My thoughts:
I like the BCS. It's different than playoffs in a great way- the regular season matter. We don't start our 2nd stringers in The Game, because every single year of the rivalry, it has been important. There hasn't been a single case where, win or lose, we would still go to the playoff, because there is no playoff.
No other sport has the 1st game of the season be as important as it is in CFB, where TSUN was eliminated from the championship race because they lost to appy fucking state.
That's something great about CFB.
However, there are, no doubt, serious problems with the BCS. Most of this, I think, has to do with the voters.
Coaches poll. NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED. They never get a chance to watch close to the amount of games that they would need to to fill out a valid ballot. Eliminate this.
Harris Poll. Make it harder to be a voter. Some people (i.e. the guy who thought PSU was undefeated) are obviously jokes.
People don't know HOW to vote. The specifications are not clear at ALL. Should they vote for the team they think is the best? Should they vote for who they think would win a hypothetical? Let's take Tex-Oklahoma. Should they punish Texas and reward Oklahoma because Cinci & TCU were good (lucky on Oklahoma's part) and Arkansas sucked (sort of unlucky on Texas' part). At the moment, decisions such as this are up to the voter's discretion. These should be OUTLINED. For example, "under no circumstances should voters reward a team for a schedule that was designed to be difficult but ended up being poor. This is simply bad luck on that team's part, and they SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED". Or the opposite of that statement. At the moment, I don't particularly care what the stance is- there just SHOULD BE a stance.
Another example that someone earlier gave- What's worse, USC sleepwalking against Stanford, or USC trying their best and losing to Oregon? It's a valid point. My opinion is that losing to Stanford is way worse. But voters should be TOLD how they should deal with a situation like this. In my mind, it should be, "DON'T FORGIVE A TEAM FOR SLEEPWALKING. WE EVALUATE RESULTS, NOT POTENTIAL". In other words, voters shouldn't give a SHIT whether USC is clearly the best team in the country when they're on their game. They should care whether they have EARNED the right to be in the top 2 by playing a hard schedule and going undefeated through it. Their defense might be a pro defense this year, but THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE LOST TO oOSU. At the moment, voters are awarding teams for being hot at the end of the year, while some are not. I do think that they should not be awarded, but more importantly, there should be consistency.
Timing of a loss should NOT matter. This sort of goes along with my previous point, but I am fully convinced that voters should be aware that timing of a loss should not mean anything at all.
Other things should be explained... For example, injuries. Let's say we had kept it really close with USC without beanie. Maybe 27-24. I can guarantee there would have been questions on how much we should be punished for losing even though we didn't have our best player. I don't know how I would answer this, but the voters should be instructed on how to vote. "Extenuating circumstances, such as injures, questionable officiating, etc, should not cause you to say a team that "lost" really "won"". That type of thing.
In general, I think more clear instructions would solve a LOT of problems. At the moment, half the complainers are saying "well it's completely unfair that USC doesn't get a shot just because they lost to oOSU, USC is clearly the best team in the country". If these things were clarified, it would be obvious: USC may VERY WELL be the best team in the country, that is 100% true. But we DO NOT CARE. You should not have lost to Oregon State.
