The issue with the BCS wasn't the actual rankings themselves. The BCS rankings were superior than what the CFP has been putting out for some time. The issue was that other than putting #1 vs #2 into the title game, the other 3 BCS bowls still fought for their traditional teams and did not have to follow the rankings, so the other BCS games did not give us matchups we wanted nor a non-power conference rep. The CFP committee has far more ability to create matchups, but their ranking system is more flawed. I wish we could combine the BCS ranking methodology with the flexibly to make the NY6 Bowls assignments based on those rankings.
Use the BCS rankings to assign out the matchups...
SEMIFINAL 1 vs 4
SEMIFINAL 2 vs 3
Sugar Bowl is SEC vs Big 12 Champions. If either is in the playoff, then you replace with next highest ranked team.
Rose Bowl is PAC vs Big 12 Champions. If either is in the playoff, then you replace with next highest ranked team.
Orange Bowl is ACC vs Highest Rated G5 Champions. If either is in the playoff, then you replace with next highest ranked team.
The late rotated NY6 bowl is then the next highest rated at at large teams.
Here's the current approximation of the latest BCS rankings (not exact as not everything is in place that was back in 2013).
Following my plan, that would give us:
SEMIFINAL: Alabama vs Clemson
SEMIFINAL: Notre Dame vs Ohio State
SUGAR: Texas A&M vs Iowa State
ROSE: USC vs Cincinnati
ORANGE: Indiana vs Georgia
COTTON: Coastal Carolina vs Florida
This kinda feels like the best possible matchups to me. Maybe Rose and Orange would trade Cincinnati and Indiana since they are back-to-back in the rankings and Indiana would prefer Rose and Cincinnati may prefer the shorter trip, but my point would be that the new system would not totally skip teams in the BCS rankings like Marshall was skipped in 1999.