The Fair College Football playoff proposal.

Read the previous two posts before this one.
This proposal isn't anything radical or anything that hasn't been done/talked about before in college sports. It's been proposed by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports(back when there were 11 conferences before  WAC football folded).
It's based on the format of the NCAA basketball tournament(with out the horrible conference tournaments, but that's a completely different issue). I believe it would solve a lot of the problems and decrease complaints. (As well as being a lot more exciting and fairly profitable)

Here it is:
10 Automatic Bids(1 for winner of each FBS conference: Big Ten, SEC, ACC, B12, AAC, P12, Mtn West, MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA).
6: At-large bids( determined by a selection committee)
Rest of teams(6+ wins) get meaningless exhibitions (bowl games).(Ultimately, they're meaningless(no chance at championship) but it's still good for mediocre programs to make a bowl game)
Committee seeds each team from 1(best) to 16(worst). 1 plays 16. 2 plays 15. 3 plays 14 and so on. (Typical 16 team bracket, like a region in the NCAA basketball tourney. Winner of 1v16 plays 8v9 winner, winner of 2v15 plays 7v10 winner, Winner of 3v14 plays 6v11 winner and so on. )
No weekly rankings by a committee.
Optional: Top 5 seeds play home games in first round( reward for being top 5 team). Middle seeds play neutral site. After first round, rest of games are neutral site. Semifinal games can be bowl games like it is in current system.
Optional: Remove conference championship games(so conference champ game loser doesn't get punished for losing when it comes to at-large bids. The leagues themselves will determine tie breakers)

My defense of this proposal:
For giving automatic bids to non Power-5 conferences: I have two reasons for this. (1) It erases all doubt for an undefeated mid-major that may be the best in the country but can not prove it. They will have their shot at it all. (2) Also, it's for the sake of fairness. If you win an FBS conference, you should have a shot at it all. Why should these teams be in the FBS if they don't have a chance at winning the FBS? Makes no sense. You might as well drop non-Power 5 teams to the FCS and make an 8 team playoff.
For at-large selected by the committee: I think it's important to decrease the power of a committee(by not allowing them to decide which of the top teams get into the playoffs but make it by winning conference championships) but I still think that committees have some use.  I think they would be good for selecting the fringe playoff teams, and if they screw up it's not as big of a deal. Also if a committee seeds the teams, it makes it less likely that a team(that's already assured a bid) will lose on purpose to get a particular matchup(like it's been done in the NBA)

