I think that the powers that run college football like having controversy over how to determine a national champion. It keeps people talking about college football.
I don't agree with this. Tiger Woods is being talked about due to controversy. Ask him if he likes it. The SEC had controversy over their officials this year. Ask Mike Slive if he liked it. The BCS has tweaked itself every time there's been controversy, so obviously they don't like it. And remember: the stated aim of the BCS is to, in their words, provide a championship game using the present system. This is questionable, so the controversy means their stated aim is not occuring.
I recall years the SEC champs could have two or more games which they loss. A lot of good teams makes it harder to win them all in some conferences than others.
1. It's not about winning them all. It's about being one of the best in the country. LSU proved this can happen a couple years ago, but still, if you're one of the best in the nation, can't you prove that by winning?
2. Like it or not, there's something about a CFB team winning all their games, or only having one loss. Think back to the afore mentioned LSU. They took so many shots for being a two-loss team. No question the conf was down that year. But they were good enough to be one of the top two BCS teams, and would've been in my playoff, so they could've proven their worth.
3. At the end of the day, the MRS folks are going to be heard, so we have to use the system we can get
