The BCS at least pitted the two best teams in the country. Weekend and weekout the teams were evaluated on who they played during the reason season and how they played them. No team that loaded up their non-conference schedule with the likes of Navy, Virginia Tech, Cincinatti, Rudgers and Kent State would have been ranked in the top 10, and damn sure would not have played for a national title. BSC might have had it’s flaws, but it didn’t let teams play half their games against no-bodies and end up playing in the title game.
The new format does. It politics plain and simple.
You just described half of Notre Dame's annual schedule, and if they went 11-1 or 12-0 you can damn well be sure they would have been in the BCS title game.
Politics mattered as much, if not more, under the old system, to the point they felt compelled to create a new system to eliminate controversy. It had basically devolved to "top team from the SEC vs. whoever people think might be best from the rest of the country".
You want to know why Texas Tech and Baylor got squeezed out? The failure of the Big 8 (er, 12, no... wait, 10) to keep enough schools in the conference to qualify for a championship game. A TT/Baylor "playoff" would have almost guaranteed a spot in the top 4.
Honestly, the top 4 team that didn't belong was FSU. They were undefeated but always seemed to be playing from behind, so that their wins really weren't particularly impressive. And Oregon proved that you can't pull that **** off against actual quality teams. FSU played with fire all year and it eventually burned them.