WASHINGTON REDSKINS NAME CONTROVERSY

People are clamoring for the scalp of the Washington football Redskins. They want the “Redskins” to cease being the “Redskins“ They want to change the team’s identity!



It’s because everyone thinks that “Redskins” is a derogatory racial slur referring to skin color and bigotry. But actually, “Redskins” refers to the color of paint that certain Indians located in what is now Newfoundland used to paint their bodies--it was red. It’s as simple as that!



This red color would be flashing quite boldly during wartime, giving them a spectacular aura!  Settlers called this particular Indian tribe--the Beothuk--“Red Indians” for the lavish body painting. As that noble tribe is now extinct, sports teams such as the Washington football Redskins may be seen as doing honor to the Beothuk--preserving their memory!



When that National Football League (NFL) franchise in the 1930’s, then in Boston, took the name “Redsins”, it’s likely that the impression they wanted to make was one of toughness and prowess on the field of battle. Note the prominent use over the years of a spear in the team’s logos and on their helmets--hardly pejorative!



Back in the day, it wouldn’t have made sense to call a particular tribe the “Red Indians” if all Indians were already considered “red.” It would have been redundant. In fact, all Indians weren’t as a rule referred to as “red” or “redskin” or “red anything”. That’s more recent.



In lieu of name-changing, the Redskins could be encouraged to refine their image by making the Indian’s appearance on the team logo more realistic--a lighter skin tone matching that (estimated) of the Beothuk Indians, and highlights of a bright brilliant red pigment applied as best as we can tell they did.



Proud Redskins owner Dan Snyder can say it was all one big misunderstanding. Problem solved. Game Over. Now if winning some real games was as easy!



Sources:

The Quebec History Encyclopedia

The Smithsonian Book of North American Indians

Wikipedia--Washington Redskins

TEAM NICKNAME IDEAS

Here is a list of potential team nicknames I've come up with in my spare time. It's alphabetical--mostly cities, some states and regions. Feel free to use them in your hometown.

TEAM NICKNAMES
Aberdeen Barnstormers, Burdensome, Abracadabra
Akron Squadron, Acrobats, Acorns, Acrid
Albany Invaders, Banes
Albuquerque Altimeters, Armadillos, Turkeys
Anaheim Anacondas, Emeralds
Anchorage Anger, Aurora, Roarers, Courageous, Anchovies
Arlington Aardvarks, Accordions, Ardor, Harlequins, All-In-Ones
Asheville Phoenix, Duster Uppers
Atlanta Atlas, Ad Libbers, Antidote, Altimeters, Attitude, Elevators, Atlantians
Atlantic City High Rollers, Albatross, Atlas, Boardwalkers
Austin Power, Bats, Tin Men, Plenty

Baltimore Battalion, Bald Eagles, Tenors, Torreadors, Big Score, Baritones
Bangor Aurora Borealis, Bangers
Barre Chords, Berets
Baton Rouge Twirling Dervishes, Battering Rams
Billings Paid In Full
Biloxie Billy Clubs, Foxy
Birmingham Jackhammers, Battering Rams, Bird Baths, Porcine Dynasty
Boise Noisy, Joy Spree, Boisterous
Boston Tea Tossers, Bistros, Best Sellers, Bounty Hunters, Bosses, Bustier Busters
Boulder Tossers
Bowling Green Pin Strikers
Buffalo Blizzard, Big Herd, Baffling Barristers, Beefcake
Burlington Burly Bears, Burlesque
Butte Beautes, Brutes, Beauties, Buglers

California Caliente, Caldron
Calgary Kaleidoscope
Charleston Charleston, Tango
Charlotte Web, Charlatans, Charaders
Charlottesville Charlatans, Chanteuses
Chattanooga Choo Choos, Chatterboxes
Cheyenne Extroverts
Chicago Supercolliders, Chivalry, Chickadees, Chic, Go Getters
Cincinnati Synapses, Invincible, Slammers, Sine qua Nons, Sensationals
Cleveland Cliffhangers, Cloudbursts, Class Acts, Cliff Climbers, Leapers, Ringleaders
Columbus Landlubbers
Compton Copters
Concord Conquerors, Convoy, Conifers, Accordions,
Corpus Christi Cormorants

