The BCS has simply not accomplished what it set out to do, i.e. have an undisputed national championship.
I would add to that last part, "when possible and within the bowl structure." Even then, I think the BCS was devised more as a marketing scheme and less as a means to clarify the national champion.
As discussed time and again last month, college football has built its reputation in part because of the heated debate that comes in years without clear champions. Limitations on games and season schedules prohibit the ability of things to sort themselves out naturally, and the status quo is doing well enough for the powers that be to refrain from reinventing the system.
All the BCS really does, in my eyes, is repackage and increase the hype leading up to the bowl games. Remember the build up for the BCS rankings each week? The talk of TCU crashing the party? The speculation of who'd play whom? It's safe to assume the general make up of BCS bowl game participants would be roughly the same had there been no BCS, except now there's a little more $ in the pot because of those initials and as a result those on the outside feel even more outside. Maybe it's just me, but I suspect that the TV folks would place a little less value on the bowls if they were not able to have this tidy, pretty packaging for these marquee games.
Perhaps this is where the Rose Bowl feels slighted; It didn't need the extra hype, and to date the only extra attention the game has recieved is of the negative side as part of this "Bowl Consortium Series."
Last I heard, everyone finds the BCS plus 1 appealing save for one issue; What if the regular bowl match up features the two best and only undefeated teams in the land? How fair is it to ask that winner to play one more game against a 2-loss #3 or 4 just because we've already sold the commercial rights?
Come to think of it, that might be just what college football needs: More controversy!