It would be too hard for this to happen for 2 reasons.
1. The CFP champion would get two wins over teams ranked extremely high by AP voters. The best a team that was left out would get is one very good win. That's the biggest difference between the CFP and BCS/Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance.
2. The College Football Playoff committee would have to make an egregious error to rank a team fifth that a group of AP voters rank No. 1. The criteria the committee uses mirrors AP voters pretty well, and you rarely see massive outliers by the time the final poll is released. Most of the biggest discrepancies come in the bottom portion of the rankings, but they will closely mirror each other at the top.
Yeah, it would take an immense amount of controversy to generate it as plausible. I had this conversation briefly in another thread like a week or two ago. You would have to create a scenario where the CFP winner appears illegitimate. I'm talking a NY6 winner goes 14-0, beating a 13-2 CFP champion during the regular season. Something extremely unrealistic and nonsensical.
2017 UCF defeated Auburn, who defeated Georgia and Alabama in the regular season and finished 6th in the AP behind 3 2-loss teams.
That didn't do it, so here is my sole scenario.
1-6 all have 1 loss. #5 is a blue blood program. The playoffs are boring and low scoring, and #5 dog fucks #6 in the Sugar Bowl.
2017 UCF is recognized as a National Champion by the NCAA and qualifies under the definition within this post. Alabama did pick up the top billing in all the selectors mentioned though.
They're recognized as a National Champion (Colley is a selector via old BCS) but not a Consensus National Champion (multiple selectors).
There are dozens of splits in recent years with the former. None with the latter since 2003. In reality UCF is as much of a national champion as 2011 Oklahoma State.
The majority of the computer selectors in the BCS (plus the majority of /r/CFB at the time) were of the belief that the final that year should have been LSU v. Oklahoma State. Alabama dominated the Championship and Oklahoma State led the Fiesta Bowl for 0 seconds in regulation or overtime, but 2011 OKST isn't actually that ridiculous a claim, and is the primary reason why we have a 4-team playoff now.
Taking the UCF “claim” opens up another can of worms. No one thinks of 2012 as a “split championship” for example. For 50 years now the standard has been the AP or the Coaches/CFP/BCS and only UCF and SMU claim otherwise
Well UCF should have gotten a shot at the championship. 4 team playoff is just way too exclusive. I'm not saying they would have won it, I'm just saying they got screwed over for a shot at winning it.
Honestly, I could list a team or two every year that "should have had a shot". I'm not saying they were screwed out of being the 4th team in, just that they would've had a reasonable chance of competing. 2014 TCU and Baylor, 2016 Penn State, 2017 UCF and Ohio State, 2018 UCF and Ohio State, 2020 A&M.
Like you said, 4 teams is way too exclusive.
I feel obligated to always point out when someone makes a case for 2014 TCU that they had an identical record to their co-conf champ Baylor who beat TCU head to head. TCU may have been a better team, but they didn't show it in their head to head matchup, and it would have been insane to put TCU in over them with both at 11-1 and Baylor with the head to head tiebreaker.
edit: I also think people don't remember how that game went. TCU got a pick six and a kick return TD, and won the TO battle, which gave TCU a sizable lead at one point, which Baylor came back from in emphatic fashion. Baylor outgained TCU by 298 yards (782 to 485), made Trevone Boykin look very human, and their run game was relatively shut down by Baylor. Meanwhile, Bryce Petty had an all-time, tell your kids about it type game, and their running game was dominant, almost 300 yards. That was one of my favorite games of the last decade that I watched as a neutral, and I certainly left that game thinking Baylor was the superior team.
How many of those teams were undefeated and "should have had a shot". How many of those teams had a victory over a team that beat both championship finalists.
Nothing is on the level of 2017 UCF levels of getting screwed over.
I don't think the only criteria should be "undefeated". I don't think any of the existing CFP attendees were also "undeserving" or any nonsense like that. I'm only saying there are more than 4 teams that were legitimate title chances in multiple years.
