What amazes me is that there are people that can defend it w/ a straight face.
What amazes me is that there are people out there that act as if it is the end of the world because there isn't a playoff in college football. Look, I love college football, but look; no one will care, playoff or not.
Did you win your conference? Did you beat your rival? Did you win your bowl game? If so, that's a pretty good season, and that's all the fans care about. I'm just not sure how having a playoff (or a BCS championship, for that matter) really affects much of anything. No one cares. Didn't matter a hill of beans that Lloyd Carr won a national title at Michigan; it just mattered that he couldn't beat Ohio State.
Think about how the bowl games would have shaken out this year under the system that was in place before the BCS . . .
#1 Ohio State (Big 10 champions) would be forced to play in the Rose Bowl against #7 USC (Pac-10 champions).
#2 LSU (SEC champions) would go to the Sugar Bowl against an invited team (maybe #3 Virginia Tech).
#4 Oklahoma (Big 12 champions) would go to the Orange Bowl against an invited team (maybe #5 Georgia).
#6 Missouri would play in either the Cotton Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl -- probably against #9 West Virginia (for the Cotton Bowl) or #10 Arizona State (for the Fiesta Bowl).
#8 Kansas would get invited to either the Cotton or the Fiesta to play West Virginia or Arizona State (depending on Missouri's selection).
. . .
Now -- If #1 Ohio State loses to #7 USC, and #3 Virginia Tech beats #2 LSU, you'd get the same controversy about the national championship that you have now with the BCS.
And take it one step further, too. Even if Ohio State were to WIN against USC, you could still have a legitimate case where #2 LSU wins the national championship by dominating the #3 team. This is basically what happened back in 1994 when Nebraska won the national title over Penn State because Penn State beat 9-4 Oregon in the Rose Bowl while Nebraska beat a much stronger 10-2 Miami team in the Orange Bowl.