[Austroturf]

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.

   

What I hang my hat on is this statement:
"The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

To me that says you must choose the conference champion unless there is absolutely no doubt (unequivocally) that the non-champion is better. Generally, the conference champion will have one more win than the non-champion, and by assumption they have the same number of losses. I see no way, under that set of conditions, one could unequivocally say the non-champion is better. At least we agree that it probably would never happen.

In the 2017 case, Ohio State's resume was tarnished by that one blow-out loss to Iowa in an away game.  Otherwise, they had only the one blemish against Big 12 conference champ, Oklahoma.  The Tide, by contrast, had just one spot on their record, which was a 24-16 loss at #6 Auburn.  Though many in the Big Ten were up in arms about the decision to exclude their champion, Alabama vindicated the committee by brushing away #1 Clemson and then coming back to defeat SEC champion Georgia in the title game.  The message from this experience to the committee: exclude a one-loss Alabama at your own peril.    

[Austroturf]

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.

   

What I hang my hat on is this statement:
"The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

To me that says you must choose the conference champion unless there is absolutely no doubt (unequivocally) that the non-champion is better. Generally, the conference champion will have one more win than the non-champion, and by assumption they have the same number of losses. I see no way, under that set of conditions, one could unequivocally say the non-champion is better. At least we agree that it probably would never happen.

In the 2017 case, Ohio State's resume was tarnished by that one blow-out loss to Iowa in an away game.  Otherwise, they had only the one blemish against Big 12 conference champ, Oklahoma.  The Tide, by contrast, had just one spot on their record, which was a 24-16 loss at #6 Auburn.  Though many in the Big Ten were up in arms about the decision to exclude their champion, Alabama vindicated the committee by brushing away #1 Clemson and then coming back to defeat SEC champion Georgia in the title game.  The message from this experience to the committee: exclude a one-loss Alabama at your own peril.