I think it would be fairer to declare that they didn't get it wrong, because the criteria the committee use are so nebulous that it's not clear to me what is "right." It seems as though it's up to individual committee members to decide what is important, which (again) is too bad. The goal of drafting a system should be to minimize to the highest degree possible input from outside influence, i.e., maximize the chances for the teams to decide by creating a hierarchy for the criteria or algorithm while minimizing gut feelings.
Again, I rail against this because they're judging a competitive team sport, not figure skating or art. (Humorously, the opening sentence of the 9-page selection guidelines is "Ranking football teams is an art, not a science." Its self-important bullshit.