Sorry this is so late, but I've been kind of busy on non-football things.
First off, the post-season tournaments that bring in the most revenue for the en see a a are:
1. Men's basketball
2. Division 1 baseball
I don't know of any others that are even in the black. (The NCAA doesn't run post-season 1-A football, obviously, else that might be second.)
There are lots of reasons why baseball is not comparable in any way to football, but I'll concentrate only on the "Oregon State didn't even have a winning record in its conference" complaint.
- In baseball the equivalent of a football conference "game" is a 3-game series. Oregon State was actually 4-4 in series in the Pac 10 round-robin schedule (and each of the 9 teams was in the equivalent of D-1 football's "top 25"), the "losing record" coming about because the Beavers were swept twice during their slump, and didn't sweep anybody (the SEC champion rately sweeps when teams play twice due to a championship game rematch.)
- For conferences with fewer than 11 teams (the Pac 10 actually only has 9) conference games make up less than half the 56-game season. For teams in those conferences, more can be told about how good the teams are by the quality of their OOC schedule and how well they did against it.
It would be the equivalent of the SEC playing only division opponents as conference games and having seven OOC games on their football schedule. Taking into account that "quality" bit and looking at the average SEC team's non-conf SOS, what do you think the odds are of the SEC football champ being as good as Oregon State was in baseball this year?
- The baseball tournament vets its champion. Like the 64-team basketball tournament the objective is to have the best teams (plus automatic bids from conferences consisting of the equivalent of 1-AA football teams) play for the championship. (If there were a D-1A football championship that required a participant from the Sun Belt, you'd have to have a 16-team tournament...)
But that's where the comparison to basketball ends. You can say that basketball is one big tournament where in theory the 64<sup>th</sup> or 65<sup>th</sup> best team has a chance to go on a run and win it all (ha!) because its one big tournament. The baseball format is completely different.
The best way to think of the baseball format if you're not familiar with it is that the equivalent of the putative D-1A football championship using the "+1" is the championship series of the CWS, the contenders for which are the eight teams who made it to the college world series (the 4 BCS bowl participants would be the 1A football analog - the difference is that in baseball they have to prove they belong in the "elite eight" on the field.)
Basketball seeds 64 slots into four brackets in one tournament, baseball has eight brackets each with two four-team "pods." There are 4 #1 seeds in basketball, but 16 in baseball. Eight of the 16 #1 seeds in baseball are designated "National seeds" and the eight playoff spots are theirs to lose.
Consider round 1 ("Regionals") the first stage of "play-in" rounds. It's a double-elimination tournament, so a "lucky break" or "bad call" doesn't automatically send a game-winner on to the next round or unfairly eliminate the better team.
Round 2 of the "play in" rounds is called "Super-Regionals." Winners from round 1 in each of the Regionals in that bracket play a best two of three series. The series winner gets to play for the title, which requires winning another 4-team double-elimination round in the CWS to get to the best 2 of 3 championship round.
If you think of the baseball playoff as the eight teams of 293 who play their way into the championship round, and a putative 1-A football playoff as eight teams out of 120 who are voted into that round by mostly idiots, you're not going to convince me you have a better plan.