Results are supposed to matter. Are we supposed to assume OSU was going to win the games they didn't play? It isn't like one or two games, it was 5! The argument that it wasn't their fault, that they shouldn't be "punished," is one of the lamest, most irrelevant ones I've heard in a long time.
OSU played 6 games. OSU played roughly 1/2 the schedule other teams did. Assuming 11 games, that means they didn't play 5 games they could have lost, they didn't play 5 games where players could have gotten injured, their players played 1/2 the games their prime competition did play meaning they have much less wear and tear on their body. 3 times, literally half of their games, they had two weeks to prepare for an opponent and recover. The notion that OSU couldn't control it's schedule is totally irrelevant.
Even though I think you are overrating OSU, I'm not dissing your opinion as a fan re: OSU. But choosing the top 4 needs to be based on more than "opinion", more than passing the eye candy test. imo, conference winner Oklahoma is as good as conference winner OSU. Yes Oklahoma lost 2 games but hey they actually played 4 more games than OSU did.
There are probably 4 teams that "deserved" the final two spots ND, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and OSU. Personally if I were using a "deserved," eye candy argument, I would have picked Oklahoma over OSU.
OSU and ND got in over Oklahoma because Oklahoma had 2 losses against teams nowhere near as good as Clemson. ND got in over Texas AM because A&M really only had one quality win, with one nasty loss, much worse than ND's, and a bunch of blah the rest of the season. ND objectively was better (more points per game on offense, less points per game on defense, etc) than A&M was. Really close but ND gets it.