You don't think a 1-loss team deserves to win a championship, however, if all teams have lost 1 game then you're okay with it? What kind of logic is that?
I totally support a system like the one Legend outlined. At the end of the season, the top 8 teams in the BCS poll go to the four major bowl games while all of the other bowl games go on just like they do now. The winners of those top four bowl games go on to the "final four" (like in basketball) and then the winners of those two games go on to the national championship game.
No matter what system is used to determine a national champion, there will always be people who say it's flawed. But this system sounds like a pretty solid method. As it sits right now, the national champion contender every year just has to be from a power conference and win all its games. This leaves open the entire debate about cupcake non-conference opponents. Okay, fine. But as it sits right now the voters and computers will never put a Boise State, TCU, or Utah in the NC game if there are multiple undefeated teams from the power conferences left. Is it right? Maybe, maybe not. But this tourney thing can fix that debate.
I just don't understand what your reasoning is as to why the current BCS system is better than a tourney method. Or maybe you have your own idea of what sort of method should be used to determine a national champion every year. I'm pretty sure everyone here is all ears
