The only point I was really making there was that what constitutes a championship level record is contingent on the context.
More best vs best scheduling and a bigger playoff are the things that grab the immediate cash, so all roads are going to lead in that direction. Not sure exactly when or in what format, but I don't think there can be much doubt that 2 or 3 loss teams are going to start being regular features of the business end of the title race, and of course as you say correctly, that leeway is going to benefit Alabama and Ohio State, not Mizzou and Illinois.
(The future of playoff expansion is the question I feel like is being under-discussed, and would benefit from some reporting from journalists with good contacts in the B1G and SEC. Do they maybe benefit from staying at 4? I think you could make that argument. I don't think they have the horses to just play champion against champion and shut the rest of the system out yet, but do Warren and Sankey think that?)
Argue amongst yourselves fellas.
I would say though Matt, to your point about the centrality of ties to the school and having that in common with the athletes, I 1000% agree and that's where I take a much different view of the explosion of transfer liberalization than most people of the general "the NCAA sucks, pay the players" disposition.
Players routinely having careers at multiple major programs undermines the core ethos of college sports in a way NIL does not. Transfer liberalization was pursued as a release valve to try and sustain labor peace, but that dam was collapsing so fast it has wound up getting lumped in with other player rights issues in an unhelpful way. Financial compensation as an inducement and bargained-for exchange tying a player to a school is a much better framework, but I fear that horse has permanently left the barn.
You can bet your bottom dollar that when this ship starts to sink, every last bit of it will be blamed on the players.