To be honest..having seen both of them play and been impressed and having no affinity for either I'm perfectly fine to see them share the title.
As far as a playoff system goes, I'm for one (as are most fans), but I'd prefer it's as simple as possible. I think they should take the top 4 teams from the BCS, pair them off 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3, and then have a title game from that. They could move two of the BCS bowls (that still rotate like they do now) up a week in the bowl schedule, and then have the Championship game the same time they have it now.
This would preserve the bowls (for those that care), preserve the BCS (for those with a vested interest), maintain a little controversy over seedings(a little bad press is still good press..see NCAA Bball brackets), and generate more revenue for the NCAA. It's also easy to adopt, and would be quick clean solution for all the naysayers among fans and the press.
I think most seasons fans could agree on the top 4 teams of the country. Playoffs and where to cut off (8, 16, 32, whatever) would be a lot fuzzier I think. For example Tennesee (#8) finished above Miami (#9) by .15 BCS points...even if you could ignore how close that is, could you really make a rock hard case for either team? It also gets ugly then with scheduling.
"My" (not like I'm the first) solution is not without problems either. This year it would have been Oklahoma-Michigan and USC-LSU in the "first round". In hindsite that's wouldn't have resulted in the top two teams in the final, but nothings perfect. Same thing happens in other sports all the time with the AFC being stronger than the NFC or the Western Conference being stronger than the Eastern Conference in the NBA. Besides, per the formula, they WERE 1-4, and 2-3...and without everyone playing everyone and with matching records how perfect can a formula really get? I think it does a pretty good job now considering all it should be factoring.
-Nick
Just my two cents.
