For president, change counts. For VP, experience. And why not the opposite ? the opposite is better. I prefer an experimented president with a young VP.
Actually, if you look historically, the Change/Experience ticket is much more traditional -- believe it or not.
In fact, experience - change has produced some stinkers... Kerry - Edwards and Mondale - Ferraro come to mind.
It depends on what you define as Change and Experience. By my definition, Carter-Mondale, Clinton-Gore, and Bush-Cheney were all of the "change-experience" design as well.
Also, "experience-change" is a completely different story from "change-experience."
In fact, every ticket elected (as opposed to re-elected/elected for the first time but as an incumbent) since 1952 has been Change/Experience save for Nixon/Agnew in 1968 and Bush/Quayle in 1988. Nixon/Agnew faced a ticket that also was not Change/Experience, making Bush/Quayle the only non-Change/Experience ticket to ever defeat a Change/Experience ticket in recent times without the benefit of incumbency.
(You listed all of those, but it's good to make it pretty clear.) Does that make any difference? No, but it clearly demonstrates why choices of VPs like Edwards and possibly Palin (though we will have to see on that one) are often plain stupid.