I'm interested in what this committee is going to be using for their criteria this year because when all is said and done, there's probably not going to be many (or any) unbeatens besides maybe Alabama.
They've never explicitly said you absolutely have to win your conference championship to get in the Playoff, although it is implied. I don't think a non-conference champion should get in, but they haven't said they can't either.
I'm hoping for chaos. Everyone loses at least once, with a 2-loss conference champion with a legitimate argument thrown in there for funsies.
Why would the committee handcuff themselves by indicating what their criteria are? If they do that, they might have to actually stick to a formula instead of just picking who they want, then retrofitting the criteria to match their selections. Who wants to take the subjectivity out of something like this?
I get what you're saying and feel like you're being sarcastic, but having a set criteria makes it easier for the teams involved because they know exactly what they have to do to get in. We already see this problem in the NCAA tournament in basketball for at-large bids. Why not let them know "hey this is what you have to do to get in" and worry about the other stuff later.
If all five power conference teams were to go unbeaten then you got to the next step of the criteria, whatever it is.