Having said that, no tournament “guarantees” that the best team wins. The results of one game are not a reliable indicator that the winner is superior to the loser, even if the margin of victory is wide. Just because USC trounced Oklahoma, 55-19, in the BCS title game in January 2005, it didn’t *necessarily* mean that USC was objectively better. If they had played ten times, you might have had two USC blowouts, two Oklahoma blowouts and six close games. Or you could have had several games like the one that was actually played. We can never know.

The point is that we don’t set out to identify the “best” team– a nebulous concept that can only be reliably determined by a large sample size of head-to-head matchups that is impossible in a college or pro football season. The goal is to determine a champion. Over 162 games last year, the Mets seemed pretty clearly to be the “best” team in the N.L. (nine games better than the next-best record), but they did not become champions. Being the “best” was no consolation.

So, we need to let go of the fallacy that we’re determining the “best” team and just have a system where everyone has a fair and equal chance to become champion, such as those proposed above in which conference champions play off for the title. Consequently, we need a system in which every team has an equal chance to win its conference championship. For example, last year, Wisconsin did not get to play Ohio State. Every conference should emulate the Pac-10 and Big East, requiring every team to play every conference opponent. The SEC and Big Ten do not schedule this way now because they don’t want to risk additional losses for their teams that might keep them out of the BCS. A system in which only conference champions get to play off for the title would make this concern moot.

Do you watch football or just look at some scores on Saturday night? That was an Oklahoma team that was Big XII champions would have been in the national title discussion had it not been for the Oregon debacle. Boise handled them in the first half and OU needed a fluky TO on a punt to get back in the game. Otherwise, Boise probably wins by 10 in regulation. Is there anything they could have done to convince you they were a top 5 football team?

A four team playoff is better than none–I’d rather have arguments about the 4th and 5th best teams than about the 2nd and 3rd.

BSU didn’t deserve to be in a theoretical Top 4 last year anyway. I don’t understand all the slurping over this team. Wow, you beat one pretty good team, in OU, by a single point. Congratulations. That alone does not guarantee you a shot at the title.

And is there a reason they have to wait until 2011? Too lazy to read the link.

Actually as the article points out (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172007/photos/sports068.jpg), USC wouldnt even have been involved with the way the BCS rankings stood before the bowls. Lets not kid around either. Boise State would not have pulled of TWO miracles to win the natl title either. This is an improvement for the fans, but like all things in life, there are negatives. Id take that set up though.