Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Well at least you're consistent
IMHO the pre-BCS system was what it was. Yes, it was just a beauty pageant, but everyone knew that. That's why people came up with the acronym MNC - mythical national championship.
The problem is that once you go away from that, going "halfway" to a real playoff doesn't solve the problem. The people who had problems with it being an arbitrary beauty pageant up front still have just as much of a problem, because now instead of the choice of the champion being a beauty pageant, the choice of the BCSCG/CFP participants is still a beauty pageant, but it's masquerading as a "true" unanimous champion. It's trying to get to a real championship, but it's failing because the selection criteria are arbitrary and changing at the whims of whatever the committee wants at any given time.
So that's my problem. You either have an objective system or you don't. We still don't, but people are treating it like it's sacrosanct in inviolable.

IMO, your and my logic agrees. It's just that our preferences for the sport are opposite.

Screw Georgia!  They lost BOTH of the biggest games on the schedule this season.  They should not be considered, if you are that damn good, win your games!  UCF won without the most important player on their team when it mattered most, if UGA can not win the games it needs to, then sorry about your luck Kirby.  The same could be said about Michigan this year.  In my opinion, Michigan has just as much right be in the conversation if you are going to bring up UGA.  

Georgia went 1-1 in their 2 biggest games.  They also lost to LSU.
UCF overcame the loss of Milton vs Memphis.  Look at UGA's schedule.  Depending on your opinion of certain sub-.500 SEC teams, Memphis would be about the 7th-10th-biggest game for the Bulldogs.  They were the biggest game of UCF's season.  Let that sink in.
People are high on UGA because they showed they can go toe-to-toe with the best team in the nation.  Michigan pooped the bed against OSU late in the season.  Their close loss to ND to open the season happened, of course, but from that peak, they've shown regression (OSU game).  UGA's loss to LSU and their showing vs Bama suggest improvement.  Different trajectories.

I don't want uniform fairness beyond the rules, just uniform fairness inside the rules. Put another way, uniform competitiveness is unrealistic. I'm not even convinced it's desirable.
Meanwhile, these two interpretations of "uniform" aren't mutually exclusive. We can easily have talent asymmetries in a sport with conferences adhering to the same membership numbers and ratio in terms of Con/Noncon scheduling.

I simply listed a uniform infrastructure.  The helmet teams would still get all the talent and win big.  Even with uniform rules for all, the cream will rise to the top.  Alabama will still be Alabama if they play 6 road games, because everyone would be playing 6 road games, too.  The Tide will will roll if they pay 9 conference games, because everyone else would have to as well.

You know, in theory I like the "no 3+ or 4+ loss teams" as a solution, because a) that's objective and b) obviously those teams rarely have any real chance of winning the whole thing.
However, I think the downside to that is that it will cause teams to try to schedule as weak OOC as possible. In addition, I like the 9 conference games over 8 conference games, and once you cap the number of losses before being eligible for the CFP, conferences will try to avoid any semblance of SOS in order to ensure their champion doesn't get excluded from the playoff.
Purdue had a really hard schedule this year. Only one non-P5 opponent on the entire slate. Two P5 OOC. 9 [obviously] P5 in conference. And it hurt our final result. Although we lost to our MAC opponent, I'll bet that if we had one FCS team, two MAC teams, one P5 OOC, and only 8 conference games, we'd be a lot more likely to be 8-4 right now than 6-6.
Is that the incentive that we want to create?

I was thinking the same thing.  It is obviously unlikely, but what if a team ended up with a schedule of:

• three top-15 OOC (the team goes 1-2)
• the best three opposite division teams (the team goes 1-2)
• the other six members of their division (the team goes 6-0)

So the hypothetical team finishes 7-2/8-4 and wins their division (possibly by tiebreaker because they won all of their divisional games) to get to their CG where they beat one of the teams that beat them earlier in the season.  

Then the hypothetical team ends up 9-4 on an INSANELY tough SoS where they are actually 6-4 against top-15 teams and 3-0 against everybody else.  Four losses sounds terrible but on that schedule they are >.500 against playoff caliber teams with no bad losses.  I wouldn't want to exclude them.  

Now I know that the above example is not very realistic but the concept that a maximum number of losses would discourage scheduling tough games is very real nonetheless.  The AD who made that schedule would be run out of town if it ended up excluding his team from the CFP.  

Now I know that the above example is not very realistic but the concept that a maximum number of losses would discourage scheduling tough games is very real nonetheless.

[Note: this post isn't about responding realistically to your unrealistic scenario; it's about showing that "discouraging tough scheduling" doesn't have to be inevitable here]
That problem would not be eliminated but would be diminished to a tolerable level after a comprehensive P5/G5 split (preventing all inter-level games). And it really would be completely eliminated if we eliminated all OOCs and went for 12 conference game schedules. 
Even more impractical, that second one, but in addition to maximizing the reg season, would make the bowls and CFP far more fascinating. Of course, in a 12-Con-game format, we may not want any cutoff for the CFP.

Only the final poll matters. If you think they'd have put an 11-2 Auburn that won the conference over a 13-0 Wisconsin, I don't know that we're speaking the same language.

You believe this, even with the avalance of SEC hatred/bias on here?  Why do you think you guys call it ESecPN???  Of course AU would've been ranked over Wisconsin.

Screw Georgia!  They lost BOTH of the biggest games on the schedule this season.  They should not be considered, if you are that damn good, win your games!  UCF won without the most important player on their team when it mattered most, if UGA can not win the games it needs to, then sorry about your luck Kirby.  The same could be said about Michigan this year.  In my opinion, Michigan has just as much right be in the conversation if you are going to bring up UGA.  

I’m fine with mich and ucf being in the discussion. I just don’t want pitt and nw in it.