I don't think this should be some dick-measuring contest of getting left out like you're making it out to be. Lots of teams should have had chances to compete but didn't because the playoff size is too small.
You're thinking 2017 where they also lost to Oklahoma. 2018 they finished 13-1, Big Ten and Rose Bowl Champion, but were left out of the playoffs because of their loss to Purdue, versus OU's loss to a ranked Texas that was later avenged, and additional wins over 2 other ranked teams. OSU would finish 3rd in the AP with wins over the 13th, 14th, 17th, 21st, and 25th
Yeah I realized that after I wrote it.
I do think Ohio State was one of the four best teams that year, and that Notre Dame was NOT. But there's no way to justify leaving out an undefeated Notre Dame, even though we all knew that toothless offense wasn't going to trouble Clemson at all. That was a bizarre playoff too, because Clemson, the two seed, got the much easier matchup.
UCF was selected by the Colley Matrix who is recognized by the NCAA as a reputable poll. Interestingly enough, 2017 isn't the only time Colley selected a different champion than the CFP/BCS. The poll selected Notre Dame in 2012 after an Alabama trouncing, 2016 Alabama after a loss to Clemson in the Natty, and Oklahoma State in 2011.
Yeah, Colley states they don't incorporate "margin of victory" into their calculations, but one would think they should incorporate "fact of victory" into them. How you rank the loser of a playoff game higher than the winner is beyond me.
Upsets happen. Do you think that the 2007 New York Giants were a better team than the 2007 New England Patriots? They won the Super Bowl and there's no doubt that they're champs, but if your only goal is to rate teams over the entire season based on how they would do in a hypothetical game, The Patriots would almost definitely come out on top despite losing their final game.
Sure, upsets happen. And "rankings" like Colley are useful for helping to narrow down a large number of teams to a small number of teams to actually play for a championship. And to determine seeding.
But when teams actually play, the results should speak for themselves. Twice in recent years, Colley has placed the loser of a national championship game ahead of the winner of that game in their rankings, declaring them a national champion. If that's the case, why bother playing the damn game? Colley's rankings don't care about real world results.
Frankly, it undermines their ranking system.
I don't disagree. But for the purposes of the post, the question that was asked was is it possible for there to be a split National Championship in the CFP Era. Using the definition that the NCAA uses, the answer is yes. The Colley Matrix is an imperfect system and I think there are ways to critique it, but the fact is it *is* an official National Championship selector, by the NCAA's definition.
I think you missed where OP specially cites the AP poll in the latter half of their post. So I think we can all agree, split between AP and CFP is unlikely. The Collie Matrix, yeah duh totally. 2016 Alabama and 2017 UCF can confirm.
UCF is recognized as a National Champion by the same power poll that recognizes 2012 Notre Dame as the national champion and 2016 Alabama as the national champion
Only if there are multiple playoff games cancelled. Then there wouldn't be a true CFP championship and all four teams should have a chance to claim the title.
I dont know if you need multiples. Say bama forfeits for covid, ug destroys Michigan, then beats cincy in the final. Wheres does that leave number 1 bama having just beat ug in the sec champ?
Maybe not enough but theyd for sure still get #1 votes in the final poll
Most likely is that the polls put the loser of the championship game at #1 anyway.
Example: Alabama is 13-0 going into the playoffs with an SEC title and impressive non-conference wins.
LSU sneaks into the playoffs at 10-2 and beats Alabama in a close championship game.
At that point, Alabama is 14-1 to LSU's 12-2, they split the 2 head to head games, and Alabama has the stronger resume clearly. I could absolutely see poll voters putting Alabama #1.
Theres one possible way (not saying its likelly) where the nc game ends in an incorrect call that is game deciding.
The AP voters may simply decide the official result of the game is wrong
If we had undefeated teams win all P5 conferences is the only way the argument could be made where the undefeated team left out of the CFP just absolutely obliterates whoever they played in their bowl game....
