No it's not.

its basically the same... You still have whines about not having a "true champion"
does it matter how the two teams are picked if they're still picked rather than playing their way into a nat'l championship game?
The BCS was simply a way to appease the masses while still giving outright control to the major conferences. Its no better and no worse, it just is...
Eventually people will realize that the "average American" isn't as stupid as we were three decades ago.

Lyell: No, I don't have to agree to that. The past system made no pretense about deciding the best team on the field; everyone knew the championship was mythical. The BCS disrupts the traditions that have been in place for decades (and, like it or not, college football is a tradition-driven sport) in order to bring us a title decided on the field, but utterly fails to deliver on that promise more often than not. The BCS is the worst of both worlds, and we'd be better off with a real playoff OR with the old system. Three successes in 11 tries is an abysmal failure rate.

The term "mythical champion" is used because it is correct, not to "defy the BCS". The NCAA does not recognize any team as the Division 1 - Football Bowl Subdivision national champion, so any championship claimed by a team is, by definition, mythical.

The old bowl system was better than the current BCS.
Why? Because college football is a relatively short season, with relatively few games. While I love to watch my own team play, I stay interested in the sport as a whole because so much rides on each game, and because there's always something to argue about during the long offseason. With a playoff, there is finality and certainty, but I would argue that's not necessarily a feature. If everybody agreed that, yes, Florida was the undisputed champion, and that nobody got shafted by the polls, and that Georgia getting demolished by Bama in September didn't matter because they both made it to the playoffs anyway, then what the heck would we have to talk about between games, or even worse, between seasons?

Why not have your cake and eat it too? Mandate that the four BCS bowls revert to the traditional match-ups and be played on New Year's Eve/Day (with all other bowls played prior to them), while THE National Championship Game would be played by #1 and #2 a week after that. Conference championship games should also be necessary for inclusion in the system. Now that's alot of quality football match-ups that everyone should enjoy.
P.S.: God bless the BCS!

well it seems most poeple on here are to young to remember what bowls were like pre bcs. bowls were played by whoever won thier conf championships {big 10 played pac 10 in the rose bowl.} ect not number one against number two the bcs was created to give us a chance that 1 could face two even if 1 was usc and two was miami. and for the little schools utah, byu ect. while the bcs leaves it unlikely that you will ever be the champion at least now you have a chance, before only the big six played in top bowls. now at least you get to play in a top bowl see utah whips alabama lol

Let's not forget the 3-year run of the Bowl Alliance, immediate predecessor to the BCS. Or its predecessor, the Bowl Coalition. They had everything but the Rose Bowl...
I don't think they used computer rankings at all; it may have just been the AP and UPI polls.
So, the Good Ol' Days haven't really existed since 1991.

I'm ambivalent about whether the traditional bowls are better than the BCS. That's mostly because I think all traditional bowl matchups but the Big Ten/Pac 10 Rose Bowl have been whittled away to meaninglessness at this point, and when the Rose in only batting .500 or so on getting a Big Ten champ vs. Pac 10 champ in the BCS era, and USC fans are getting restless because the Big Ten is widely percieved as weak after USC wins the Rose Bowl handily, even that's weakening.
I will say, though, that the 'play the traditional bowls and then the BCS title game afterwards' is the one arrangement that's almost never better than the current system, and often creates more confusion.
http://cusefaninsocal.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-pure-1-playoff-model-is-bad-idea.html

Ernesto: That's still no good. For one, the 2004 problem (how do you pick from among 3+ unbeatens?) still exists.

This system is so much better than the prior one because of the fact that there are so many different calculations that go into deciding the rankings. The only thing that should be changed, if there is a change, is the rankings shouldn't come out until week three or four. This will stop the problem of ranking someone really high pre-season and then having that team lose a few early but staying in the chase because they were ranked so high. Other than that the BCS is very exciting and makes every game like a playoff game because each team must win every week in order to be in a big bowl. In the case of more than two unbeatens you go to strength of schedule to decide. That is why Boise and Utah don't make it ahead of other teams that have 1 loss because they don't play half the caliber teams as schools from the big conferences even though they are undefeated. Last year might be the wrench in the system but Utah beat an Alabama team that was coming off of a huge loss to UF and they might not have cared as much after that. Not to take anything away from Utah because they were good but placing them against UF, OKLA, TX or OSU might have been a totally different game with Utah not being on winning end.

