I'm certainly not arguing in favor of ranking based on # of losses alone.
One of my biggest disappointments in the CFP so far is that the committee has ALWAYS done that when it counted. They do have 2-loss UGA ahead of 1-loss tOSU this year but that is for 5/6 and I honestly do NOT think they would have done that if it had been for 4/5 instead.
But that's my point. It's easier to do it when it's an 11-2 Stanford [that won its CCG] or an 11-2 Georgia [that didn't], but it's not whether or not this is the best team.
Likewise, I don't think Notre Dame is one of the best 4 teams in the nation, but there was NO way they weren't getting in.
I'm not arguing against Notre Dame based on resume. They deserve to be in. But I don't believe they're one of the best 4 teams, and I think Clemson is going to show that convincingly.
I keep highlighting these points because, as I've consistently said, the BCS or the CFP puts us in the question of whether you want the "most deserving teams" or the "best teams". Most deserving is based on resume. "Best" is based on a subjective evaluation by the experts.
The committee is inconsistent. Georgia might be better than OSU, but they're not as deserving when you consider resume. Yet the committee puts them 5th to insulate themselves from the argument of whether it should be OU or OSU in the playoff. OU/UGA/OSU are probably better than Notre Dame. But Notre Dame gets the benefit of the doubt based on resume; I'm not convinced it's based on quality.
5+1+2 gives you the best of both worlds. It gives you six teams who deserve to be there because of what they've accomplished ON the field--they won their conference. And it gives you two at-large teams so that teams who legitimately are some of the best in the nation are not excluded.