Why having more Best pic nominees actually sucks, and ends up hurting good movies and performances

Back in 2009 (as a result of the outrage felt that The Dark Knight, which grossed half a billion dollars and was a really good movie, wasn't nominated for Best Picture) the Academy Awards announced that the number of films nominated in the Best Picture award category would increase from five to between five and ten- a throwback to the 1930s and 1940s, when eight to twelve films were nominated. The prez stated: "Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going to allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize." 

5 years into the new system, implemented to help give recognition to both more commercially successful mainstream films as well as smaller films that tend to be overlooked, it hasn't done anything good. Actually, it's fucked up the Oscars even more.

A little while ago, my brother Alex (the other A Mrk) sent me a really interesting article illustrating how increasing the number of slots for best picture nominees has actually lessened, not increased, the number of Oscar contenders. (To read the original article see: here). 

This year’s major-category nominations (i.e. Best Picture, Director, Screenplay and the 4 acting awards) - 44 nomination slots in all - were spread among just 12 films-the fewest number of films represented in the past 30 years (and as the article points out, the 2nd and 3rd lowest number of films represented happened in the past 5 years, since the rules changed about the number of best picture slots).

Why this is happening: 

1. earlier voting deadlines which means voters have to prioritize what they see (read: they'll only watch the big films and also fall susceptible to the movies with the most money to throw around on their nomination campaigns)

2. Backloaded release calendars: have you noticed that all "Oscar" movies come out in the last 2 months of the year, so as to keep a momentum going with voters? This means that other good films and performances from the rest of the year get overlooked, and people just end up voting for what they saw most recently.

3. The absurd amount of money put into nomination campaigns. Now, production/distribution companies will pick one of their movies to throw all of their money behind in their campaigning for Oscar noms. Again, this means that many films get thrown by the wayside.

Anyway, what does this mean for the average film obsessive like myself? Well, not much I guess, considering the Oscars get more and more bullshitty each year. But it does mean that what I think some of the best films of the year were don't get nominated, which means less people see them, which means they make less money, which means film studios decide to make less movies like that. So, that sucks!

Do you think this years 12 movies nominated over the top 8 categories are the best movies you've seen this year?

(12 years a slave, American Hustle, Captain Philips, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Her, Nebraska, Philomena, The Wolf of Wall Street, August: Osage County, Blue Jasmine, and Before Midnight)

I would probably only have 3 (Gravity, Her, 12 years) on my best of 2013 list. What do you think?