I say we should go back to the old system. It would make deciding who is #1 in the final poll so easy. It is the winner of the Sugar Bowl. You know the SEC champion or a team that was lucky enough to beat the SEC champion.

Robert D..THANK YOU! Say for a few years, the BCS has got it right. At the end of the year...The two best teams played for the NC. Call it mythical if you want but its better than #1 playing #3...#3 winning so they declare themselves NC and so does the #2 who beat a #6...the old system showed the "little" guy no favor. At least now, teams like Utah, BYU, Auburn (i kid) etc have a chance to play for the big one or at least make it to a big bowl...
You might not like the BCS and it is in no way perfect. But you have to agree its the first step to a playoff...
Oh and BTW...calling it mythical is crap..All the big conferences agreed to the BCS...if you don't like it...watch lacrosse. So those of you who like the phrase Mythical, would you also say that every NC since the BCS are also mythical? And i wonder what teams you pull for? Perhaps you call it mythical cause your teams have none to show off....

They're called 'mythical' because the NCAA does not, and never has, actually recognized a football national championship as awarded by any polls or by the BCS. Until football championships (however they're determined, whether by polls, playoffs, or random drawing) are counted by the NCAA, they will retain the 'mythical' title.

I think both systems stink. It's mostly been a popularity contest- granted, having only one unbeaten makes the decision-making process easier. What amazes me is how many teams play cupcake schedules. Having doormats in a conference is one thing, but actively scheduling easy games (are you listening, Big Ten(11) Is that UM v. Eastern MI REALLY as important as you and the BCS pretend it is?) is a travesty... and they're the first ones to denounce a Utah or Boise St. based on "strength of schedule", with the BCS being the ultimate enabler.
Without a playoff, the Bowl System and old way will always be nothing but the popularity contest on top of a money-making scheme. You know sure as h#ll that if it was a choice between unbeaten Alabama and unbeaten TCU for the NC, or unbeaten Alabama and one-loss Notre Dame (with unbeaten TCU being left out) they'd go with the latter match up 100 times out of 100. "Bama and ND are both big-ticket draws, so naturally that game will leave everyone involved in the BCS (including the bowl committees of the old days) salivating with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, apologists would try to play down ND's loss to one-win Army (or any of the doormats they play- just throwing one out hypothetically), but in everyone else's eyes, it'd be a sham.

Nobody claims an NCAA D1-A national championship. If they did, it would be mythical, because the NCAA doesn't hand those out. Teams do claim AP national titles, BCS national titles, UPI national titles, Doc Saturday national titles, etc. You know why? They exist. There are trophies proving their existence. Therefore, they are not mythical. Using "mythical" to describe anyone's claimed national title that was handed out by the BCS just because you don't like the BCS is poppycock. They have a crystal football that proves that it is real.
Disagreeing with the method of selection of the participants or the winner does not make the outcome mythical. The fact that I dislike the electoral college and feel it places added importance on some places over others doesn't make Obama the "mythical" President of the United States. If you use the term "mythical" to describe the BCS title, ball up your fist, turn your hand around until you are facing your knuckles, and punch... over and over again. Please.

Imarealist (or used to be).....can we be friends...

Justin B - I like how you mention UM playing a cupcake and then go onto say are you listening big10. However, you fail to mention everyother conference and their teams because every team plays a cupcake here and there but teams in the SEC that are the stronger teams in that division play every non conference game against a "cupcake team." At least teams in the big10 don't make it every non conference game, they try to schedule tough games like ND, USC, Oregon St., etc. Teams like Boise and Utah are already a step behind because of who they play in the MWC and then their non conference games are usually week. It is even laughable to compare them to a big conference top teir team. Sure on any given saturday anything can happen but Utah beating the likes of UF, Okla, TX, OSU, USC are very highly unlikely and quite frankly might be a blow out. If they want to be considered for the NCG they should schedule at least one big non conference game to show that they can win against those teams.

