Especially since we have finished with a losing record this year (our second since 2013).

When UCF and other schools like them are basically second class football programs in Division 1, can you really blame them for taking this route?  It would be one thing if they only had one loss and tried that, but they finished undefeated (with one game having been cancelled due to a hurricane) and won their conference.  They beat a "higher" ranked team (a team that had three losses, GMAFB) in a NY6 Bowl.

 UCF: I say good for them.

If we don't want them to have any consideration for the National title because of their schedule, then may as well force them back to FCS or Division II.  As a legitimate member of the FBS/Division 1A, if they win the games (including the league title), they should have a shot.  

for such arrogance, then they're stupid as well as arrogant.

It wasn't all that long ago that the big bowl games were in large part determined by conference champions (e.g. the Rose Bowl). That was the incentive to win one's conference. The argument against the setup was that #1 and #2 rarely played one another, and one of the two often played a much weaker opponent than the other, which greatly increased their chances of victory and at least a piece of the national championship. Moreover, if #2 was undefeated and trailing #1 by a significant margin, #2 could win its bowl game and not even get a piece of the national championship.

So the system evolved to #1 playing #2 in a championship. An improvement, but with lot of issues. How would rankings be determined? Coaches could deliberately sabotage other schools (though not relevant to this period of time, Fulmer voted UF something like #11 after the 1995 season; both teams had the same finishing records, and UF had shellacked UT earlier that year; this low ranking pushed UT to #2 and UF #3 in the coaches poll). It also left #3, often a very good team (I seem to recall an undefeated Auburn team not making it into the top two one year), in the lurch.

This evolved into the four-team playoff we have now. Definitely an improvement, but it will often leave #5 pissed off (as it will often have the same number of losses as #4; this year was an anomaly with the top four teams all having one loss). As well as teams with stellar records against a sh!tty schedule. Like UCF. UCF might've had a slightly better schedule than what we've seen out of previous Boise St teams, but it was by no means good, let alone tough. Their players have no idea what it's like to go up against a Big Ten or SEC schedule and face those athletes on a regular basis. Injuries are far more likely in such games. Emotions run high, so it's tough to get up every week. Then there's the pressure of playing in prime time. Numerous big-time programs have suffered massive choke jobs under the pressure. UCF's big game during the regular season was against Memphis.

Imo, UCF could not have played any of the top fours' schedules and come out with only one loss. If they want recognition, they need to pay their dues. They could easily set up away games against quality opponents--if they give up asking for a home and home arrangements (which big-time programs have very little flexibility on). For year. That's what FSU did. Get enough wins and exposure, and they'll be invited to a conference like the ACC. Or the SEC, if it expands again. That's what it's likely going to take though. The playoff will likely expand to eight at some point, and a team like UCF would probably have to go undefeated to get into it. If the playoff expands to sixteen, some team like UCF who plays no one will probably be a perennial entry that typically gets waxed in the first round--and people will complain about that.