The hay is in the barn. The field is set. The debate is over, and the Playoff can start.

Just kidding. The debate is just getting started.

And in my opinion, the selection committee got it right because it was consistent.

Here’s why:

The Georgia-Ohio State-Oklahoma decision was consistent

No matter what side you’re on, you can’t argue with the notion that the selection committee was anything but consistent. The selection committee tipped its hand last Tuesday night that it believed Oklahoma was better than Ohio State, by putting them at No. 5 and No. 6, respectively.

Whether you agree with that or not, that led us to believe both teams winning wouldn’t put the Buckeyes in. They would need a 2014-like statement. They didn’t get that.

Oklahoma, on the other hand, closed by avenging its lone loss of the year and by showing that its Achilles heel — defense of any kind — wasn’t completely lacking. That, in my opinion, led the selection committee to give the Sooners the nod ahead of the Buckeyes, who were ranked No. 10 heading into that Michigan game 2 weeks ago because OSU’s resume wasn’t where it needed to be.

Now the interesting part we found out on Sunday was that Georgia came in at No. 5 ahead of Ohio State at No. 6.

Many — myself included — believed that Georgia showed on Saturday against Alabama that it was one of the best 4 teams of the country. What I believed all week, however, was that the selection committee wouldn’t put Georgia in at No. 4 and set up a rematch with No. 1 Alabama. But putting the Dawgs at No. 5 at least showed that the committee considered it.

Credit: Jason Getz-USA TODAY Sports

That shouldn’t have been too shocking considering how the selection committee treated LSU after it lost 29-0 at Alabama for its second loss. The Tigers were still ranked ahead of three 1-loss teams, which included Ohio State. So Georgia being ranked ahead of Ohio State once again showed just how much the selection committee valued Alabama.

Besides being consistent from a week-to-week standpoint, the selection committee was consistent from a historic perspective, too. We’ve still yet to see a 2-loss team make the field, and until Sunday we had yet to see a 1-loss Power 5 conference champ get left out. Ohio State became the first because there were 3 unbeaten Power 5 teams (including Notre Dame) and Oklahoma was a 1-loss Power 5 conference champ with just as many quality wins.

And yeah, not having a 29-point loss to an unranked team probably helped the Sooners lock down that final bid.

UCF isn’t in the field because…

Three reasons. Some of them are more obvious than others.

1) The AAC — Not having quality wins late in the season definitely hurt the Knights’ quest to become the first Group of 5 team to make the Playoff. Playing unranked Memphis and USF to close the season hurt. The strength of schedule was awful all year, but you aren’t going to make the Playoff when your best win is at home against Cincinnati. Had the conference finished with a handful of ranked teams, maybe this is a different discussion.

2) The McKenzie Milton injury — Yes, I know what happened on Saturday. Storming back like that with a backup quarterback showed that UCF is far more than just one player. Many probably assumed, when the Knights fell behind early against Memphis, that they’d never rally without Milton. But part of the selection committee’s job, fair or not, is thinking about matchups. That’s why this is still more subjective than the BCS, which wouldn’t even process that the Knights lost their best player in the final regular-season game. I do think the evaluation changed a touch. It had to. To assume that their Heisman Trophy candidate quarterback being hurt didn’t change that team at all probably didn’t make sense.

3) The lack of chaos — UCF wasn’t making the field without a 2007-like year. Everything the selection committee told us about the Knights’ weekly rankings told us that much. In 2007 we had several Power 5 conference champs with multiple losses and so-so resumes. What did we get in 2018? Three unbeatens in the top 3 spots and 2 Power 5 conference champs with a lone loss battling with a battle-tested Georgia squad for the No. 4 seed. The circumstances outside of UCF’s control didn’t help. At all. This year served as a reminder of just how steep of a climb it is for a Group of 5 team to make the field. Can it happen? I believe so. I still argue that 2016 Houston would’ve gotten in had it stayed unbeaten after beating Oklahoma. But for now, it’s more Group of 5 frustration.

Alabama-Clemson IV seems likely, but…

We’ve still yet to see an undefeated champion in the Playoff era. Isn’t that crazy? Unless Oklahoma wins it all, that streak will end in 2018.

It’s interesting that in 2015 when Clemson came in undefeated and Alabama had 1 loss, the latter won the title. Then in 2016 when Clemson had 1 loss and Alabama was undefeated, the former prevailed. Based on the fact that both opened as double-digit favorites in their respective semifinal matchups, the expectation is that these teams will battle in the Playoff for the fourth straight year.

My only problem with that is that for college football as a whole, I’m not sure that would be well-received. The discussion about lack of parity would gain even more momentum, and the desire to widen the field would certainly increase.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ll watch Alabama-Clemson every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Right now, I think they’re on their own level in talent and coaching. Well, I’d throw Georgia into that conversation, too.

What’s going to be fascinating to see — assuming the Tigers and Crimson Tide win their semifinals — is if Clemson can give Alabama a better game than Georgia did. If they face each other and the Tigers have a 2017-like showing against the Tide, it’ll add more fuel to the fire that the Dawgs were a top-4 or maybe even a top-2 team.

But for now, all I know is that the field is set. And once again, the selection committee got it right.