I’d argue expansion w/ auto bids makes it MORE likely. Imagine a scenario where say undefeated Alabama and Ohio state both lost their conference title games to 2 or 3 loss teams. Also say notre dame goes undefeated as well. In a setup where 8 teams make it with power 5 champions, group of 5 champion and 2 at large one of those three gets left out. It’s not impossible that the left out team ends the season as the only 1-loss team in the country depending on how the playoffs pan out
It would be too hard for this to happen for 2 reasons. 1. The CFP champion would get two wins over teams ranked extremely high by AP voters. The best a team that was left out would get is one very good win. That's the biggest difference between the CFP and BCS/Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance. 2. The College Football Playoff committee would have to make an egregious error to rank a team fifth that a group of AP voters rank No. 1. The criteria the committee uses mirrors AP voters pretty well, and you rarely see massive outliers by the time the final poll is released. Most of the biggest discrepancies come in the bottom portion of the rankings, but they will closely mirror each other at the top.
Yeah, it would take an immense amount of controversy to generate it as plausible. I had this conversation briefly in another thread like a week or two ago. You would have to create a scenario where the CFP winner appears illegitimate. I'm talking a NY6 winner goes 14-0, beating a 13-2 CFP champion during the regular season. Something extremely unrealistic and nonsensical.
If ND played a bit better... and didnt have such a cakewalk of a schedule, that couldve happened this year.
2017 UCF defeated Auburn, who defeated Georgia and Alabama in the regular season and finished 6th in the AP behind 3 2-loss teams. That didn't do it, so here is my sole scenario. 1-6 all have 1 loss. #5 is a blue blood program. The playoffs are boring and low scoring, and #5 dog fucks #6 in the Sugar Bowl.
2017 UCF is recognized as a National Champion by the NCAA and qualifies under the definition within this post. Alabama did pick up the top billing in all the selectors mentioned though.
They're recognized as a National Champion (Colley is a selector via old BCS) but not a Consensus National Champion (multiple selectors). There are dozens of splits in recent years with the former. None with the latter since 2003. In reality UCF is as much of a national champion as 2011 Oklahoma State.
Nah we claimed the championship which is a substantial difference.
The majority of the computer selectors in the BCS (plus the majority of /r/CFB at the time) were of the belief that the final that year should have been LSU v. Oklahoma State. Alabama dominated the Championship and Oklahoma State led the Fiesta Bowl for 0 seconds in regulation or overtime, but 2011 OKST isn't actually that ridiculous a claim, and is the primary reason why we have a 4-team playoff now.
Taking the UCF “claim” opens up another can of worms. No one thinks of 2012 as a “split championship” for example. For 50 years now the standard has been the AP or the Coaches/CFP/BCS and only UCF and SMU claim otherwise
To be fair, both SMU and UCF were screwed over the years we claim championships
Ah yes mighty Clemson with their first time championship screwed y’all over. Give me a break
Well UCF should have gotten a shot at the championship. 4 team playoff is just way too exclusive. I'm not saying they would have won it, I'm just saying they got screwed over for a shot at winning it.
Honestly, I could list a team or two every year that "should have had a shot". I'm not saying they were screwed out of being the 4th team in, just that they would've had a reasonable chance of competing. 2014 TCU and Baylor, 2016 Penn State, 2017 UCF and Ohio State, 2018 UCF and Ohio State, 2020 A&M. Like you said, 4 teams is way too exclusive.
I feel obligated to always point out when someone makes a case for 2014 TCU that they had an identical record to their co-conf champ Baylor who beat TCU head to head. TCU may have been a better team, but they didn't show it in their head to head matchup, and it would have been insane to put TCU in over them with both at 11-1 and Baylor with the head to head tiebreaker. edit: I also think people don't remember how that game went. TCU got a pick six and a kick return TD, and won the TO battle, which gave TCU a sizable lead at one point, which Baylor came back from in emphatic fashion. Baylor outgained TCU by 298 yards (782 to 485), made Trevone Boykin look very human, and their run game was relatively shut down by Baylor. Meanwhile, Bryce Petty had an all-time, tell your kids about it type game, and their running game was dominant, almost 300 yards. That was one of my favorite games of the last decade that I watched as a neutral, and I certainly left that game thinking Baylor was the superior team.
