If we are simply looking for the "best team" by your standards, why play any games at all? We just look at Alabama's roster every year and hand them the trophy.
The issue I see is that people are saying that the playoff is about deciding the best team, but no one is saying what "best team" really means. It is all subjective.
The problem is that if you have 130 teams, or more accurately about 65ish P5 + credible independent, how do you determine the "best team"? Especially when they only play 12 regular season games, mostly missing out on direct comparisons due to most of those teams playing in disparate conferences.
In 2018, I think Ohio State had a credible qualification to be within the group of "best teams". They had one really bad loss when a lesser team was absolutely playing out of their minds. They had a couple close victories (PSU/UNL/Maryland), but they also had some big convincing wins (OrSU, MSU, NU).
Now, I'm not saying they should have gotten into the current iteration of the CFP over the teams that were selected. Bama/Clemson/ND were all undefeated, and Oklahoma's loss was not as bad as OSU's loss (although Oklahoma also had some squeaker wins against lesser competition).
What I'm saying is that if you TRULY want to settle "who is the best team" on the field, it's hard to claim that the current CFP is inclusive enough to do so. After all, the #1 seed has
never won the CFP, and the #4 seed has won it twice in five years. If the #4 seed has won it twice, how do we know that the #5 or #6 seeds might not have been better than the #4 in those years? How do we know that Ohio State wouldn't have won an 8-team playoff last year?
As I said before, I wouldn't mind just doing away with all of it and returning to the days when the mythical national champion was just that. But I just don't think you can have an "objective" champ with a two-team BCS or a 4-team CFP that excludes some conference champions that can credibly be at least "in the discussion" for the best team in the land.
The NCAA basketball tournament is too big, at least as it stands for crowning a champion. Beyond the 4 seed line, only 3 champions have been produced in 35 years. Beyond the 8 seed line, no team has EVER even made the national championship game. So a 68-team field is more about entertainment than crowning a champion.
But the CFP is conversely too small. If the lowest seed has won 40% of the time, it tells you that the next team down has a better shot than you might think. And going to 8 teams, actually HELPS ensure that it's more likely that the best team wins the whole thing. Variance is reduced with larger sample sizes, and 3 games is a larger sample size for a playoff than 2 games.