Dakota Decoders, Nova, Code Breakers
Dartmouth Bullseye
Dallas Malice, Dahlias, Vortex, Delight, Dazzlers, Dalmations
DC Go Go, Shredders, Policy, Diplomacy, Statesmen, Agenda, Nexus
DelMarVa Avocets, Dalmations, Marvels, Marvelous
Denver Moguls, Adrenaline, Dynamic
Des Plains Boss De Plane
Detroit Rhythm, Destroyers
Dover Dovetailers, Rovers, Plovers
Dumfries Dunbfounders
Dubuque Debutantes, Ubiquitous
Duluth Truth

Edmonton Edge, Eddy, Eddies
El Paso Elegance, Elvises, Pastels
Eugene Genies

Fairbanks Tellers, Snowbanks
Fargo Farmers, Detectives
Florence Nightingales, Florals
Fort Worth Mirth, Fortuitous, Forte, Enforcers
Fort Wayne Johns, Fortuitous, Forte
Freehold Freedom Fighters, Stranglehold
Fresno Frenzy, Frescoes

Garfield Gargoyle
Georgia Gorgeous, Gorgers, Peachy Keens, Gargoyles
Gothem Golem
Green Bay Grief Strickeners, Green Rays
Greenwich Mean Streak

Halifax Machines
Harlem Harbingers, Harlequins, Jazz
Hartford Hard Liners, Heart Breakers, HeartThrob
Haverford Havoc Wreakers
Helena Hook & Ladder
Harpers Ferry Harpsichords
Honolulu Bon Bons, Lunatics, Holiday, Hullaballoos, Honey Bees, Hip Huggers
Houston Who's Who

Indianapolis Invaders, Indubitable, Bonaparte Sleepwalkers
Iowa Primary, Eye Openers, Corn Stalkers

Jackson Five, Action
Jacksonville Jackpots, Jackhammers, Jackrabbits, Jack-Booted Thugs
Jersey Egress, Egrets,

Kansas City Twisters, Can Cans, Sassies
KC Oz
Kearn(e)y Carnival, Carnations

Las Vegas Dice, Aces, Vegans, Lounge Lizards, Flash, Lhasa Apsas, Glitz
LA Freeway, Glitz, Elegance
Little Rock Big Rollers
Lexington Elixir, Stretch Runnerts
Los Angeles Scene, Lhasa Apsas, "A" List, Bodacious
Louisville Lip Loops
Lynchburg Lynchpins

Macon Magnets
Madison Maximum, Dollies
Maine Domain
Manhattan Essence, Mad Hatters
Manitoba Minotaurs
Martha's Vineyard Designer Corkscrews
Massachusetts Mish Mashers, Masqueradors
Maryland Marionettes, Marigolds
Memphis Philosopher Kings, Emphasis, Tempo
Miami Might, Maelstrom, Coral Glories
Milwaukee Talkies, Milkmen
Minneapolis Maulers, Miniskirts, Squall, Man Hunt
Mobile Homes, Shields
Modesto Destroyers, Devastators, Mad Dogs
Montreal Monsters, Full Monty, For One and One For All

Nags Head Swell
Nantucket Gannets
Narragansett Gannets, Sonnets, Epic Sunsets, Dynamic
Nashville Elvises, Warblers
Nebraska Ascots
New Orleans Mardi, Jazz Jammers
New York Corks, Fashion, Cork Poppers, Intrigue
Niagara Falls Barrel Jumpers, Exhilaration
Norfolk Navigators
North Dakota Nova, Supernova
Northern Virginia Supernova, Virtuosos

Oakland Omen, Ogres, Okra, Auklet, There, Oaks
Oklahoma City Octave Jumpers, Locomotives
Orlando Orchestrators, Obliterators
Oswego Swagger
Ottawa Automatons

Philadelphia Freedom, Flavor, Phalaropes, Bell Ringers
Phoenix Fiends, Phoenix, Phoebes, Femme Fatales, Risers, Phalanx
Piedmont Pied Pipers
Pierre Fresh, Pirouetters
Pittsburgh Tar Babies, Hard Hats, Pastels, Posterior Kickers
Portland Portenders, Dock Sopranos
Powhatan Powerhouse

