The problem is we've tried to marry all of these systems together. We want tradition, and that means the Big Ten playing the Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl, and the SEC in the Sugar Bowl, etc. But we also wanted all of these disparate parts brought together under one umbrella so that we'd hopefully eliminate controversy or at least eliminate split NCs.
I think this system has done the best we could do to bring all of that together. You get your Big Ten/Pac 12 Rose Bowl most years. You get your SEC Sugar Bowl most years (I never liked the Big 12 pairing, by the way. I know what they were trying to do. But we weren't talking about the Big 12 of the 90s). And we get all the power conferences together in the same system with 4 teams playing it off and they do this in the bowl games, not stand alone playoff games. So, you keep the bowl system valid and all the tradition that comes along with it.
I think you've got to have a committee for all of that to work, or at least human override capabilities. All that said, I am not a fan of it. Its worked out for us though, and I'll just say to the folks that can't stand us. At some point, we'll fall off this perch because it is impossible to stay on it forever. And when that day comes, you are going to want the committee to behave just as it has so far. Of course, I said that about the BCS after the 2011 season. Folks just have no patience.
, all of the years I listed were controversial years. I'm not sure what the poster meant by controversy, but that is what I was answering. And there was great squawking in those years. In most instances they had a reasonable case, though I think the BCS's decision was usually more reasonable (though 2009 would have been a disastrous 4 team field). But ultimately, my response was to his insisting that the introduction of computers were the reason for any reduction in "controversy", if indeed that was the case. IMO, it was not.
