Two different questions
A qualification system built purely on results answers the question of who finished best according to a fixed rule. A selection committee answers a different question: who is judged, by informed observers, to be among the strongest teams. College football has spent decades oscillating toward and away from committee judgement precisely because those two questions can produce different answers, and neither is obviously wrong. A table is transparent but blind to context; a committee accounts for context but invites disagreement about how much weight any factor deserves.
Why schedule strength arguments never end
Because judgement rather than pure arithmetic decides places, strength of schedule becomes an argument rather than a settled fact. A team with an ordinary loss against strong opposition can be judged more favourably than an unbeaten team that played a soft schedule, and reasonable people disagree about how far that logic should be pushed. This is not a flaw unique to one selection process; it is the unavoidable consequence of asking humans to compare teams that never played each other under different conditions.
Expansion changes stakes, not the debate
A larger postseason field softens the cost of any single disputed decision by including more teams, but it does not resolve the underlying tension between selection and earned qualification. There will always be a line somewhere, and whoever sits just on the wrong side of it will make the same argument that has always been made. The honest way to follow the debate is to treat it as a permanent feature of the sport's structure rather than a problem waiting for a final fix.