Nobody is saying "Bama blows." With the criteria that the committee seems to be applying, though, there is a very strong argument that Bama is not one of the best 4 teams in the nation. If conference championships don't mean anything (Ohio State), going undefeated doesn't mean anything (Western Michigan), wins/losses don't mean anything (UM at 10-2 potentially getting in over 11-2 Clemson or Washington), then all you're really left with is the "eye test" and comparing how teams are playing now. Sure, Bama may not have had "trouble" with most teams on their schedule, but they struggled with two shit teams as you posted, giving up more points to Mississippi than almost every other team Mississippi played. If you want to look at recent games, Bama struggled offensively with both Auburn and Chattanooga (an FCS school!).
If you want to look at schools that are hot NOW, you have to look at OSU (5 straight wins, with 2 of those being over top 10 teams), Penn State (8 straight wins, with one of those wins being over #2 tOSU), USC (8 straight wins, including wins over top 10 Colorado and Washington), Oklahoma (8 straight dominating wins, including wins over top-15 WVU), Wisconsin (6 straight wins, including a win over a top-10 team) and Colorado (6 straight wins, including multiple wins over top-25 teams).
Bama's resume just doesn't stack up if we're ignoring or discounting those factors i mentioned. They're struggling with inferior opponents and benefiting from the SEC being way down. They're best win is inarguably USC, and that win is irrelevant because USC was a completely different team than it is now. It just seems like the committee is saying some factors are important while others are not, but then tossing all of that out of the window just because Bama is undefeated.