Because the middle tier at this point is exclusively made up  of mediocre teams from BCS conferences who only maintain that position by getting a bunch of money from the good BCS teams.  Now, you're taking money away from mediocre BCS teams and giving money to good mid-majors.  The mid-major teams will be able to more effectively compete for second-level recruits with mid-tier BCS teams.

To answer the second part of your question, it will be unlikely for them to break through to the elite level.  But they can't do that now anyway.  At least this system forces BCS teams to have some success or they will start losing NT bids to mid-majors who are starting to improve.  Frankly, I don't really understand why you want to protect mediocre BCS teams/coaches at the expense of good mid-major coaches.

that should be rather obvious - I am a mediocre BCS coach...why should I suffer to boost some mid major?

I'm just attempting to eliminate conference prestige as being the single most important factor in recruiting.
I can't think of any other reason one would support the current disbursement of conf cash unless they agree in keeping conference prestige as the #1 factor.

In what world does it make sense that a team that consistently wins 1-2 conference games a season get between 6-20 times the conf recruiting cash that a team the consistently makes the second round of the NT, but doesn't have a group of strong coaches in his conference?  I guess in a HD world called BCS conference HD that requires coaches to move up to one of the top baseline prestige conferences.
Sorry for those that want to build a Gonzaga, Memphis, Marquette because Rutgers, Wake Forest and Northwestern are the plum jobs in HD because they're in HD conferences surrounded by higher prestige teams.

Even in my examples the 0-16 team from the super power would get twice that of a team that made the 2nd round of the NT in a conference that had 5 NT games.  Almost three times that of a team that plays into the second round from a single bid conference. 
  
And Girt wouldn't it have been beneficial for your Montana team to have received equal tourney cash as the Pac 10 teams?   Suddenly they could have been one of the Haves based on their accomplishments.  And once other coaches started leaving the Big Sky, Montana could have possibly continued to remain in position to be the top team in the entire West. 
I realize that time you spent in the Peoples Republic of Madison may have shaped your ideologies a bit, but a system that rewards for current group affiliation over actual performance, may need to be looked at a second time.

if your idea didn't work against teams that win 8 to 10 conference games it might be more palatable to me. Since I seem to be able to elevate my teams to that level but no higher right now, I certainly don't want to try to do so with only half to 2/3 the money as the big boys.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/4/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):
that should be rather obvious - I am a mediocre BCS coach...why should I suffer to boost some mid major?

And looking at it from one of the elite teams viewpoints.....why should a scrub BCS team in my conference be rewarded with the same amount of money that I get when I (and the other NT teams) "earned" it and the only reason the scrub team got an equal payout was because he happened to be in the right conference and rode the top teams coat tails to the money?

Last season I made it to the title game in Tark.  That's 6 games at 20K per game, 120K total.  Each team in our conference got 10K for the work that "I" did, every last one of them.  I can't remember exactly what we ended up with for NT money, but for argument's sake, let's say it was around 40K.  So the 1-26 team at the bottom of our conference ends up getting an extra 40K to recruit with while a mid major who goes 26-5, pulls a first round upset, but was the only team in his whole conference to make either the NT or PIT ends up with a measly 3333K extra to work with.  Why?  Location, location, location.  He DID his job.  The lowly BCS coach didn't.  Yet, the lowly BCS coach ends up with 12 times the amount of recruiting cash that the mid major does, simply because he was in the right conference.  How is THAT fair?  A coach wants the extra recruiting cash, he better get his act together and get his team headed in the right direction.

So, to sum up..................why should a mid major suffer to boost some mediocre BCS team?

Posted by isack24 on 8/4/2012 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Because the middle tier at this point is exclusively made up  of mediocre teams from BCS conferences who only maintain that position by getting a bunch of money from the good BCS teams.  Now, you're taking money away from mediocre BCS teams and giving money to good mid-majors.  The mid-major teams will be able to more effectively compete for second-level recruits with mid-tier BCS teams.

To answer the second part of your question, it will be unlikely for them to break through to the elite level.  But they can't do that now anyway.  At least this system forces BCS teams to have some success or they will start losing NT bids to mid-majors who are starting to improve.  Frankly, I don't really understand why you want to protect mediocre BCS teams/coaches at the expense of good mid-major coaches.

I should have read this first.  This sums up my thoughts a little better than my post above.  Totally agree Isack.

I did submit a ticket asking if there was a chance of reviewing the current postseason cash disbursements, possibly by lowering the total D1 payouts made, or an  unbalanced cash split within a conference that would reward the team that plays in the actual postseason games with a greater share than the teams that don't.

Not really sure what level of CS this came from but the response was that the recruiting changes being considered would have a much more substantial affect on leveling the playing field than either of my suggestions, while still keeping recruiting fun.

Seble seems like he has been toying with a complete overhaul for awhile.