Quebec Caribou

Raleigh Rally
Reno Keno
Richmond Thunder
Rochester Bustiers, Rock Stars

Sacramento Soccer Moms
Saint Louis Sensationals, Sabertooths, Arch
Salt Lake City Taste Buds
San Andreas Fault Finders
San Antonio Sandstorms, Forget-Me-Nots
San Francisco Sirens, Romance, Frantic, Wiz Kids, Frescoes
San Diego Sanderlings, Sand Dollars, Sandpipers, Cinderellas, Serendipitous
Savannah Savants, Whites
Seattle Sea Breeze, Seafarers, Rattlers, Sirens
Shreveport Banshees
Silicon Valley Cyberboppers
Sioux City Somersaulters, Sunbeams
SoBe Its
SoHo Lofts
Spokane Exclamation
Springfield (VA) Ramps
Stamford Stompers

Tacoma Tachymeters, Berenices
Tallahassee Lassies
Tampa Lamprey, Vamps, Temper, Tantrum, Rampage
Teaneck Brunch Stranglers
Texas Vortex, Jet Setters, Extraordinaires, Vixen
Toledo Leaders
Toronto Torrent, Tarantulas, Tremendous, Ruddy Turnstones, Tormenters,
Trenton Trendsetters, Tremendous
Tuscon Saguaros, Sonnets, Tunes, Irony, Ironic
Tulsa Ultimate, Ultimas, Tusslers

Vancouver Vamps, Beaufort, Wood Carvers
Virginia Geniuses, Vireos, Avocets

Warrenton Warlords, Warlocks, Warblers
Washington Warblers, Will Imposers, Policy, Diplomacy, Statesmen, Flourish, Nexus
Waterloo Loons, Walruses, Lulus, Water Lilies, Lollipop Lickers, Waterloos
Wichita Wings, Wit Patrol, Wishbones
Wilmington Willets, Waders
Winnipeg Wigwams, Whimbrels

Team combos
Dallas Malice + Dahlias = Dahlmals
Fort Worth Fortuitous + Mirth = FunLucks
Georgia Gorgers + Georgeous = Hot 'n' Heavies
Indianapolis Napoleons + No Naps = Bonaparte Sleepwalkers
Minneapolis Maulers + Minis(kirts) = MiniMalls
New York Corks + Fashion = GlamBallers
Pierre Fresh + Pirouetters = Fresh Legs
San Diego Sand Dollars + Cinderellas = SlipStars

BOWL PLAYOFF PROPOSAL: THE 4+ SYSTEM

The NCAA says it will be considering 60+ methods for determining a football champion via playoff games. My recommendation for the BCS is a 4-team playoff using the top 4-ranked teams, plus a "play-in" game (or two) in case there's an undefeated team (or two) that didn't rank top-4. The "play-in" games, if there are any, would be played the week before.

So, let's say at the end of the football season (after conference championship games and before bowl games), Alabama is ranked # USC #2, Ohio State #3, Texas #4, Boise State #5, and Utah State #6. And suppose both Boise State and Utah are unbeaten. Boise State would play Ohio State and Utah would play Texas in "play-in" games. The Ohio/Boise winner would then play USC, and the Texas/Utah winner would play Alabama. The winners of these two games would play for the championship.

So basically, the "play-in" games would enable an undefeated team to replace (by beating) the 3rd- or 4th-ranked teams in the 4-team playoff.

The "play-in" game(s) would be played at the home site of the higher ranked team(s) or at another site of their choosing that's available on short notice, or tentatively.

"Play-in" games would not be bowl games, although, as a consolation prize, one (or two) of the lesser bowls would have an arrangement where they take the loser(s) of the "play-in" game(s). But the two semifinal games of the playoff would be major bowl games, as would the championship game, determined on a rotating basis.

Any play-in games would take place around Christmas. The semifinals would be played around New Year's, and the championship around a week later. There are probably some good, juicy names out there already for what to call these three games--oh, how about Bowl Championship Series!

Of course, it's theoretically possible that some year there'd be 3 or 4 or even more undefeated teams ranked below #4. Draw the line at the top four of these, and put them up against #1 through #4--lowest ranked vs. highest ranked and so on, in such a way that "play-in" slot essentially morphs morer or less into a quarterfinals round. And the #1-ranked team gets the lone bye if there are exactly 3 unbeatens ranked below #4.

ADDRESSING OBJECTIONS
Possible objections to this system include: A) it decreases the # of official BCS games from 5 to 3. But most fans by now probably attach little importance to any hoopla surrounding the 4 BCS games that are extraneous to determining the national championship. If they do, they are delusional. And they could treat the play-ins like a sort of quasi-bowl game.

