They need to explictly define the goal of the CFP, other than money of course. Is it:
1. Determine a champion
2. Determine the best team
3. Determine the 4 best teams
4. Determine the teams with the 4 best seasons (most deserving)
Those are four different things. They are doing none of the four. They are picking the 4 most politically palatable teams. The bias (euphemistically, the eye test) is off the charts. That Georgia with a terrible loss was still in the equation in what was otherwise a very easy selection this year exposes that.
Under scenario 1 and 2, you would never have 2 teams from the same confernce. If you can't win your league you are clearly not the champion or the best team unless you adopt a system more like BB and add all viable teams or limit it to confernce champions.
If you are just looking for the 4 best teams, which is the current claim, you need to rely on power rankings and other metrics, with the eye test as a last resort. There is no way for a human to process that amount of data.
The 4 most deserving are the ones with the best record and most quality wins. Not because of confernce affiliation but becuase they beat better teams. The idea that a .500 SEC win is better than a win over an 8 win PAC team is pure bias. Especially when 3 of those wins are usually garbage.