I think about this a lot. Were we better off when everyone just played their bowl game and bowl games mattered? The National Championship was nice, but not the point of college football.
Then again, as my wife reminded me, we had a ton of bowl games where people sat out because the game didn't really matter compared to being drafted. This approach of the CFP is probably the best of the bad options.
Probably we need to get to a 64 team league with 4 conferences (SEC, etc.,), and a standard setup like the NFL. Then everyone else goes into another playoff system with another winner. (similar to FCS.) I bet this is what they end up doing eventually. It's a disaster right now in a lot of ways for the smaller schools.
The "Super League" model has been tossed around by people, including former coaches like Chip Kelly, but until the conferences can reconcile their differences, especially the SEC and Big Ten, the path to a larger tournament will be difficult.
And since the CFB postseason is controlled by the conferences, and not the NCAA like in hoops, the effort to include the smaller schools, which are token anyway, are even harder to muster.
The entity that holds the power, but hasn't overtly exerted it, is TV. If ESPN got everyone in the same room and more firmly said, "this is what we want and how the pot will be split, everyone will get their fair share, otherwise, good luck," it might help speed the process along.
Hoops has it easier because the two primary negotiators are CBS and the NCAA, and everyone pretty much accepts, if not respects, the decisions of the selection committee, with less questioning of the system (cough, ND this season). In CFB, there are two alpha conferences, two more that can say "hey, wait…" and the smaller ones that get thrown a bone to try to make it look fair.
But, schools are selfish, and there is no franchise or charter system like in the pros where everyone, even the worst franchises, have some sort of vested assurance, and they all recognize that a strong NFL benefits everybody regardless of their field records.
And you also gotta admit that controversy and turmoil is also part and parcel of CFB.
Ultimately, everyone has their own idea of what CFB is, or should represent, but for most, I'd say money is the key factor, not principle.
This season has shown a program that considers itself to hold the highest standards, literally took its ball and stayed home because it didn't get the benefit of the doubt, then attacked the system, after finding that the sense of privilige that has benefitted it in the past, doesn't always work, particularly in this current era where the objective factors overshadow the subjective more than in the past. It didn't get what it thought it deserved, or thought it was entitled to, threw a fit, and opted to stay home. What kind of example does that set for its students and fans, or the sport in general?