This year should hopefully clear that up. I think the importance of a conference championship is that the extra game against a good team can improve your resume. If the title game is Penn State vs Wisconsin, I don't think that win makes either have a better resume than Ohio State, and I don't think it draws them close enough for a conference championship to be a tiebreaker. This year should explain if conference championships themselves give you a boost, or if it's the additional ranked win.

Because the person I responded to said that Penn State had a better resume than Ohio state because they won the head to head, and didn't address comparing their wins or losses at all. Basically the idea that head to head trumps what you've done all season long. Obviously Pitt isn't in the conversation, but with his line of reasoning they would be. I strongly disagree with that. If you can make an argument that Penn State has a better resume based on their wins and losses, I'd listen, but that's not what the other guy did

And so are record and strength of schedule...

It works in the division because that only measures conference games. If you're arguing that Penn State has a better conference record, that's reasonable enough, but we're talking about overall and getting into the playoff, not the B1G championship game

So Pitt should get in over Clemson? No, we have a whole season to judge these teams. Head to head works as a tiebreaker, but as I demonstrated through the resumes, they aren't tied, so a tiebreaker shouldn't come into play

I'm just following his flawed logic to its conclusion. There's more to a teams body of work than one game, and putting the emphasis entirely on one head to head game as opposed to the rest of the games they've played doesn't make sense. No one would say Pitt deserves to be in over Clemson because their resume doesn't come close to stacking up, despite the head to head win, and that's the same point I'm making about Penn state. They have worse wins and worse losses.