It seems to me the problem here lies in rules vs. "reality."
Obviously the rulebook couldn't possibly cover every variable and scenario, so I think there is a conflict here that was not examined/discovered when the polearm reach rules, sweep, and the break away rules were created.
I agree with the camp that says if the enemy is attacked with a pole arm they are engaged in close combat (CC). The base to base contact consideration must be expanded to include polearms and their distance in some fasihion.
If two fighters were to meeet and one had a spear and one had a dagger, the dagger wielder would gain no benefits for escaping the spear wielder simply because they weren't closer together. Just as two boxers (say Mayfield and Hatton), where one has a 7" reach over the other - the boxer with the shorter reach is at a disadvantage.
A warrior fighting an opponent with a polearm will have to try just as hard to escape being damaged by the weapon as they would if fighting an opponent with a mace or axe. Quite simply, THAT was the advantage of fighting with polearms - being able to engage in melee combat from a distance. And to me CC = melee combat of any kind (not just fighting cheek to cheek).
If anything it seems to me the polearm wielder (i.e. the fighter with the reach advantage) could break away freely and NOT the other warrior could NOT.