re: why do conference championships matter in the CFP discussion????

I will say that it is possible for a team in the NFL to have to play the same team twice in the regular season and then again in the playoffs. It is possible that a team could lose the first two meetings and then win in the playoff. However, in the NFL, 12 teams out of 32 make the playoffs. Teams play 16 games. If you lose less than 7 games, you're nearly always in. If you lose 7 or 8, some years you're in, and some you're not. The NFL is much more forgiving, while in college football. UCF could end up as an undefeated conference champion and not make the playoffs while a 2 loss team does. College football has such inequality of schedules, such a lack of interplay between its top teams, and so many more teams in general, that discerning which teams truly are the 4 best is a hell of a lot harder.

I mean, imagine the following scenario:
Clemson wins the ACC Title Game
UCF wins the AAC
Auburn wins the SEC
USC wins the PAC 12
TCU wins the Big 12
Ohio State wins the Big 10
Alabama is sitting at 11-1 with no division or conference title.

Which 4 teams are the best?
Well, Clemson beat Auburn and they have just one loss, so they should be in, but what about the other 3 spots? UCF is undefeated, but their schedule was nowhere near as rigorous as the other teams. There are 4 conference Champs with 2 losses, an undefeated mid-major, and Bama with 1 loss but no title. Out of those 4 2-loss champs, 1-loss Bama (who's only game against a top 10 opponent was a loss at the hands of one of those 2-loss champs).

There isn't really a purely objective way to pick, and THAT'S the problem! UCF, USC, TCU, Ohio State, and Auburn never played one another. How can they truly be measured against one another objectively?