Once again you've proven your uncanny ability to take the two "best" teams—one of which is the least-deserving title-game participant since Oklahoma dropped the Big 12 title game to Colorado—and pit them against each other to decide the "national champion."
Give me a break. Ohio State didn't play anyone with a pulse outside the Big Ten. Let's not forget that they also lost at home to a mediocre Illinois team who was exposed big time against USC.
LSU lost at home too, but it was in triple overtime. I don't believe there is such a thing as a good loss, but it's far less glaring than Ohio State's. Even though they lost to Kentucky as well—also in triple overtime—I would just as soon hand LSU the title right now. They play in a tougher conference—and more importantly, walked all over Virginia Tech in September. If you want to win a championship, you should have to earn your way there by beating quality opponents.
Talk of a "plus-one" has emerged once again, and although this is much more feasible than a playoff, chances are it won't be happening any time soon. Anyway, this year has been so crazy that picking the top four teams would be just as difficult as selecting two title game participants.
Supposing a playoff is on the way, how many teams do you include? 8? 16? What happens when you have to include a 9-3 conference champion? This isn't March Madness—college football has no room for Cinderellas.
Either way, the Pac-10 and Big Ten are so adamantly opposed to a playoff that even discussing one is foolish. A plus-one is slightly more possible, but even that wouldn't really solve the problem.
Although I am a die-hard Michigan fan, I would just as soon have everyone else tell Jim Delaney and Thomas Hansen to shove it. Issue the two respective conferences an ultimatum saying they can have the Rose Bowl, but can't play for or win any national championships until they agree to see some sense and spare us another USC-Illinois beatdown in the future.
However, this is still not likely, nor do I believe it gives us a true champion any more than the BCS does.
So what's the solution? I propose we move back to the old bowl tie-ins for three reasons. First, so much of college football is decided by human voters already, so we may as well let them vote on the best team and give them the championship. We already vote on a president—why not implement the same thing here?
This leads to the second benefit, which is better regular season games. With teams seeking to impress voters, the regular season essentially becomes an audititon for the #1 spot. Teams will be forced to schedule quality opponents in an attempt to make a statement early in the season, leading to quality games throughout the year. Once again, if you want to win a championship, you will need to prove your worthiness on the field.
Finally, the old system would lead to more intriguing bowl games. Here's what it would look like this year:
Rose: Ohio St.-USC
Sugar: LSU-Kansas (should probably be Mizzou)
Orange: Va Tech- West Virginia
Every one of these games is more intriguing than half the BCS games this year, save LSU-Kansas. USC-Illinois and Georgia-Hawaii are insulting. For all you Domers and WAC fans, if you want to win a championship, go join a real conference. However, for those rare occasions when your teams are actually good enough to warrant a BCS bowl, there are two at large spots to fill.
Play the bowl games, and then let the voters decide. No more Auburn or Georgia/USC/Oklahoma/West Virginia/Virginia Tech being left out to a "more deserving" team. Play good non-conference games, win your conference, and then win your bowl and we'll talk.
And no losing at home to Stanford or Pitt. Devastating home losses like these should be just that—devastating. You shouldn't win a title if you can't take care of business at home.
So give LSU the title now—I don't care if Ohio State wins, anyone with a month to prepare can pull of an upset—and let's go back to what worked for a million years until those in charge decided to screw everything up.