The BCS vs. a Playoff in NCAA football part 1

Watching ESPN this afternoon in anticipation of tonight's Fiesta Bowl match up between TCU and Boise State the question that keeps popping up is whether the winner of this game deserves a share of the National Championship. It seems to me that this debate about non-BCS teams and whether or not they deserve a chance to play for the championship has risen up every year since 2004 when Urban Meyer and Alex Smith led Utah to a perfect 13-0 record and became the first undefeated and untied team to not own at least a share of the title (Auburn became the second team to accomplish that dubious feat several days later). It reached a crescendo when Boise State pulled of its miraculous upset of Oklahoma several years later in the Fiesta Bowl and has raged ever since. It's pretty clear that the BCS is an imperfect system and the only have to have a truly undisputed champion is to hold a playoff every year. Most opinions I've encountered (including Barack Obama's) on this subject call for an eradication of the bowl system and the immediate installment of a playoff just like the one that is successfully used in the former division 1-AA . However I feel that very few people who share this opinion have taken the time to look into both sides of the story. I've concluded that after several years of this annual debate there are basically two camps to side with, each having its own set of pros and cons, either to keep the current bowl system (although not necessarily the BCS as we know it) or switch to a playoff system.