Possible objection B): a minor conference team would be financial setback for major bowl organizers, and compel fans of "play-in" game teams to book travel plans on short notice for their bowl games. But minor conference champs who become Cinderella stories would likely attract a larger national following, and airlines might offer special discounts to fans to travel to the bowl game location.

ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE FEATURES
Avoid potentially somewhat disputable national champ game matches/results by preventing intra-conference meetings in championship game if the teams have already played that season (including their conference championship game). The results of these games tend to be either redundant or contradictory. So if there are two teams from the same conference ranked anywhere from #1 through #4, and they've already played each other, they would be matched up in a semifinal. No need to worry about 3+ teams from the same conference ranked in the top4--it's not going to happen.

A possible additional feature: make the championship game team selection involve fan participation to an extent. The highest-seeded team to emerge victorious from the semifinal games and any (other) undefeated team would be automatically invited to the championship game. But a semifinal winner from the #2 vs. #3 bracket, provided they had no "play-in" game win on their resume, could be vetoed by a fan vote. Maybe the won a poorly played game. The potential replacement could be any winner of another major bowl game which had not lost during the season to the prospective title game opponent (including conference champ games).

The vote could be done by phone a la American Idol, although it should be made a bit difficult to pull off a veto. Make the phone call a yea/nay for the team under review, then, if nay, branch it to multiple-choice for the other major bowl winners. To make a change, at this point, at least 2/3 of the votes would have to be against that team under review, and a majority of the other-team votes would have to be for one particular team. If the vote result is 2/3 nay but not a majority for any one potential replacement, have a subsequent runoff between the original team under review and the top two vote-getting options (all treated equally), with the highest vote-getter obtaining the championship game invitation.

This "Barabbasic" feature would bring back the importance of multiple bowl games, as an impressive winner of such would conceivably have a chance at playing for the championship--if voted-in by the fans. It harkens back to the pre-BCS era when there was excitement in the air as the victors of the major bowls each chanted "we're #1", and then the AP & UPI polls decided the next day.

The improvement is that with this system, yes the fans may play a role, and yes the polls do play a role in setting things up,, but the final result is decided on the field in a championship game.

NFL Should Enforce Safety Rules on Helmets

The NFL this week fined three players tens of thousands of dollars each for particularly brutal tackles involving leading with the helmet.

There's been a backlash among defensive players who say they're just playing hard, that they don't know any other way to play, and so on. One of the fined players wasn't even called for a penalty on the field. Something's wrong with this picture!

According to NFL rules, a tackler may not use his helmet to butt, spear or ram an opponent. It's a 15-yard penalty.

So those who are saying that fining players is wrong because it will compel the defenders to play soft should realize that hitting with the helmet is already prohibited. They've just been getting away with it for years.

Look at footage of games in the 60's and you'll see none of this tackling with the helmet as a weapon. It got started with the Raiders in the 70's and was considered cheap shots. They paralyzed Patriots WR Stingley.

In recent years, it's been all about protecting the QB--leaving receivers and runners free game for assault. The only helmet-contact-related rule they're enforcing seems to be helmet-to-helmet contact.

But helmet-to-anything contact is forbidden by the aforementioned anti-spearing rule. And it should be. The helmet is a protective device, not meant to be a weapon. You're supposed to tackle with your body.

If the NFL would enforce its rule on anti-spearing--maybe, say, sending a memo out to all defensive coordinators and special-teams coordinators that they will be penalized 15 yards every time a tackler leads aggressively with his helmet--you should see the number of such incidents decline substantially.

Steven (Starjet) Kearney

Soccer's Scoring Drought: Analysis and Suggested Remedies

With nearly all the teams having played their opening match, it's already clear that the lack of scoring in World Cup soccer has gotten absurd. To illustrate, through the first 14 games in South Africa:

Teams are scoring on average less than a goal per game--.8 of a goal;

In 9 of the 14 games--64%--at least one of the teams failed to score;

In 10 of the 14 games--71%--neither team scored more than 1 goal;

In 12 of the 14 games--86%--no more than 2 total goals were scored by both teams combined;

Only one of the first 28 teams to play scored more than 2 goals in their first game (Germany got 4);

6 games, that's 43%, were ties;

Goal-scoring has become so rare that fluke goals--such as the English goalkeepers fumble and the Danish wrong-way ricochet header--are decisive;

The crowds have so little to cheer about that they resort to blowing on deafening horns en masse to entertain themselves;

The International Soccer Federation (FIFA) is reportedly considering enlarging the goal to boost scoring. However, such a move could have negative repercussions on how the game is played. And it would compel millions of people to redo or replace their goal structures.

