The one aspect I really like about BC over Clemson is the schedule strength. In every rating system I've seen, BC's schedule is WORLDS better than Clemson's. Add on that BC beat Clemson (albeit by a missed PAT), then you have a pretty solid argument for having BC ahead.
A lot of us think we can tell which teams have more talent or are better than others by watching. In all honestly, barely any of us know enough to be able to do that.
i know NCSU got pasted by Southern Miss and lost at Home to Akron. Then got embarrased by Wake Forest. And they beat BC. to me that doesn't say much about BC....esp considering how they won against Clemson....how the games play out to the naked eye are things that most rating systems, computers etc...can't account for.
and this is the problem with any poll for that matter. it's all based on opinion...even the computer polls and BCS are a summation of a bunch of different opinon polls. it's all horse crap in my book anyway.
which is why the national champ should be determined by playing off the conf. champions and 4 at large teams. Basically, if you don't win your conf., you can't play for a NT. the four at large teams, are for lack of a better word, wild cards...determine them how you like...the 4 highest ranked in the BCS that didn't win their conf....which this year could include USC, Auburn, Tennessee and Michigan. Put those 4 teams in with the OSU's, Clemson's, Cal's, WVU's of the world, and it would be great.
either way, the thing is determined on the feild...you win against those types of teams, you deserve the NT....not because some poll says so.
And if not that...leave it like it is and we'll all have a grand old time bitching about it every year...either way, we win, right?