCS bowl, but just because they'd be happy with it doesn't mean I would. And that's what really matters.