I agree with much of the above. But for a chance to talk about all things BCS
What was the system before the BCS? Was it better/worse?
It was less satisfying because the tie ins precluded a #1 vs #2, as in 1993 and 1997. But it had the suspense of New Year's Day when a few teams could go in wondering if they could win the national champion of everything worked out. It was like the NFL's annual flowchartof 9-7 teams making the playoffs, except people really cared.
I posted in January:
Rose -- (2) Oregon vs (4) Wisconsin
Sugar -- (1) Auburn vs (6) Ohio St
Cotton -- (3) TCU vs UConn
Fiesta -- (10) Boise St. vs (5) Stanford
Orange -- (9) Oklahoma vs (12) Virginia Tech
Of course that is using some conferences and tie-ins that don't exist anymore [who was the other opponent in the Cotton?]. What a day it would be, even if it ended with Bama claiming the title.
If Boise or TCU stepped up their non conference schedule would it matter what conference they were in?
No
Hopefully a plus 1 where all of the teams are recalculated after the bowls.
Why do the media seem to dislike the BCS more than the average fan? (maybe this is just my perception)
It forces them to think about why one team is more deserving than another. that's a little harder telling the camera that the winner of a playoof game was better than the loser.
Last question for now is why are so many people against a playoff system?
I think most people are for it. However the decision makers could lose a lot of money that they are making now. A playoff would have most of the revenue derived from the end whereas now it is much more spread out.