The CFP committee has nothing to do with bowl selection outside of the playoff and a select few other bowl games (Peach, Cotton, etc.). What does matter in the new selection process are 1) the conference and 2) the bowl. The conference is on the side of variety for the fans (or at least, they've stated they are), while the bowl will be on the side of $$ as usual. Whether 1) can outweigh 2) in the new system is yet to be seen.
Not sure if that's what RJ meant when he's talking about the "committee" - the playoff committee won't have anything to do with where the Gophers end up - but if he's talking about bowl committees in general, then it's a multi-layered answer.
Looking back at the 1999 Gophers, who finished 8-3 (5-3), Wisky got the Rose Bowl thanks to that OT win at the Dome. Michigan (9-2, 6-2) was selected as a BCS at-large, and Michigan State (9-2, 6-2) went to the Citrus Bowl - everything was clear cut to that point. Purdue (7-4, 4-4) had budding superstar Drew Brees, and they jumped into the Outback Bowl ahead of both the Gophers and Penn State (9-3, 5-3), whose loss to Minnesota had sent them into a three-game tailspin to end the year. So that was the first injustice. Then, despite identical records and the head-to-head result, the Alamo Bowl chose the Nittany Lions, claiming at the time that it was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get a program with the prestige of Penn State. That left the Gophers to go to El Paso.
Four years later, Minnesota (9-3, 5-3) lobbied hard to get the Alamo Bowl, but the invite went to Michigan State (8-4, 5-3). This time, the bowl used the head-to-head result (44-38 Sparty win in the Michigan hangover game) as the reason to turn down the Gophers.
In 2006, once again the Alamo Bowl had the Gophers on their plate. Minnesota (6-6, 3-5) had ended the year on a three-game winning streak, including a win over Iowa (6-6, 2-6) in the season finale, the third straight loss for the Hawkeyes. And yet, the Alamo Bowl still chose Iowa, despite the Gophers winning head-to-head matchup and owning a better Big Ten record.
Basically, the Alamo Bowl was determined to never end up with Minnesota in its game, and the only logical explanation is the perception that Gopher fans don't travel. Of course, as Bleed pointed out, nobody knows how well Gopher fans will travel until given a "good" bowl - I still insist that if Minnesota had been chosen for the 2003 Alamo Bowl against Nebraska, there would have been 10-15,000 Gopher fans at that game. And I reveled in how that game turned out to be a complete dud (17-3 Nebraska) with one of the bowl's worst attendance figures (only two Alamo Bowls in the last 16 years have had lower attendance - interestingly, the one with far and away the worst involved Wisconsin's revered fan base).
With the way bowl matchups are now going to be assigned, Minnesota will, in theory, have a chance to prove that they can bring fans to a higher-tier bowl. Win one of these final two games and that chance probably will come this year.