There are other ways to make it easier to score. Taking a cue from thoroughbred racing/exercise programs, officials could "handicap" the goalies by fitting them with ankle weights. Or they could enforce penalties by making the goalie wear a patch over one eye or tying one hand behind his/her back. A really heinous violation might be punished by strapping the offending player ball & chain-style to the goalie. While these scenarios may sound like torture, sitting through a typical soccer game today is already a torturous experience for many.

Reference
Increasing Soccer Goal Size is Questionable!!! (website).

Steven (Starjet) Kearney

Resolving the NCAA Football Playoff Controversy

BCS Options: Two New Ideas

Here are a couple of novel solutions to the college football championship controversy about possibly adding a playoff. I call them my Fun Option and my Best Option.

Most people want a college football playoff. But there are several serious problems with that. It would detract from the regular season, detract from the bowl games, and cause scheduling difficulties for the student-athletes who are the players.

THE FUN OPTION
The BCS people have almost got it right. The championship game comes about a week after the last major bowl game. Keep it that way, only let the BCS panel vote immediately after the last major bowl game. Their choice of the #1 team goes to the championship game. Their opponent would be selected promptly by the FANS! Hey, we're good enough for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars!

In all likelihood we'll wind up with winners of two of the major bowl games facing off. This would keep the bowl folk happy.

This idea may have started out in jest, but when you look at all the "cons" (vs "pros") of the playoff proposals out there, you get to thinking that less is more.

PLAYOFF PROBLEMS
Here are some detailed problems with extended playoff proposals:

*Even if you just take 8 teams, most proposals include the 6 major conference winners in that group. But a conference winner could have accumulated 3,4 even 5 losses in a competitive conference and with some non-conference-game losses. For example, Virginia Tech had 4 loses in 2008 when they got invited to the Orange Bowl as ACC conference champs--and they won the game, too. So if that were the first round off an 8-team tournament, then they'd have been in the final 4! It wouldn't matter that they'd lost to lowly East Carolina University.

So you can be sure that sooner or later a team with 4 or more losses will win the championship in an 8-team tournament format. This would run contrary to 140 years of division-1 college football tradition. Only once has a team with more than 2 losses been awarded any kind of championship: Nebraska in 1981 was named champion by one organization, The National Championship Foundation, despite only going 9-3. And even they only had 2 losses at the time of the vote, which was taken pre-bowls.

* Extended playoff systems inevitably come into conflict with final exams or Christmas or the NFL playoffs or the start of Spring semester. We shouldn't forget that these players are students-athletes, not professionals. And the bowl sponsors want to keep the big bowls after Christmas and around New Year's. They've got their festivals and parades that bring out a lot of people.

But if you make big bowls into your first and second rounds of an 8-team playoff (the best extended playoff option), you have to move them up to Christmas or earlier in order to avoid colliding with the NFL playoffs in January, which feature two games on both Saturday and Sunday for their first and second round. It also violates an unwritten rule not to play/televise college and pro games on the same day(s).

* A bowl playoff system would lead to overexposure of some teams and underexposure for others. In an 8-team bowl playoff system, two teams would play in 3 bowl games each, and another two teams would play in two bowl games apiece. Four teams that would otherwise be in a major bowl game would be replaced by the multiple-gaming of the playoff round winners. The effect would trickle down to the minor bowls with the net effect that 4 teams would be shut-out from the bowls altogether. Of course, they could add a couple of bowl games to
compensate.

BEST PLAYOFF OPTION
One playoff option that seems to have been overlooked is a 4-team playoff, integrated with the bowl system. The pre-bowl, top-4-ranked teams would be seeded (#1 vs #4, #2 vs #3) in two of the major bowl games. The winners would clash in the Championship game the following week.
Major bowls (probably the current BCS "gang of 4"--Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta) would rotate participatory roles in the playoffs. This would include the hosting of the Championship game, which could either be the bowl game associated with the given venue (as the BCS championship was from 1998/99--2005/6) or follow that bowl game by about a week (as the BCS championship has been doing since 2007/8).

If the older method is applied, each of the four bowl sites would rotate through the following four roles, in whatever order is chosen: 1) host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host of the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.
If instead they opt for the newer method, each of these 4 bowl sites would segue through a slightly different set of roles: host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host to a non-playoff bowl game and then host to the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.

