It looked pretty good last year, didn't it? If you're going to have the BCS, I'm not sure why you should basically exclude mid-majors, which is what happened before last year. There are some good football teams in mid-major conferences, and they ought to get their shot.
Despite this year's result, the two teams per conference rule actually benefits the marginal teams, like Mizzou or Kansas. If there were no such rule, the bowls would simply elect to take highly-regarded teams that travel well (think Michigan, for instance) over perhaps more deserving teams that do not have the name recognition and will not fill as many seats. If you are a bowl organizer, who would you rather have playing: Michigan or Kansas? Texas or Mizzou?
Those who are advocating the elimination of the two-team rule aren't clearly thinking through the results.
***It looked pretty good last year, didn’t it?***
Not really. OU seems to enjoy an annual BCS meltdown. Let the WAC Smurfs play one of the other teams last year and you would have had another UGA v. Hawaii.
Bottom line: actually play a schedule if you want serious consideration and respect.
***Those who are advocating the elimination of the two-team rule aren’t clearly thinking through the results.***
The selection is suppose to be about BCS placement, not the name of the school. That is why Hawaii got invited when they had no business in a BCS bowl. Mizzou, ranked 6th (if I remember) before the bowl selection was NOT invited when they should have been. Let Hawaii or Ill go to a different bowl. Mizzou’s only crime: 2 losses to the SAME team. Obviously, they didn’t match well against OU, but they handed Kansas a spanking who did go and were ranked lower in the final poll.