I hear a lot about how the revenue distribution for whatever playoff system is devised needs to be equitable in order for Congress to stay out of it, and/or to prevent a ton of lawsuits from the 'little guys'. Not being an attorney, I don't understand why this is the case.
Obviously there's no issue with a school being able to decide who they play in non-conference games; Texas State can't sue to be able to schedule UT, even though it would obviously be to their benefit (financially and for PR) to do so. Likewise, you can't sue to join a given conference, even though doing so would benefit you; if you could, Missouri would be going to the Big 10.
So if an individual team can decide who they want to play, and if an individual conference can decide who they let in their club, why can't a group of conferences get together to decide to schedule a game at the end of the season to be determined however they choose. Specifically, if the Big10, Pac12, Big12, and SEC decide they want to have a game after bowl season between the winners of the Rose and Champions Bowl (and negotiate their own TV rights and revenue distribution from such a game), why can't they do that? If you drop the pretense of it being a 'national' championship (even though realistically it would be) and don't do it as part of the 'BCS', what legal issues are there at that point?
I don't necessarily advocate this, and I'm sure there are concrete legal issues at play, I just don't know what they are.