I don't know many sports, real stuff not staged, photographers who long for a FF body.
This is a very important point - full frame is another front for marketing, something like a new megapixel battle. I'm not sure Canon makes as much headway on chip development for full frame versus APS-C sized, but the $900-$1000 difference over even the 7D that the 5D Mark II commands currently is an incentive for Canon.
More an incentive to release the 5D Mark III first: The features of the 5D Mark II are becoming dated by some standards (control layout possibly, autofocus module obviously, video features arguably - higher framerates would be very useful to many shooters and higher sensitivity is always a good thing).
On the 1Ds front, the current camera in the segment does what it's supposed to do - it has a well-regarded autofocus system and good basic characteristics for sports and press photographers.
So despite what many folks say the 5D has much more mass market appeal to many - a good balance of features and cost that make it appealing to people working in all sorts of areas.
Out of sheer curiosity what are you shooting that would require you to move from a point and shoot to a medium format and have you actually looked at what that is going to set you back. Me thinks I am talking to a troll. If not then explain yourself.
Not worth the trouble. I think the medium format companies (the few and fewer left) have better use of their marketing money than posting unpersuasive gripes on CR, so I doubt there's anything of substance to consider.