I seem to be puzzled by the importance of using angular frequency $\omega$ as the frequency scalar to the mathematical model of Simple Harmonic Motion rather than merely using $f$, and by $f$ I mean $f$ such that $f = \frac{1}{T}$, $T$ being the time/distance (time in this case) for a complete cycle. Rather, I can accept both of them as being plausible scalars for $t$ at the same time, and I'll elaborate on this.
$\omega$ is defined as $2\pi f$, or the number of cycles/oscillations/revolutions per second. This sounds fine to me, but I'm confused as to why $f$ is in there other than from knowing that $\omega \ T = 2\pi$ Due to the deduction that $cos(\omega (t + T)) = cos(\omega t + 2\pi)$ and thus it would make sense that $\omega \ T = 2\pi$ by equating arguments. However, I don't see how merely saying $f$ as the time scalar is going to fail to portray simple harmonic motion other than the fact that $ft$ do not resolve to radians. So, I can see why it's a poor choice semantically but not intuitively.
Say my equation for simple harmonic motion is $x(t)=A\cos(ft + \phi)$. If my object undergoes two cycles from $0$ to $2\pi$, I would merely say $f = 2$ and it can model that appropriately. The only thing I find odd here is "having two cycles from $0$ to $2\pi$" doesn't really make any physical sense, but I've failed to notice how making $\omega$ the scalar for $t$ is going to resolve this. If this made absolutely no sense please let me know and I'll try to elaborate what I don't get further.