What was the previous way of selecting a National Champion and was it better than the BCS?

I didn't get interested in college football until 2003 so I don't remember anything other than the BCS's way of crowning a National Champion.|||they are only partly correct. Prior to the BCS all merited schools had a chance to win the National title and it covered more than the rose, sugar, orange %26amp; cotton bowls (cotton was big). Hence you had teams like BYU in 84 %26amp; Georgia Tech in 90 winning the title. The two titles were voted on by the Associated Press and the Coaches Poll. At least under the old system Utah would've got a split of the title! BCS= Bull Crap System.|||It was done at the end of the Bowl season by voters in a variety of polls.|||no the way they did it befor the bcs was they had everybody sit down and vote on what ecer and there was just 4 bowls rose,cotton,orange,and the fiesta i think but idk if it was really better|||Used to, there was no National Championship game. They would have big name bowls host Top 8 teams and they would play. Then voters would vote. Auburn won the USA Today and Media National Championship in 1983 after beating Michigan in the Sugar Bowl. They would play the bowls, and they would vote for the most impressive team.|||The only thing the BCS does it arrange the match ups of the bowl games. Everything else is very similar, which is to say it's a popularity contest. Either way is about the same to me. I really don't rank national championships that high when ranking teams and players, simply because there really is no way to tell who the best team is each year. A playoff doesn't do it any better, it just gives you a tournament winner.|||It was done by polls by the media and from other sources but it wasn't better then the BCS, at least the BCS gives us a # 1 vs. # 2 game at the end of the season|||the team that was number one after all of the bowl games|||I liked the old way better. It kept traditional rivalries more intact.