UCF not making the Playoff was fine. UCF never coming close to cracking the top 10, though?

UCF beat SEC West champion Auburn in the Peach Bowl, meaning the undefeated Knights beat a team that went 2-1 against the National Championship’s participants — all without the Knights themselves getting even a remote sniff of the Playoff.

A 12-0 run with the country’s No. 1 raw scoring offense was good for only No. 12 in the Playoff committee’s last rankings, right behind a Washington that had two bad losses and one ranked win.

That’s nothing new. That No. 12 ranking was the committee’s highest ever bestowed on a team from outside the Power 5/Notre Dame, despite Group of 5 teams now going 3-1 against Power 5 teams in New Year’s Six bowls.

With UCF finishing 13-0 and yet locked out of a nationally unpopular title game, the committee’s pattern of open disdain for mid-majors is drawing more attention than ever before. I don’t think the Playoff needs to expand (though if we do, I’ll endorse the expand-slightly-but-pay-players plan), and I don’t really even think UCF should’ve ranked No. 4 going into the Playoff, though Clemson-UCF would’ve been a shitload more fun than that Sugar Bowl was. I only think it was clear UCF should’ve ranked better than No. 18 in November and should’ve entered bowl season better than No. 12.

The committee took over college football with great fanfare, trumpeting its own integrity and knowledge. It’s since done a good job of ranking Power 5 teams. But via what we can charitably call a blind spot (while assuming it’s something more sinister), it squanders credibility every year by pretending half the sport barely exists.

1. At least pretend to have a representative selection committee.

This problem was obvious back in 2014, before the first rankings had even come out:

The recusal list, which declares the teams certain members aren't allowed to discuss, shows seven have immediate ties to power-conference programs, with at least one each for all five power leagues. Only one has a non-power school listed, and he's a retired non-AD. That matters for a lot of obvious reasons, as sort of spelled out by Oliver Luck:

"I think it makes a lot of sense to ask Barry Alvarez, ‘Hey, you guys played Michigan last week, tell us what you think. Tell us what your coaches said.' I think it's an asset to listen to Pat Haden talk about a Pac-12 team."

If the fourth Playoff spot were to come down to either a 12-0 Marshall or a two-loss SEC West team, members could ask Jeff Long how that SEC team looked in its win against Arkansas. Whose coaches know much about mid-majors?

With a 13-member committee, having at least one person connected to each FBS conference would be easy as pie. There are only 10 conferences, and membership changes a little bit after every season. You’ve already got Conference USA and the MAC covered, so make sure 2018’s new members have ties to the American, Mountain West, or Sun Belt.

2. Use grown-up numbers.

Another one from before the committee’s first-ever 2014 rankings: the Playoff committee is BCS-esque at avoiding helpful stats. By now, we’re pretty familiar with a lot of the metrics that the committee uses (the circular logic of “record vs. ranked teams” is my favorite), based on Long or Kirby Hocutt mentioning them during the roughly 10 combined minutes all year that we spend hearing from the committee.

Whatever other numbers the committee’s using, they’re ... flawed. A review of quality advanced stats back in November showed UCF was pretty clearly being rated several spots too lowly, and that was before UCF beat USF, Memphis again, and Auburn. Multiple metrics that perform favorably against Vegas spreads had UCF as a top-10 team almost two months before the Peach Bowl, and yet the committee parked the undefeated Knights at No. 18 behind eight two-loss teams and then at No. 15 behind a three-loss team.

The funny part, though: the committee’s numbers are somehow only flawed when it comes to mid-majors. Otherwise, the CFP rankings track pretty closely to a mix of resume-based rankings like Resume S&P+, Strength of Record, and CPI and power rankings like S&P+ and Game Control.

Just so happens the non-power team is always the outlier. Just so happens.

3. EXPLAIN THE THING PEOPLE WANT EXPLAINED.

Toward the end of 2017, UCF’s ranking was often the most-discussed portion of the rankings each week. Here was about all the committee had to say at any point:

“We talked a lot about their win over South Florida,” College Football Playoff selection committee chairman Kirby Hocutt said of UCF. “I think everybody in the room, if they didn’t catch it live, they watched it on the condensed version the CFP staff provides for us. It was an exciting game.

“A lot of comments about how impressed we continue to be with Central Florida on the offensive side of the ball. They are extremely talented at the skill positions. We spent considerable time talking about their defensive performance.

“The selection committee had questions to, ‘Are they as balanced of a team as some others ranked just above them?’ We analyzed their schedule. Have they really been tested on the defensive side of the ball this year and if so, by who?

“Based on that conversation, we ranked them on that 14th spot this week.”

Balance! Every team must be great at everything! Final committee No. 2 Oklahoma gave up more points per game than UCF did and had a worse defense, according to both schedule-adjusted S&P+ and the events of New Year’s Day. But it’s important for certain teams to seek balance.

The committee’s weekly rankings only exist to provide televised drama for ESPN. That’s fine with me! But the amount of time the show spends on explaining the committee’s rankings is pitiful, when compared to the amount of time the show spends on what Kirk Herbstreit and Joey Galloway think about the rankings. Their opinions are no more important than yours or mine.

Either the committee should actually explain itself, or it should just not say anything at all.

No one’s saying a non-power team should get a top-four auto-bid.

I was cool with the final four, and I’m cool with Georgia vs. Alabama.

Save the “if these teams want to win titles, they should go on the road and beat Power 5 teams” comment. They often can’t schedule those games, UCF dominated Maryland and tried to play Georgia Tech, and that’s beside the point anyway.

UCF missing the Playoff by a couple spots would’ve been defensible. But an undefeated team having a transitive win over the national champ while never coming close to merely cracking the top 10 is a joke.