How the Presidential Primaries are like the BCS

I've grown somewhat disenchanted with the Presidential primaries lately. The only GOP candidate I had any real excitement for was Mitt Romney, but he has largely failed to build any significant following in any of the early states. Mitt has had to compete with intense campaigning and media hype for Huckabee and McCain in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. Sadly, with a first place finish in Wyoming and second place in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the media has declared his campaign as "up against the wall." Thus, the problem with the Presidential primaries.

If we don't change the way that the primaries are structured, we will continue to be given candidates on both sides that the majority don't want. So much emphasis is given to intangible, make-believe things like momentum, come-backs and how presidential a candidate appears. Nonstop analysis is given by the pundits on TV and the internet (like me) on what the effect of wins in certain states might entail. A few points on this:

1. How can the media declare a candidate "up against the wall" when 1% of the U.S. population has voted in the primaries.
2. Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get to go first? There are other states that are more representative of the rest of the country (60% of GOP voters are not born-again Christians elsewhere). Could we rotate which states go first?
3. How about this? Instead of Super Tuesday, lets pick a day in March when all 50 states hold primaries and pick their respective candidates. This takes the power out of the hands of a few citizens and forces the candidates to really campaign to all Americans.

My feelings about the structure of the Presidential primaries are similar to my feelings of the BCS. I'm excited about the season, the buildup, but when it comes time for the final votes, I'm left empty and unenthusiastic. It's an unscientific way to pick a winner. But, if the primaries don't change until the BCS does, we may have to wait for a while.