Here is the most messed up part of this whole thing: Whoever loses first is at an advantage.
What I mean is, USC lost in late September to Oregon State. If that remains their only loss, they will have had time to make up that ground and be in line for a shot at the BCSCG. Now, that is bull. The reason I think it's bull is because they play their better opponents early and mid in their schedule, saving some weaker opponents till the end. See-UCLA. Plus, is the PAC 10 stronger than the SEC or Big 12? I think not.
This system rewards teams that have no conference title game because that is one less possible late loss in the season, regardless of how dominant they were throughout the season. This is bogus. Again, it's kind of like awarding the Tennessee Titans an automatic trip to the Super Bowl without going through playoffs because they won all their games during the regular season! Ludicrous! Stand up!
I don't think teams that come from conferences without a title game should be eligible for the BCSCG. Yes, that includes the Big 10(11) and the Pac 10. Until they get a conference title game, in whatever format, they should be precluded from even being considered. If you don't have a conference title game, you should have to play in a Bowl "wild-card" game. For instance, USC should have to play Penn State to determine who is eligible for the BCSCG.
We are just not comparing apples to apples here folks.