Isn’t it funny we’re still talking subjectivity? Thought this was all behind us when the BCS and now playoffs were established.
On the contrary, the ability to be subjective has been critical to entrenching the legitimacy of the CFP. It was
objectivity that crushed the public perception of the BCS. Computer rankings overruling the polls (which happened in 2000 and 2003) was catastrophic to the legitimacy of that system among fans, coaches, players, the media, everybody.
The absolute north star of the CFP committee from day 1 has been producing rankings that bolster the CFP's sense of legitimacy. Which is what made the Florida State omission so shocking, that was the mask off moment for the new college football world.
"I think anything we can do to take the subjectivity of a committee off the table is really helpful," the SEC source said. "We may not be able to completely get rid of subjectivity the more we can minimize it. And so Tony Petitti's idea of multiple automatic spots for a conference has a lot of value. I'm not sure four is the right number."
Obviously the Big Ten and SEC are seeking to empower their duopoly over the sport, and guaranteeing themselves 8 of the 12 playoff bids would be a hammer blow in that direction.
The underrated part of having four guaranteed bids in each league though is the way in which it would turn the focus of the college football world from the national picture (dominated by, but not exclusive to, the Power Two), to the pecking order
within those two conferences. What's happening inside those leagues would become the only thing that matters in a formal, structural way.
Needless to say, that would be awful and another big step along our inevitable pathway of destroying the sport.
Having the whole sport work together under one TV umbrella rather than destroy itself competing for broadcasters favor?