It is what is it and positions count although they shouldn't. Fact is GSP and a lot of other guys who rely on top control would probably fight very differently if the rules were changed and control didn't matter. In my opinion these rules we have right now are biased to the point where a certain skillset is made almost useless whereas another skillset is absolutely overpowered. That's just not the way it should be. The game is rigged.
Certain skill sets ARE overpowering, and wrestling right now is one of them.
As much as you might love to see a stand up bare knuckle brawl, stand up striking is one of the least effective of MMA skill sets. Even in an all out street a good wrestler or BBJ practitioner, baring a sucker punch, will have it all over someone good with their fists and feet.
If you want to be a good MMA fighter you need to be good at all the martial arts, not just one of them.
Control is important, very very important, otherwise instead of raining down fists from full and half guard, GSP would have been tapping out to an arm or leg bar, or swept and suffering a rain of punches from Condit.
Is BBJ important? If so, then preventing a good BJJ practitioner from using their BJJ skills on you is equally important (ie: control)
Is striking important? Then preventing someone from striking is equally important (ie: bringing them to the ground and controlling them.)
This one dimensional evaluation of MMA fighting is getting very tiresome ... the fact that you think top control is over valued simply tells me you don't understand fighting.
If you think a certain aspect of a MMA fight is boring, or you don't understand why it is included in the scoring then the likely problem is not that the MMA rules suck, it's more likely that you are not understanding something about MMA fighting, so go some research on the technique and maybe you will learn that there is something more to the technique than meets the eye.
ETA: I assume you think that because Condit was on his back and actively punching up at GSP that this should have been considered higher in the scoring ratings for Condit ... but that's a misunderstanding of what was going on. Punching from your back is a 'weak' technique. It's a defensive technique that is aimed at preventing your opponent from setting up for much stronger top punches and elbows. You're not going to stop an opponent or even score damage with punches off your back ... the real danger from your back is BJJ, and that's where control comes in and why it is important .... what do you think is more important and should be scored higher? hitting your opponent from your back with some weak punches all the while allowing your opponent to stay on top and rain down hard punches and elbows? or staying on top of your opponent, raining down some pretty good fists and elbows and preventing your opponent from setting up for a submission?
Even if you though that top control should not be rated high in the scoring, there's no way in hell that you can then claim that laying there with someone on top of you should count for anything.
If top control is over rated, then that should only be because it is not important to the outcome of the fight and can easily be countered ... if it's so 'unimportant', then fighters on their back should counter the technique and that would stop any chance of it scoring.
When MMA first started, someone though striking was over rated as a fighting technique. To prove it they went in the ring and beat the crap out of strikers twice his size .... that's how you rate an MMA technique. Does it work? Then it's important. When top control stops working and everyone can get out of it or easily turn it into a submission attempt? Then you can claim it as overrated.
Personally, if there is any MMA skill that is over rated, it's striking (but just slightly overrated .. especially in the minds of some MMA fans.)