That will just shift the argument from "who is #2" to "who is #16". Even with the 65 team field in March Madness, there is still controversy over who is #65.
I'm not hating on your idea, but subjective rankings cannot be used or the problem will be just as bad. Also, a team like Notre Dame complicates things since it can't be a conference champion.
I would think that going with the 6 BCS conference champions and the rest of the 10 would be ranked according to a very good computer ranking system that has been shown to be very accurate when ran against historical data. Some of the computer polls are just bizarre now.
Either that, or they adopt a somewhat simpler RPI system like the NCAA basketball uses.
In any event, the system for determining the 10 at large teams should be well known and well defined so that every team can adjust it's schedules accordingly.
"I would think that going with the 6 BCS conference champions and the rest of the 10 would be ranked according to a very good computer ranking system that has been shown to be very accurate when ran against historical data. Some of the computer polls are just bizarre now."
Why only the BCS conference champs? Why is there such a bias and an elitist attitude against the 5 non BCS conferences? In my humble opinion, the only true playoff would include the winners of the MWC, WAC, MAAC, C-USA, and the Sun Belt.
"I don't mind the BCS rankings. Just grab the top 16 from that and do the seeding. Now, those results would be good games!"
Once again with that setup, the MWC, WAC, MAAC, C-USA, and the SunBelt are left on the outside looking in. I think every conference champ deserves a shot at the big crystal football.