The chart below shows the BCS standings for 2004 using the formula from 2003.
Auburn would have finished well behind USC and Oklahoma, California would have finished well behind Texas. It's doubtful that much pressure would have even been put on the BCS based upon these standings. They could have easily claimed that the system worked as it was supposed to.
But because 2003's standings didn't agree with the human polls, they chose to change this year's formula to emphasize the human polls. The inequities of the human polls were the very reason that the original formula was even created. The subjective decisions based upon regional bias and the anonymity of the coaches were just too much to have them determine the national "championship" game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that the original formula is any better. There is no substitute for a playoff to determine the national championship. I'm just happy that the BCS' reactive "fixes" have come back on them in spades.
BCS standings for 2004 using the formula from 2003