I think there are a bunch of positive changes that can happen, but foremost I want to know what the actual criteria is. What's important.
Just state the fucking rules instead of hiding behind nebulous shit. Is it quality wins? Quality losses? What?
Oregon and Georgia are the clear #1 and #2 this year.
#3 was Texas at 11-2. Conference runner up. Texas had two "good losses", but beat 0 teams in the top 25 prior to the playoffs.
#4 was Penn State at 11-2. Conference runner up. Penn State had two "good losses", but had beat 1 team in the top 25 prior to the playoffs, #20 9-3 Illinois.
#5 was Notre Dame at 12-1. No conference. Notre Dame had one awful loss and had beat 1 team, #22 Army, in the top 25 prior to the playoffs.
#6 was Ohio State at 10-2. They weren't in their CCG, had a "good loss" to Oregon and then a "bad loss" to Michigan. They 2 top 25 teams, #4 Penn State and #8 Indiana. Really strong wins.
#7 was Tennessee at 10-2. They weren't in the CCG, had the @Georgia as a "good loss" but also a "bad loss" to Arkansas, and had 1 win over a top 25 team in #11 Alabama.
#8 was Indiana at 11-1. They weren't in their CCG, had a "good loss" to Ohio State and had 0 wins against top 25 teams.
#9 was Boise State at 12-1. They won their CCG, had a "good loss" to Oregon, and had top 25 wins against #24 UNLV twice.
#10 was SMU at 11-2. Conference runner up. They had two "good Losses" to #16 Clemson and #17 BYU. They had 0 top 25 wins.
#11 was Alabama at 9-3. They weren't in their CCG and had a "good loss" to Georgia, but two "bad losses" to Vandy and Oklahoma. They had two top 25 wins against #2 Georgia and #19 Missouri.
#12 was Arizona State at 11-2. They won their CCG and had two "bad losses" to Cincinnati and Texas Tech. They won 2 top 25 games against #17 BYU and #18 Iowa State.
That's what the 12 would have been without autobids. Here's the thing... #12 had a pretty good argument for having better standing than #11, #0, #9, #8, #7, #4 and #3. Not to say they're better, but #12 did more.
If quality wins matter. It seems like they're rewarding quality losses more than anything else.
What it comes down to is I want transparency. Explain what matters. It really seems like quality losses were more important than big wins.