New College Football Playoff poll proves the selection committee is just making it up as they go

They're at it again.

When the first poll from the College Football Playoff committee was released last week, it was immediately greeted with scorn, derision, frustration, and even anger from many fans and analysts who questioned how the rankings were determined.

The lapses in logic, clear mistakes, and often inexplicable justifications from committee chairman Hunter Yurachek during his post-release interview only served to make the poll appear worse. But given the widespread discontent and overwhelmingly negative feedback pouring towards the committee, there was some small sliver of hope that the week two poll might address some of the issues. Or at least, provide some acknowledgment that the committee had overcorrected for "strength of schedule" in favor of one specific conference.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF RANKINGS: GEORGIA RISE TO NO. 1, NOTRE DAME CRACKS TOP 5 AFTER BIG WIN OVER MIAMI

Well, hope everyone didn't get their hopes up too high, because week two's release on Tuesday night only served to reaffirm the same concerns and frustrations from week one. If not exacerbate them. This week's poll managed to take the clear bias towards one conference and make it even more obvious, while Yurachek's defense of an inexplicable ranking change only served to reaffirm that the committee is just making it all up as they go.

Let's start with the former No. 1 team in the country: the Miami Hurricanes.

Miami entered the week undefeated and the consensus top team in the rankings. They went on the road to play a highly regarded Notre Dame team, ranked No. 4 in the AP Poll and No. 11 in the CFB Playoff poll, without their best player, Malachi Toney. The Hurricanes had the ball 4th-and-6 with 3:36 to go at the Notre Dame 18-yard-line and seemed to complete a pass for a touchdown to tie the game. It looked like a catch in real time and on replay; the Miami receiver came down with a foot in bounds, then stepped out of bounds, before losing control of the ball. But the officials on the field called it incomplete and review upheld it. They lost 31-24, but that play served to underscore how close the outcome was.

Road loss to a highly-ranked team in a very close game, missing their best player. Surely, the Hurricanes dropped just a few spots, right? After all, that's the standard that poll voters have set for the SEC; lose a close game on the road to a highly-ranked team and you'll drop one spot. Maybe.

Instead, Miami fell six spots to No. 7. When the Georgia Bulldogs lost, at home, to a mediocre Auburn Tigers team, AP Poll voters dropped them four spots. That's why fans from other conferences get upset; there is very little consistency for how these "experts" evaluate losses, and the benefits always seem to point in one direction.

Speaking of absurd drops, one of Yurachek's most ridiculous post-poll comments was about the now-No. 9 Indiana Hoosiers. Indiana entered the week at No. 4 and didn't play, sitting out for their bye week ahead of a huge matchup against USC on Saturday. While not playing, they dropped from No. 4 to No. 9. Again, they did not play. And they dropped five spots.

Inexplicable, right? Well, Yurachek was asked about it and attempted to provide an explanation.

"Indiana was probably a victim of having a bye week at the wrong time with seven games between Top 25 teams," he said. "The committee is really impressed with what UCLA, Texas, and Notre Dame did as well as Alabama and LSU."

WE NEED TO ABOLISH THE CFP SELECTION COMMITTEE AFTER YET ANOTHER EMBARRASSMENT

"Every team that Indiana had played to date in the Big Ten all lost and that effected their strength of schedule rank and the committee's review of Indiana," he continued. "The quarterback play in general and the offensive play in general is kind of a discussion point of Indiana...They've won games because of their defense and not their offense."

Dear lord. This is nonsense. Who cares how Indiana wins? Why does that matter? When SEC teams dominated teams defensively, particularly Nick Saban's Alabama or the early Kirby Smart-era at Georgia, it was a testament to their toughness and quality and "defense wins championships" mindset. Now that Indiana is winning games with their defense, it's a negative? Alabama doesn't get punished for Mississippi State's collapse, but Indiana's opponents losing justifies this?

Indiana's non-conference schedule is frequently cited as unacceptably poor, yet per ESPN's own FPI computer metrics, the Hoosiers' best non-conference opponent, North Texas, would be an 8.5 point favorite over Georgia Tech, arguably UGA's "toughest" non-conference opponent. Georgia Tech is 2-7. Perception and brand names are often not reflective of reality.

Ironically, the committee was "impressed" with what UCLA did, which was beat Minnesota. The same Minnesota team that Indiana also beat the week before their bye. Yes, UCLA had a higher scoring margin, but since when has that mattered to the committee?

So Miami drops six spots after a close road loss to a top-11 team, Indiana drops five spots because they didn't play. Hilariously, the Kentucky Wildcats, who were exposed in a blowout loss to Tennessee, dropped just five spots as a result. There's plenty more to cover further down the rankings, but Kentucky's two losses are by 28 points and...28 points. They fell five spots. See why scoring margin matters, until it doesn't?

Further down the list are more absurdities.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

USC moved up two spots to No. 18 at 7-2. They're behind Iowa, also at 7-2, and multiple three-loss teams including South Carolina. Three losses. Missouri is also still ranked as a three loss team, with an extremely unimpressive resume.

The Tigers' non-conference schedule was awful; Arkansas Pine Bluff, Kansas, and Troy. They lost to Mississippi State, beat a bad and overrated Florida team, a bad Texas A&M team, got blown out by Ole Miss, beat a bad Arkansas team, and lost to Texas. That's a ranked team. Why? Because they play Kentucky this weekend, providing yet another opportunity for "ranked game" SEC posts.

In fact, they're ahead of Arizona, despite the Wildcats' two close losses coming on the road at BYU and Texas Tech. Speaking of Arizona, at 6-2 they had a one-possession win over 4-5 TCU at home and dropped a spot. South Carolina had a one-possession home win over 4-5 Texas A&M and moved up four spots.

LSU is still ranked, despite not having a single impressive win on their resume. Every game against a "quality" opponent, Ole Miss, Kentucky and Alabama, they've lost. But they did beat McNeese State 63-14, so they have that going for them.

Some have mentioned that Tennessee is five spots behind Alabama, despite the Volunteers' head-to-head win. But Yurachek hand-waves those concerns off because the two teams are not in the same made-up "pods" that the committee uses to compare teams. Head-to-head only matters until it doesn't.

The reality, as we've seen these past two weeks, is that the committee has no meaningful consistent standards. They make it up as they go. Strength of schedule is based mostly on perception and brand names. Head-to-head only matters sometimes. Injuries to key starting players matters, but only for certain positions and certain times.

SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY OUTKICK NEWSLETTER

The committee is simply picking teams based on what they want the outcomes to look like, then creating post-hoc justifications for it afterward. Which is why there's no consistency week-to-week, Indiana drops five spots while not playing, and the explanations Yurachek provides are so easily dismissed.

What should be done? Well, that requires a longer explanation, but a start would be creating a clear set of standards that are consistently enforced. Transparency around the exact metrics the committee is using to create their "strength of schedule" claims, not just "we think this win looks better now" week-to-week changes. Will we get it? Absolutely not. Will these rankings continue being a farce? Without question.