There’s no such thing as objectively good singer.
I’m gonna stop you right there, chief. Singing ability is measurable, and quantifiable. You absolutely can be objectively good or bad at it. This isn’t a statement of personal taste, it’s a matter of basic observation. It is possible to dislike a song, and conclude the singing is good. It’s possible to like a song and conclude that the singing is bad.
You can be wrong about a person’s singing ability if you are unable to separate your personal preferences for singing with an objective look at things like a singer’s pitch control, consistency, emotionality, and flexibility.
Musical preference is a subjective thing, but musical theory is much less so.
With that said, Taylor Swift is objectively an excellent singer. I’m not a huge fan of her music, but I don’t have to be to know that it’s true.
Tournament brackets don’t actually decide the most capable team, with NFL the teams that make it to the Superbowl being largely based on chance. A lot of the language around strategy is just being overly verbose about the literal mechanics of the game. Coaches mostly just try to keep their team “playing the game” (literally and figuratively) to give them the best chances of making it.
It’s basically a big lottery machine powered by athletes, funded by ultra-rich team owners, and decided through arbitrary rules and procedures, and everyone wants to know who the winner will be because it’s entertaining to watch.
But nobody burns anything to the ground, we just accept the rules, even though they aren’t really fair.