Syk - Maybe the big difference in our conversation is that you are arguing from a standpoint of a perfect world where everything and everyone is equal and the most important thing in the world is who wins the championship. I agree with a lot of what you say and most fans put the championship at the top of the list. But trying to convince other fans what should happen and what would work is completely different from trying to convince those with a real stake - money - in the system.
So you can complain about how the BCS schools keep the majority vote and all that. It doesn't change the fact that the BCS schools run the system. You can talk about how WAC schools don't get an equal opportunity, but it is because they aren't equal. That is just life.
In your plan, you have money being distributed based on a conference's performance in a playoff. Why would the ACC, who is going to make mad money now whether they win a national title or even a BCS game EVER say, "hey I know, why don't we give up our cut of X dollars so that New Mexico has a chance to make more money if Boise State does well"?
If you are going to continue to argue that a playoff is the best way to go, you need to have compelling reasons that address the bottom line for those involved, not for us fans.
Right now, there are generally 8-10 teams going into a season who people would think have a legitimate shot at a national title going into the season, if the cards fall right for them. What are the other 50+ BCS teams playing for at that point? A playoff might open the door to that title for more teams come postseason, but it is still going to be the same 8-10 teams who benefit from the playoff because they are going to be the ones involved in the playoff anyway. Will there occasionally be a Boise State or TCU who might slip into that? Sure. But is that once in awhile really worth messing with the second level?
That second level being, the other 50+ BCS teams are guaranteed certain things based on the performance of their conference and also guaranteed a certain number of bonus games/dollars that they negotiate on their own. There's a reason the Big Ten can put nine teams in bowl games and the Sun Belt struggles to keep sponsors for two. If I were running a bigtime conference, why would I give away my marketing ability just to level some phantom playing field?
Additionally, going down one more level, so a handful of teams like TCU and Boise and in the past BYU and Utah may not have been able to win a title realistically (though BYU did) but they did work their way into more money. What about the other 45 teams at that level? Most of those teams are never even going to have a single dream season like Boise State has put together, so the championship itself doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Does Wyoming, UNLV, and New Mexico care whether Boise wins a title or are they more concerned about what money the entire league can bring in to divvie up?
So in your argument, you are redistributing money based on a playoff performance that puts a lot of periphery teams at risk. Top to bottom, nobody involved, even those that you think would benefit from a championship perspective, is going to take that when the system right now is a known and successful commodity.
It is kind of like a company saying, hey we are going to take everyone's yearly bonus away but come up with an employee of the month program where the winner gets a big shiny trophy and all the bonus money. That is fair to everyone because everyone has a chance to win. How would that go over with the majority of those involved?