***The National Title game was set by the voters, not the BCS. Its hands were tied in selecting Ohio State.***
So, should we conclude that the BCS, in trying to prevent a school from playing just because they “travel well” as you say, was given a shot at the national title when they didn’t deserve it because the BCS’s “hands were tied?”
Sounds like another reason for changes. Let’s face it: OSU kept a good ranking because they were OSU. They played in a weaker conference this year but were kept in a high ranking because they were OSU. A number of other teams in hind sight were more deserving of a shot at the title. Yes, because the BCS’s hands are tied, they create scenarios that they are suppose to prevent.
Oh, well, when people start to tune out because games have no interest, then I suppose changes will happen. If I remember, the Big-10 and Pac-10 both still lobby against a 4+1 or 5+1 format. My opinion is that they realize that they are the weakest of the major conferences and wouldn’t get many shots at a title.
It's because the Big Ten and the Pac-10 have the Rose Bowl, which is the best. It has aura that no other bowl has. Why would the Pac-10 and Big Ten voluntarily give that up? The only way I could see the Big Ten and Pac-10 actually agreeing to a plus one scenario is if the Rose Bowl decided to abandon the Pac-10 / Big Ten ties. Absent that, it won't happen.
And this year's result may be the one to get the ball rolling on that. There may be a move to put in some kind of "manual override", because if the polls work out in such a way next year that a team that is universally perceived as "not belonging" gets the nod, it could bring the whole house of cards down.