As reviled as the BCS is, and frought with crazy formulas, it does match two highly rated teams from conferences that would seldom or never have met under the pre-BCS system with conference champs tied to selected bowls (SEC/Sugar, Big 12/Orange, PAC10/Rose). There was almost no way for #1 to ever meet with #2 or even #3. This year, under the old system, USC would be in the rose, Auburn in the Sugar, and OK in the Orange. If these are the only two choices, old bowl pairings or current BCS formula, which would you rather have?
I voted for keeping the BCS. It has its problems, which we all complain about. I got to thinking today, with its problems, it still produces a game, the nat. championship, that I dearly like to watch. I'll go out and say "LSU would not have won ANY share of a Nat. Championship without the BCS". LSU would have played in the Sugar last year, OK in the Orange, USC in the Rose. All 3 would probably have won their bowl games, and USC would have been crowned Nat. Champs in both polls, because LSU would not have beaten a "quality enough" opponent in the Sugar to overcome USC's lead in the polls. The BCS is better than the old conference affiliations it replaced.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if they had matched USC-OU in the Orange, Auburn-Utah in the Sugar and maybe Cal-Texas in the Rose and had the winners of those games and the Fiesta winner play it off on the field. Any system that dosen't allow an undefeated SEC champion to play for the National Championship is bogus.
You're poll is misleading. I voted for keeping it, but that does not mean that I beleive in ANY stretch of the imagination that the BCS is good. It's just that it's a step up from the old system. In absence of a playoff, the BCS is the next best thing. No way should we revert to the old system.
I agree. There should be a 16 team playoff, exactly like Div I-AA, Div II, and Div III. There's no reason not to, except for bowl money. http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/schedules
