I agree 2001 was the BCS, as was 2003, 2011, and 2012. I agree that the playoffs weren't a cure all, but I disagree with the remainder of your post.
Regarding the playoff making things worse, that is debatable. How many years in the BCS were there more than two teams that had a reasonable claim that they should be considered for the BCS title game? To that degree, the CFP has been positive. The perceived negative is it now moves the bar on who should have a chance at the title/playoff a little lower, especially because the #4 seed has won it twice (2014/2015 Ohio State and 2017/2018 Alabama) out of its four seasons in existence. Now more teams stake a claim to being deserving of a chance.
The regular season being a playoff is up for debate. Because there is such a small data set, it is difficult to make comparisons between teams that don't play each other. Or when you have common opponents, it's not unfathomable for one team to have an off day but still win while another team is firing on all cylinders against the common opponent. It happens every season.
You want to go back to the old system. I'm still unclear on what you mean by this, do you mean the BCS, bowl alliance, bowl coalition, or the pre-coalition free-for-all? I assume you mean a system that pits 1v2 and only 1v2 at the end of the bowls (no playoff), with no strict bowl ties that would preclude a team from a given conference from participating in a 1v2 matchup (like the Rose Bowl was with the Big Ten and Pac). What metrics are used in determining the top two teams? College football polls are a popularity contest, and as the computers "got it wrong" in the BCS, the BCS started putting more weight on the polls again.
We'll both agree, there is no "perfect" system. I've stated it a few times, I am all for an objective path to a national title for all teams, which would mean playoff expansion. If that means an 9-4 Northwestern (had they upset Ohio State yesterday) or 8-5 Wisconsin in 2011 (obviously an extremely special circumstance given OSU's and PSU's NCAA sanctions that season), so be it. They would still need to beat 2-3 other great teams in the playoff to be crowned the national champion. You are for playoff contraction and having titles decided to a larger degree off the field.
EDIT: The biggest problem is the variability from year to year of the number of teams "deserving" of consideration for a national title. Because of all the contracts and logistics, it would be nearly impossible to have a variable-size playoff field.
I did not like the BCS to answer your question about that.
There is one point that I need to make clear: i believe if you have even one loss, you have no room to complain about anything. None.
I say this knowing full well that there are years where there are only one undefeated or no undefeated teams. It becomes subjective at that point (as any system is, including an 8 team playoff). But again, win your games.
Im ok with a 4 team playoff although I knew that
a) it wouldnt solve anything and b) some years there arent four teams deserving.
I wish it were possible to have a varying playoff field, or a plus one game system if one is needed. Probably impossible. Wont solve the issue.
BUT NOTHING WILL.
Im sorry, 8 teams is so rediculous to me. A 2 or 3 or more loss team having a shot at the NC absolutely ruins the regular season. Theres no reward for winning all your games.
My injury statement is an important one. Others have said injuries happen in the regular season too. True but heres the difference. Younmake it through your regular and conferene season unblemished and have earned a shot at the NC, only to have to play a 3 or 4 loss team with equal shot as you? Then your qb gets hurt and the entire offseason is a big "what if" or asterisk discussion. A three loss team has not earned the right. At all.
The regular season does function as a playoff. Lose to purdue? Out.
Yes I want to go back to the old system, with changes.
Do you remember how great it was? New years day when all the conference champs would play in major bowls and some years it was obvious who would win, others a few bowls could swing the outcome, no one knew who would be NC. Some of That was not healthy, but only because of bowl allegiances. 2 loss conference champs knew they had no shot at NC but still played for their bowl or to ruin someone elses chance. How come you never heard the term "meaningless bowls" before the four team playoffs? I hear it all the time now. Why did we never hear it before?
My proposal would be 1v2 and 3v4 as we do now, but no bowl allegiances unless it works out, which is what we do now. However, the big difference is this: dont win your conference, you cannot be NC. That makes it different than the playoff we have now.
After the bowl games it comes down to a vote just like the old days. Your bowl performance matters.
Is it perfect? HELL NO. Does it reward teams who dont lose or only lose 1 game? HELL YES! Does it reward conference champs,while still preventing 2-3-4 loss conference champs from having an undeserved shot at NC? HELL YES!
Therefore it protects the regular season and conference championships while still maintaining a degree of sanity.
Is it perfect? No. But no system is!
My goal is to protect best regular season in sports and also conference integrity.
An 8 team playoff would be catastrophic. If you must, keep it at 4 teams. Go ahead and vote ND out of contention for no conference game.