Common Criticisms and my responses for them:
Criticism 1: "The first round would be boring, it there would be a lot of meaningless blowouts. Weak mid-majors should not be in the playoff. You really think the MAC champion or the Sun Belt champion has a chance at winning it all?".
Response: This may be true but not necessarily true. Of course, not all matchups would be between non-Power 5 and Power 5. The middle seeded matchups will likely be entertaining matchups between top 10 teams. Also for the matchups between the non-power 5 and the power 5 teams, there could be an unexpected close game or even an upset which adds a lot of intrigue. Of course, the chances of an upset(or even a close game,depending on what mid-major teams you are dealing with) are fairly low( probably why it's called an upset). But even then there's a benefit. Like the NCAA basketball tournament, you can reward the top teams by giving them seemingly weaker opponents in the first round. Top 5 teams should be rewarded for being top 5 teams. Non top 5 teams will have to battle it out against good opponents in the first round.
Criticism 2: "What about school? These are STUDENT-athletes. You can't have them playing all these games."
Response: Same could be said about college basketball during the NCAA tourney. Shoot, you have teams who play games in the middle of the week during the school year for all NCAA sports. The games are played on Saturdays, the playoff will mostly take place during winter break. Also the FCS(as well as Division II and III) has been doing a 24 team playoff(I think DIII is 32 teams but i may be wrong) for quite sometime with no major complaints. A 16 team playoff shouldn't be so bad.
Criticism 3: "Football is a dangerous sport. More games=more injuries"
Response: I would understand that if I was proposing to extend the regular season for every FBS team but in the case of the playoff it's only for 16 of 128 FBS schools. Also it's already being done in FCS, DII and DIII, where there are worse athletes, less medical support and less depth. Also the teams that make it far in the playoff will likely have more depth, better athletes and more money(and better medical support) than most FBS teams. Also, most athletes would love to play more football and don't fear of the chance of injury(they aren't idiots, they know what they signed up for).
Criticism 4: "The college football regular season is the best regular season in sports. Every week of the season is almost like a playoff itself and has great importance. With a bigger playoff, you decrease the importance of the regular season."
Response: I agree with the first sentence and not much else. The regular season itself is still very important even with a 16 team playoff. Every conference game matters in the conference title race and every game matters if you want to get an at-large bid. Like the NCAA basketball tourney(bubble teams), one loss against a horrible team or 1 win against a great team could be the difference between getting an at-large spot and getting left out. So in that sense, the regular season would not be diminished and would still be very important. Also, the college football regular season has never been like an elimination game/playoff(except for arguably the last week). It's a common myth perpetuated by the media. Sometimes teams lose early in the year and get a shot at a title. Other times teams win all season long and don't get that chance.
Criticism 5:"Automatic bids allow for teams to tank/rest their key players at the end of the season. Suppose Oregon locks up the PAC-12 with two games left. They'll just rest their best players for the last 2 games because they know they'll make the playoff regardless."
Response: This is actually a decent critique but it's still is not a strong one. Most conference championship races are fairly close, where a late(or early) slip up can cost you the conference title or the tiebreaker. But even when considering the situation of Oregon(in the Criticism,not real life), there would still be a strong reason for Oregon not to rest their key players in the earlier proposed format. Let's say that Oregon is 9-1(fictional scenario), ranked as the unanimous number 1 team in the country and has already locked up the PAC-12 title with two games to play. If they make the choice of seriously playing and winning the final two games, then they'll mostly likely be chosen as the number 1 overall team in the playoff, with a matchup against Sun Belt champions Arkansas State. If they rest their best players, they risk losing the final two games. If that happens, then they go 9-3. While they still make the playoff, they're given the 10 seed and are given a matchup with SEC runner up LSU. Obviously then, Oregon still has reason to continue taking games seriously. In one scenario, they get to breeze by with a seemingly assured win over what should be an easy team. In the other, they face a formidable foe in a coin toss type of game, which potentially means a first round exit.
Criticism 6: "Giving an automatic berth to a other 5 champion is nothing more than a handout to an undeserving team. Don't put the number 20 team in over the number 8 team just because you want to be 'fair' "
Response: If a team wins their conference championship, it's not a handout. They've earned it on the field by winning. Also who determines the rankings? The media, who is admittedly(perhaps justifiably) biased against the other 5(non power) conferences. So in a true rankings system(like the angel scenario in my previous post), that "number 20" team could(key word is could noting the possibility) actually be the number 5 team and that "number 8" team could actually be the number 17 team. 
Criticism 7: "Automatic berths would sooner or later give an undeserving team an automatic bid. If the ACC has a down year and the winner finishes 8-4 and gets a bid over a 10-2 team who's obviously better. That's something that I just don't want in College football."
Response: This kind of similar to the last 2 criticism but sort of combines them to make a stronger argument. But not strong enough. First off, the "10-2 team who's obviously better" will likely get an at-large bid. If it doesn't, it's the price that's paid for not winning a conference crown. You're at the mercy of the selection committee(though if a 10-2 team is "obviously better" than the ACC champ they'll probably get an at-large bid). Also, when a conference has a "down year" it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a bid. Perhaps that was a very competitive conference with multiple strong teams. So strong that even the best team from that conference couldn't escape with less than 4 wins.(sort of like the flaw of parity response)
Criticism 8: "16 teams? Shoot, there should be a 64 team playoff! You know what... why not a 128 team playoff, LOL" (and other sarcastic arguments like this one)
Response: Argument by sarcasm/mockery, is almost always weak (unless it brings up good points, some satire and sarcasm can be strong). We can make fun of just about anything, including things that are smart or logical. For example: "HAHA. These idiots think that there are little things called "cells" that make up our entire bodies. What idiots, HAHA". Anything can be mocked, mockery is not a good form of argument(especially if you don't bring up any points to support it). But I'll humor those who use this kind of argument. Why not a 128 team playoff? Because you are giving the absolute worst teams in the country a chance at a national championship. Why not a 64 team playoff? Because you are giving too many mediocre 6-6 and 7-5 teams a chance at the national championship. Why not a 32 team playoff? Because you are giving too many fringe top 25 teams(most of whom that didn't win their conference) a chance at the national championship.(Counter argument would refer to the NCAA basketball tournament but D-1 NCAA basketball has over 300 teams, top 25 means more in college hoops). 16 is the best option. 
Criticism 10: "A 16 team format means 4 extra games for the 2 teams in the championship. Something most schools would have to cut their regular season to accomplish otherwise you have them playing a 16 game schedule. Obviously that would be too many"
Response: "This criticism is mostly correct(it makes no false statements). But what it fails to mention is that in the current system, the 2 teams in the title game will likely play 15 games(12 reg season. conf champ. playoff semi and then the final). Also the FCS title game participants play 15 games. 1 extra game(from 15 to 16) for 2 teams won't really change much(if you remove conf champs game, like I proposed)."
Criticism 11: "The NCAA is not going to make this kind of radical change, regardless of whether it's right or wrong."
Response: "Not really a real criticism of this format being right or wrong. Obviously, I have no control of the NCAA, so it's not really relevant. I'm just proposal something that would improve the game and makes a lot of sense."

