[CTcard]

Slight correction.  I think in 2017, Georgia was the SEC champion at 13-1, having won a rematch with Auburn in the SEC title game.  11-1 Alabama was able to get into the CFP without winning the SEC (or even the SEC West, having also lost head-to-head against Auburn), but it was competing against two 2-loss P5 champions (11-2 Ohio State and 11-2 USC), and a 1-loss non-P5 conference champion (12-1 Wisconsin), as well as a 12-0 G5 team (UCF).  So your rule still applies.

Thanks for the correction. Was writing too fast and had somehow in my head put the Auburn win over Bama into the SEC championship game.
But, you're also correct that doesn't change the rule.

---

The years where a Pac-12 champ fell behind a non-conference champion:

2015/16: 11-2 Stanford was behind 12-1 Iowa; this was later settled on the field

2017/18: 11-2 USC was behind 11-1 Alabama, 12-1 Wisconsin, and 10-3 Auburn, which is the one example of a Pac-12 team with more fewer losses who won their conference being behind a team with fewer more losses who didn't win their conference

2018/19: 10-3 Washington (9th in the CFP) was behind a bunch of teams, none with fewer more than 2 losses.  Of the teams with two losses, Georgia was 11-2 and Michigan was 10-2.

2019/20: 11-2 Oregon was behind 11-2 Georgia

Just fixin a couple of more/less mix ups.

But this does point out that the committee doesn't value conference championships particularly strongly. If there were to be an expanded playoff that would mandate conference champions make the field, that might have a notable change in the makeup far beyond the extra four teams - from time to time a notably weaker team will slip in via a conference championship game upset.

[CTcard]

Slight correction.  I think in 2017, Georgia was the SEC champion at 13-1, having won a rematch with Auburn in the SEC title game.  11-1 Alabama was able to get into the CFP without winning the SEC (or even the SEC West, having also lost head-to-head against Auburn), but it was competing against two 2-loss P5 champions (11-2 Ohio State and 11-2 USC), and a 1-loss non-P5 conference champion (12-1 Wisconsin), as well as a 12-0 G5 team (UCF).  So your rule still applies.

Thanks for the correction. Was writing too fast and had somehow in my head put the Auburn win over Bama into the SEC championship game.
But, you're also correct that doesn't change the rule.

---

The years where a Pac-12 champ fell behind a non-conference champion:

2015/16: 11-2 Stanford was behind 12-1 Iowa; this was later settled on the field

2017/18: 11-2 USC was behind 11-1 Alabama, 12-1 Wisconsin, and 10-3 Auburn, which is the one example of a Pac-12 team with more fewer losses who won their conference being behind a team with fewer more losses who didn't win their conference

2018/19: 10-3 Washington (9th in the CFP) was behind a bunch of teams, none with fewer more than 2 losses.  Of the teams with two losses, Georgia was 11-2 and Michigan was 10-2.

2019/20: 11-2 Oregon was behind 11-2 Georgia

Just fixin a couple of more/less mix ups.

But this does point out that the committee doesn't value conference championships particularly strongly. If there were to be an expanded playoff that would mandate conference champions make the field, that might have a notable change in the makeup far beyond the extra four teams - from time to time a notably weaker team will slip in via a conference championship game upset.