They rank the teams. 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 play each other. Those rankings mean something. The committee changes their narrative every year to justify their picks.The argument revolves around this statement:
I believe this is wrong because a.) if the committee's job is to identify the 4 best teams, it's to identify the 4 best teams and let them decide on the field, not to identify who the single best team is. Whether #1 or #4 wins is irrelevant. And b.) if their job is to identify the 4 most deserving teams, then it's irrelevant whether or not they can identify the best team(s).
That's why I think it's wrong to say they've consistently proven they aren't able to identify the best teams when you even said yourself no one knows what they are trying to accomplish.
When they rank teams that jump 3 spots during the playoff, why would you blindly trust that 5 couldn’t jump to 2, or 6 to 3, or 7 to 4?
Just because one of the selected teams wins doesn’t mean that one of the non-selected couldn’t win it all.
As I’ve said before (perhaps in another thread), they have not improved the process. What they’ve done is take the big group of biased voters voting after all the bowl games and transferred the vote to a smaller, more biased (university affiliated), voting group before the playoffs.
The issue isn’t the outcome, it’s the inconsistent, biased process.