An advantage of the latter option is that the bowl festivals could go on as regularly scheduled every year around New Year's day/weekend, and the tradition of their games being played on or very close to New Year's day would be maintained. In other words, you wouldn't need to separate, say, Rose Bowl game from the Rose Bowl parade by about a week every 4th year. While that's not a big deal for die-hard football enthusiasts, it matters to the areas' chambers of commerce/tourism-related businesses.

Either way, there's one improvement that could be made in choosing the four playoff contenders. Call it the Boise State (or Utah) clause. Any unbeaten team ranked #5 through #10 gets an opportunity to play-in to the championship tournament. If there is one such team, they would play vs #4 seed a week before the scheduled bowl game. If there are two such teams, match the better-ranked one against #4, seed and match the lesser-ranked one against #3 seed. In the highly unlikely event there are three unbeaten teams ranked from 5th to 10th, simply include #2 seed in the pre-bowl fray. Ditto as regards # 1 seed team in the extremely unlikely event of four unbeaten teams in the bottom half of the top-10.

Play-in games would not be considered bowl games in of themselves, but rather prequels to the big bowls They would be played at or near the home of the higher-ranked team. Those in cold-weather climates could have a backup domed-site option. For instance, Big-Tenners might have an arrangement with the Metrodome in Minneapolis and/or Ford's Field in Detroit in case of a blizzardy-white Christmas. The only team(s) far from home on Christmas would be the Cinderellas who would be so excited to have a chance that they wouldn't mind the inconvenience. The loser(s) of the play-in would still receive top-ten treatment: this includes an invitation to one of the three non-playoff BCS bowl games.

We could still call it the BCS, but now it really would be a "bowl championship series."
　
TASKS OF A PLAYOFF SYSTEM
It shouldn't be absolutely necessary to be undefeated in order to win the championship. But it should not be possible for a one-loss team to win the championship as long as there are any unbeaten teams left.

It should be possible for a top-notch team to win championship with one loss, provided there are no unbeaten teams left at the end.

Any team that is unbeaten should be ranked in the pre-bowl top-10.

In the end, here should be no unbeaten team that is not #1.

In the end, there should be not more than one team that is unbeaten.

It should be highly unlikely for a team with two losses to win championship and virtually impossible for a team with more than two losses.

A system where it is possible for a team to lose one game and still have a chance at the championship, yet not a certain chance, suitably values the regular season.

A system that guarantees that the champion will be a winner of a major bowl game suitably values the bowl system.

A system that features a national championship game which is the final event of a tournament that has included the #1, #2, #3, #4 teams, plus any other team that is unbeaten, suitably fulfils the national desire for a consensus national champion.

College Football Needs a Playoff System

The current (non-playoff) system is flawed because:
1) Only one of the bowl games is meaningful--the BCS championship game. All the other bowl games are mostly meaningless in terms of determining who's #1. In the prior system (pre-BCS), the winner of any of the top-notch bowl games often had a chance at the title. There was all the excitement of players and fans chanting "we're #1"--hopefully--after winning a major bowl game.
　
The very term BCS--Bowl Championship Series--is a misnomer. There is no "series"--just 4 meaningless games and one championship game. So at the very least it's deceptive advertising
　
2) The notion that the current system is the best way to accurately determine the best team in the country is an illusion. Many years there are about half-a-dozen teams from major conferences with zero or one loss. And it's rare that there are exactly two unbeaten teams from major conferences. Yet that's the only scenario in which you can fairly claim that the BCS title game in the present system can settle anything definitively: a match-up of the two and only two unbeatens.
　
Any time you get two one-loss teams meeting in the BCS title game in the current system, most of the other teams that finish with one loss (presumably after winning a bowl game) have a legitimate beef, particularly if they're the team who beat the title game winner earlier in the year.
　
Even when a one-loss team beats a previously unbeaten team in the current BCS title game, other one-loss teams that weren't on the previously unbeaten team's schedule can claim that they would have beaten them, too, if given the opportunity, particularly if they're the one who beat the title game winner earlier in the year.
　
Basically, the only way for the BCS title game--without a playoff system--to produce a reasonably undisputed winner is for there to be one and only one undefeated team at the end. The odds of that are fairly low---probably less than 20%.

For a couple of novel ideas for implementing a playoff system, go to this blog on 1/8/10.