If we all assume that the BCS "got it right" in matching #1 vs #2 this year has that been the case since 1998 the first year of the BCS? I am sure somebody on here will do the research. IMO while the BCS may have actually "gotten it right" since it's inception by staging the NC game, it has made all the bowl games meaningless except for the extra practice time.
That's a loaded question. The best criteria we have for determining if a team is deserving is the BCS formula, so it doesn't leave us with much to check it against.
Generally speaking, the results really clarify the picture. The BCS has had 6 completely unanimous national champions. This means every selector, computer, or poll was in complete agreement. To give you an idea of this significance, prior to the BCS that has only happened 5 times since 1910. So, from 1998-2011 we have a process that's even put the math based systems in agreement six times compared to 5 times from 1910-1997. Excluding the math based systems, such as the ones that declared Utah national champion in 1998, the BCS champion has been unanimous amongst consensus (poll) selectors in all year but one (2003). To give you an idea regarding that, 1990 and 1991 both gave us split champions amongst the polls and lead to the predecessor to the BCS (and Alabama's 1992 national championship) and once again in 1997 which led to the BCS. It's important to keep in mind that forced parity and too many FBS teams ultimately lead to a lot of the issues. Without forcing Utah and Alabama to have the same number of scholarships, or cupcake conferences, the picture would be considerably clearer, no matter what the post season was.
Another point that has to be made, is that this process has to be about #1. For instance, in this past season LSU was the only undefeated team. They were the clear #1 team and honestly, no one deserved to play them. However, the process properly determined Alabama to be the most worthy and as we saw it turns out they were the better team. But, to further demean LSU and say they had to play an additional game just to play Alabama is going too far. This has to remain about #1. Most of the time the BCS compliments the regular season. Undefeated Alabama vs undefeated Texas. Undefeated Auburn vs undefeated Oregon. That's where the BCS really comes into play, and sometimes it's to clear up a mess, like when so many teams stumbled and two loss LSU played one loss Ohio St.
The picture is often cleared up by the "meaningless" bowl games. For instance, in 2009, undefeated Cincy was blown out by Florida and the #4 team lost to. Clearly, neither deserved to be in the BCS title game. If you go back over the results, only two really stand out. USC in 2003 and Auburn in 2004. In the case of USC in 2003, they did tweak the formulate afterwards. USC has one less win than OU and LSU, but the same number of losses. Certainly the logic is there to reward the teams that played the extra game (had OU not played it, they would have been undefeated), but one could argue USC might in fact have been better than OU. I think it's a much harder argument to say they were better than LSU though. Then, we have 2004. Auburn played a much weaker schedule than USC or OU. It's even clearer that they should have been left out. Yet, we can once again argue that despite the weaker resume, Auburn might have been better than one of those teams. That's about it though. If you support a plus one, those are the two teams you hang your hat on as no other teams really had any basis with which to argue their worthiness.
In regards to your comment about bowl games. I can't agree with your statement at all. Perhaps to Alabama fans, with our mentality we find all other bowl games meaningless (2008 Sugar Bowl for example), but I fail to see how you apply that to all of college football. If you think relevance to the national championship picture is what makes a bowl game meaningful, most of the time one or two were all that were "relevant" and on the very rare occasion three. Bowl games were never created to determine the national champion, they existed to provide an matchup of good teams and to place those in an enjoyable setting. It was a reward for a good reason, but it was more than that. We can say Mardi Gras is just parades, but it's not just parades, there's this entire culture behind it. The same goes for bowl games, what they are, and their importance is not rooted in national champions.
In keeping with my just quote someone and then rant habit, I'll just finish with my opinion:
1: I don't "assume" the BCS got it right this year. I know the BCS got it right this year.
2: While there have been a couple of instances in which the BCS might have left out a deserving team, I find it counterproductive to let in a legion of undeserving teams to compensate.
3: A plus one will put bowl games on life support. Not make them meaningless, but threaten their very existence. The inevitable next step to a 8 team playoff would kill the power bowls as they would either assimilated into a playoff, destroying their individuality, or simply not have any of the top 8 teams.