If this gains any sort of following/popularity(doubtful that it does), I encourage you to find more criticisms so I can respond to those as well.(I'll keep adding to the list, so keep them coming)

How this format solves the flaw of  "the possibility that the best team that is undefeated and postseason eligible not getting a shot at a title": Obviously, it would a allow ALL FBS conference champions to have a chance at winning it all. I can only see one scenario where this flaw would exist with this format: an independent FBS team that goes unbeaten by playing a ridiculously soft schedule. Chances are such team would not get an at-large bid. My response would be that none of the current independent teams (BYU, Army, Navy, Notre Dame) play schedules that are ridiculously soft. Navy(which is moving to the AAC in football soon) and Notre Dame usually play pretty challenging schedules.

Sample College Football Playoff(using 2014 season excluding Conference championship games)
Automatic Bids: Alabama(SEC), Baylor(B12 tiebreaker;Baylor beat TCU ), Ohio State(B10), Oregon(P12),  Florida State(ACC), Memphis (AAC, tie breaker;Memphis beat Cincy and UCF has the worse loss(to UCONN)), Boise State(Mtn West), Northern Illinois(MAC), Georgia Southern(Sun Belt, I'm pretending they are postseason eligible), Marshall(C-USA).
At-Large Bids(trying to think like committee): TCU, Arizona, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss(3 losses but SEC team(SEC bias is real and we all know it) with wins over Boise, Bama, Memphis and Miss St; all teams in field)
Snubs(aka potential complainers with sort of decent argument): Wisconsin (Response: Lost to 7 loss Northwestern), Missouri(Response: lost to 8 loss Indiana at home LOL)
Seedings/ First round Matchups(trying to seed/rank them like the committee):
1.Alabama vs 16.Georgia Southern
2.Oregon vs 15.Northern Illinois
3.Florida State vs 14.Marshall
4.Ohio State vs 13.Memphis
5.Baylor vs 12.Boise State
6.TCU vs 11.Mississippi (hey it's like the real bowl life game(2014) but not pointless)
7.Mississippi State vs 10.Georgia Tech (hey it's like the real life bowl game(2014) but not pointless)
8.Arizona vs 9.Michigan State

My comments: To me, it already looks better than what the four team playoff offers. Sure Bama and Oregon would/should kill NIU and GSouthern and that's the reward you get for being number 1 and 2. But Marshall and Memphis could be dangerous. Ohio State and Florida State are both beneficiaries of being big fish in small ponds(B10 and ACC weakest of power conferences). Memphis nearly beat UCLA @ UCLA and hung for 3 qtrs with Ole Miss. Is it likely that Memphis could beat Ohio State? No but it's possible. 6-6 Va Tech did it. Florida State has played close games with mediocre teams all season and Marshall has an explosive offense. Anything could happen. Boise is used to playing spoiler and Baylor lost their BCS bowl game to UCF last season. The other 3 middle games are really intriguing matchups between great teams from all over the country. And that's just the first round, the following round would deliver even better matchups. And what if one of the non power teams pull and upset? Could there be a "Cinderella" kind of run?(If Boise managed to upset Baylor and then Ohio State) . It would all be very awesome, just like the basketball tourney.