[cardcoug]

I think you may be right, Goose, that the uproar that would result from taking a 1 loss non-champion over a 1-loss champ would be too much for the committee. But i dont think its obviously true, and it would not be some sort of violation of their guidelines, as you've been saying. "Championships won" is one of three independent tie-breakers that are all listed as having equal weight, alongside head-to-head competition and strength of schedule. And the tie that is to be broken is not between teams with equivalent records, but instead between teams that "look similar" according to the committee's general procedures for ranking teams. There is more than enough wiggle room in all of that for them to put 11-1 Bama in over 12-1 Utah without violating any guidelines, even in spirit.

[cardcoug]

I think you may be right, Goose, that the uproar that would result from taking a 1 loss non-champion over a 1-loss champ would be too much for the committee. But i dont think its obviously true, and it would not be some sort of violation of their guidelines, as you've been saying. "Championships won" is one of three independent tie-breakers that are all listed as having equal weight, alongside head-to-head competition and strength of schedule. And the tie that is to be broken is not between teams with equivalent records, but instead between teams that "look similar" according to the committee's general procedures for ranking teams. There is more than enough wiggle room in all of that for them to put 11-1 Bama in over 12-1 Utah without violating any guidelines, even in spirit.