This morning I read on some sports blog that "Every week is a playoff! If you lose any game, your chances of winning the national championship are pretty much gone."
Soooo... how come a 1-loss LSU is a better candidate than a 0-loss South Florida? Seems a bit contradictory, there. (Acknowledged, above comment was not posted by Kirk Herbstreit.)
One reason is the small number of games that make up a football season. How do you recover from losing one out of your 12 games? How many schools across the country go undefeated? Can they ALL realistically be better than a 1-loss LSU? How do you decide?
A one loss LSU could be a better candidate than a 0-loss South Florida if that South Florida team ran the table on an extremely weak schedule, and LSU had a measurably tougher schedule AND their loss came to a team that is also winning through a tough schedule. It's the same reason why a club fighter who beats up all the punch drunk-palookas doesn't automatically get to fight for an WBA title just because he wins a lot. You need quality wins for consideration.
That's why the BCS polling includes a composite of computer rankings. The computers look at the strength of schedule multiple opponents deep. This allows at least some consideration beyond the human factor - realistically, how can coaches watch every game played and analyze them? They can look at stats, but they won't look beyond the front-runners in major conferences, or historically good teams.
I agree with the notion of a playoff through the Bowl Season, culminating in a national championship game between the winners of a bracket populated by the top 16 teams. But no matter how you slice the issue to get to a playoff, you still have to select 16 teams from among hundreds, and someone with a very good team and a very good record will still be left out, guaranteed.