I semi-agree with this. The problem with that is this:
Say there are 3 undefeateds going into the bowl games. Two undefeateds have to play each other because the BCS thinks they are the top 2, and one undefeated has to play another team, which, while undoubtedly a good team, will not be an undefeated team and maybe not be the caliber of one of the 2 undefeateds playing in the BCS championship. That means that if there are "co-champs" and we have one more game to determine the "true" champ, the AP champ team that DIDN'T play in the BCS title game and isn't the BCS champ will have had the easier road to the "true" title. Does that make sense? It'd be like 1 team having to play an undefeated team to just get a SHOT at the title game, while the other only hads to play a mediocre team to get into the game and have a shot at the same title (thats an EXTREME example but I just used it to explain the scenerio I'm trying to put together) so there would STILL be doubts about who the true champ was because if the team that didn't play the BCS title game ended up winning the "true" title in that game then people would say they had they easier route there.