To me, the BCS lost all credibility last year when their nuclear option occurred: a major conference team (that was not on probation) played a challenging schedule, went unbeaten against that schedule, and didn't get an opportunity to play for the national title. To boot, a mid-major went unbeaten, destroying every opponent in its path, including two decent BCS conference teams, and was not only denied a shot at the title, but was relegated to a bowl game against a mediocre Pitt team.
After that, the BCS lost all credibility, so the attached article about how the BCS Commissioners are struggling with coming up with a new system that will retain credibility seems, to me, to be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Since the BCS Commissioners are given an impossible task by the BCS university presidents - select only two teams from 117 for a playoff - the better analogy might be Pravda during the final days of the Soviet Union. The poor BCS commissioners have to explain the unexplainable, but they can't say what everyone knows: that college football's post-season structure has been exposed as fundamentally flawed.
College football is still my favorite sport because it's the only American sport with a truly meaningful regular season, and creating a playoff that doesn't devalue the regular season excessively is tricky. Plus, once a four-team playoff is implemented, then forces will consistently push it towards expansion, which would be a bad thing. (Look at the bloated NCAA tournament and the meaningless college basketball regular season, for an illustration.) That said, the two-team playoff has been exposed and the sooner we are rid of it, the better.