I can't believe it. I actually (Gasp) agree with J. Tressel. First, while the BCS is FAR from perfect (we NEED a playoff system), it is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the old system where you might have the #1 team face the #6 team and the # 2 team face the #7 team due to bowl tie ins for those conferences. Then, the winners would both claim to be National Champs (or in some cases, even more than 2 winners...i.e. the #s 3, 4, etc. teams). The BCS system is far and away better than that nightmare scenario; however, it is still garbage. The only way to settle things is on the field in a playoff. Second, I agree with J. Tressel when he states that the reason that Utah and Boise State don't deserve to go to the BCS title game is because they don't have the strength of schedule to justify why they should be in there. Yes, they may beat one or 2 good teams in a season (and I am not even talking about a bowl win as we are discussing who deserves to get into the National Title game which is decided BEFORE the bowl games start). However, they do not face week in and week out the tough competition that other teams face and they coast to an undefeated season while the "big boys" duke it out every week and beat each other up (and often get numerous injuries), and maybe go undefeated, but usually endure a loss along the way. If Utah (or Boise State) were put into the SEC, the Big 12, or some other conference where they would have to face UF, UGA, AL, OK, TX, USC, OSU, etc. week in and week out, they would not come away undefeated at the end of the season. If the teams I mentioned above (i.e.- UF, OK, USC, etc.) were placed in a weak conference they would end up going undefeated every year and would most likely win each game by 40 or more points. Utah only had to "get up for one or two games" and at that, were facing a demoralized Alabama team with nothing to play for and without one of the key cogs in their offense (Smith). In addition, his backup was injured in the 1st quarter, leaving the 3rd string player in there. Watch the UF vs. Alabama game (and mind you Percy Harvin was injured for UF and he accounted for 171 yards of offense for UF in the NCG alone) where Andre Smith was playing. That game was "for all the marbles" (a trip to the NCG). Watch the intensity with which Alabama played. Then watch their sluggish, half-assed performance against Utah. After you do that, you will not be able to tell me with a straight face that Utah got Alabama's best shot and still beat them. Utah beat a team that didn't give a rat's patootie and played like it. Yes Utah won, but they beat a team that didn't care and they didn't face the grueling schedule that the other championship contenders had to face. Now, if there was a playoff and Utah won their way into the NCG (i.e.- they earned there way in against tough competition), then I would give them their due. However, since there is no playoff (but hopefully soon the dimwits that are holding it back will be fired or will retire and we can finally get a playoff), we must look at the quality of opponents. Sorry, but Utah's schedule just doesn't compare to that of the other contenders (they even struggled to beat New Mexico 13-10).
As a UF fan, I would have gladly had a follow-up game against Utah so that we could have pounded them into the dirt and shut up these blowhards that think that Utah deserves the title once and for all.

We need a playoff system. if nd wins 8 games , all the catholic sportswriters and coaches with votes will place them at number 1. as an example, look at 1966. we need a playoff system.

for all you play off supporters learn some math a 8 team playoff would still leave most teams out of the mix and make a bunch of bowls gone, a major loss in money that the small schools that play in those bowls need to have a program. this also has the effect of adding three games to a teams season a 25% increase in the season therefore a 25% increased chance that a kid can get hurt and you still have the problem of deciding what 8 teams get to play. the bowls may be bad but i do not care to see loss of all those bowl games you seem to want to get rid of and i do not see any differance in the way the bcs decides who gets to play and how you choose just 8 teams to play post season just less games and more risk to the players that have a shot at pro careers. math is the key here and there is no way as a football fan you can show me how 14 games are better then the 32 or so that we now have!!!!!!!!!!

@ robert d:
Huh? Currently, 10 teams play in 5 BCS games each year. In an 8-team playoff, there would be 7 BCS games. So we would have more BCS games, and no one (to my knowledge) is suggesting that switching to a playoff would mean getting rid of the non-BCS bowls.
Just for fun (because I like math), a 32-team playoff means 31 games... That almost seems like a good idea. Scrap the entire current bowl structure (including all conference tie-ins), allow the top quarter of the teams in the country into the postseason (instead of the top half), and play an almost identical number of bowl games through five weeks. With 32 teams, you'd also have less whining, since the chances of Ball State or Northwestern beating Florida are so slim. I'm sure there are numerous logistic issues with that plan, but let me dream for a moment.