This year, in my opinion, head-to-head did come in to play. They didn't put the mutts in over Alabama because of the championship game. Comparing those two teams, the mutts lost to Alabama. They didn't put FSU in because they couldn't get Alabama in over Texas, because of the head-to-head. If the mutts had won, I think it would have been mutts-Michigan-Washington-FSU. Texas would have been left out. Since Alabama beat the mutts, the only way to get Alabama in was to also have Texas in. The only way to get Texas in was to move FSU out. If there had been no head-to-head between Texas and Alabama, FSU and Alabama would have been in.
My biggest complaint is that Bill Hancock's committee has not been consistent, at least in their pronounced reasons for the rankings. One year better win is much more important than worse loss. Then the next year worse loss obviously excludes a team even if they had much better wins than the selected teams. Some times strength of schedule matters, then other times it isn't important if a team is undefeated. This year is the first time that I remember injury being a primary factor to exclude a team. It certainly appears that they decide who they think should be in and then they develop "reasons" for them being in as opposed to objectively looking at the teams and making rational decisions.
Next year the major conference champions will get in automatically. However, the rest of the field will be made up of mostly, if not completely, SEC and Big10 teams. It is still not a real "championship". It will still primarily be a beauty pageant.