The one thing good about the BCS is that it usually got the 2 best teams in the championship. Some of the other matchups were usually bad, but the championship was usually correct.
Folks, I'm getting sick of hearing this argument.
If you had only TWO selections and you "usually" got them right, are your odds BETTER or WORSE that in the original four-team setup you will get the TWO BEST TEAMS?
It's not like the four team setup is now going to EXCLUDE an unbeaten SEC team - which DID happen in 2004.
Did the BCS "usually" get it right? Yeah.
But 2001 Nebraska, 2003 Oklahoma, and 2008 Oklahoma did not belong there. And imho neither did 2000 FSU. The only reason there wasn't a bigger uproar is that all those teams lost.
Now keep this in mind when you reply - don't reply back to me and start DEFENDING the inclusion of those four teams based on "well they only had one loss blah blah blah." THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED HERE!!!!
You simply cannot argue that FSU was better than Miami in 2000 because they lost (and Miami fans need to remember that they lost to one-loss Washington, who should have been in the game rather than FSU).
Don't confuse "defensible inclusion" with "best team," which is what I keep reading here.
FSU was NOT the second-best team in America in 2000.
Nebraska was not even the second-best team in the Big 12 in 2001.
And Oklahoma's inclusion over USC was a debacle of the highest order (apparently, a 28-point waxing to a three-loss huge underdog is more worthy of inclusion than a team that lost in triple overtime to a decent Cal team that IIRC had Aaron Rodgers at QB).
The 2008 Oklahoma inclusion at least can be chalked up to a quirk in the Big 12's rules (as opposed to the BCS). It's still wrong but less of a problem.
That said - the BCS was NOT as bad as a lot of folks want to insist, either. I thought a four-team playoff meant keeping the BCS and the top four getting in. I'd rather have the old BCS than this selection committee - and I've said that from day one.