One thing I DID like about the BCS is that their rankings didn't begin until midway through the season when the AP preseason pretenders were sent packing and the "that's why they play the game" teams showed that they might be for real. I'll agree on the AP preseason bias. I'm really surprised that MU was able to overtake FSU this early in the season, especially coming from being unranked. Can't say I don't agree with it, but it's still surprising to see a #1 get displaced when they haven't been beaten. Thanks, Jameis Winston. I'm not wholly stuck on the AP poll, but I'm adamantly against the coaches' poll having a say in anything. Way too biased.
I'm very interested to see how the playoff selection works itself out. My problem with it, aside from only four teams being eligible, is that there are active school and conference representatives on the panel. What if USC was actually any good this season? Their AD is on the panel. Where is that vote going? Archie Manning recently removed himself from the board, but with Ole Miss doing so well this season, where would his vote have gone? Would it be unbiased? I don't have the answer for who should be on the selection board, and I know it would be difficult to find a legitimate panel that doesn't have any active school ties. I think more teams eligible (6, at minimum -- 8, optimally) would be a partial solution to that. It just seems that right now the polls and rankings are simply "suggestions" for the board when they meet for selection. I'll see how it plays out before I complain too loud. I just hate how conference/school/sponsorship money still has such a large influence on amateur football. But, that's an argument for some other time.
)
Could be better, of course, but oh well.