You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not talking about USC! I talking about OTHER teams from other conferences that don't even get a chance under the current system. All of the money goes to those six conferences, unless there's a playoff system. Then there would be a more equitable sharing of the money. But the so-called elite SIX will have none of that.
Your original post was about USC sharing a championship.
Your above point is wrong anyway. A team from outside the 6 conferences can play in the BCS if they are ranked high enough. If a team like Miami-Ohio was ranked in the top two in the final BCS rankings then it would play in the BCS championship game.
The bottom line is that the PAC-10, of which USC is a member institution, agreed when it signed the BCS contract that the BCS championship game would crown the national champion. The AP Poll was a component of the BCS poll and nothing more. Before the PAC-10 joined the BCS then a team in the position of 2003 USC would have had a solid argument.
The SEC, of which Auburn is a member institution, signed the same deal so Auburn and its 2004 13-0 team have to live with the outcome of the agreement.
Trying to question the underlying motives of the BCS is fruitless as it is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is not clear why you are trying to muddy the waters of the discussion (was USC truly national champions in 2003) by bringing up minor conferences and how money is allotted.