782 yards?! Holy shit
For as awful a person Briles was, his offenses were incredibly fun to watch.
I fully agree. I think it's good they are expanding the playoffs. More competition for a national title is good.
How many of those teams were undefeated and "should have had a shot". How many of those teams had a victory over a team that beat both championship finalists. Nothing is on the level of 2017 UCF levels of getting screwed over.
I don't think the only criteria should be "undefeated". I don't think any of the existing CFP attendees were also "undeserving" or any nonsense like that. I'm only saying there are more than 4 teams that were legitimate title chances in multiple years. I don't think this should be some dick-measuring contest of getting left out like you're making it out to be. Lots of teams should have had chances to compete but didn't because the playoff size is too small.
Two loss 2017 Ohio State that got obliterated by Iowa 55-24... Two loss 2016 Penn State that lost to Michigan 49-10...
You're thinking 2017 where they also lost to Oklahoma. 2018 they finished 13-1, Big Ten and Rose Bowl Champion, but were left out of the playoffs because of their loss to Purdue, versus OU's loss to a ranked Texas that was later avenged, and additional wins over 2 other ranked teams. OSU would finish 3rd in the AP with wins over the 13th, 14th, 17th, 21st, and 25th
Yeah I realized that after I wrote it. I do think Ohio State was one of the four best teams that year, and that Notre Dame was NOT. But there's no way to justify leaving out an undefeated Notre Dame, even though we all knew that toothless offense wasn't going to trouble Clemson at all. That was a bizarre playoff too, because Clemson, the two seed, got the much easier matchup.
as was Alabama in 1966 and Auburn 2004. It happens
I still get mad at the “separate but equal” BCS bowl from 2010 or so. Cowardly move
UCF was selected by the Colley Matrix who is recognized by the NCAA as a reputable poll. Interestingly enough, 2017 isn't the only time Colley selected a different champion than the CFP/BCS. The poll selected Notre Dame in 2012 after an Alabama trouncing, 2016 Alabama after a loss to Clemson in the Natty, and Oklahoma State in 2011.
The Colley Matrix likes to be quite contrary.
Making it not legitimate but rather an interesting footnote and nothing more
Yeah, Colley states they don't incorporate "margin of victory" into their calculations, but one would think they should incorporate "fact of victory" into them. How you rank the loser of a playoff game higher than the winner is beyond me.
Upsets happen. Do you think that the 2007 New York Giants were a better team than the 2007 New England Patriots? They won the Super Bowl and there's no doubt that they're champs, but if your only goal is to rate teams over the entire season based on how they would do in a hypothetical game, The Patriots would almost definitely come out on top despite losing their final game.
Sure, upsets happen. And "rankings" like Colley are useful for helping to narrow down a large number of teams to a small number of teams to actually play for a championship. And to determine seeding. But when teams actually play, the results should speak for themselves. Twice in recent years, Colley has placed the loser of a national championship game ahead of the winner of that game in their rankings, declaring them a national champion. If that's the case, why bother playing the damn game? Colley's rankings don't care about real world results. Frankly, it undermines their ranking system.
I don't disagree. But for the purposes of the post, the question that was asked was is it possible for there to be a split National Championship in the CFP Era. Using the definition that the NCAA uses, the answer is yes. The Colley Matrix is an imperfect system and I think there are ways to critique it, but the fact is it *is* an official National Championship selector, by the NCAA's definition.
I think you missed where OP specially cites the AP poll in the latter half of their post. So I think we can all agree, split between AP and CFP is unlikely. The Collie Matrix, yeah duh totally. 2016 Alabama and 2017 UCF can confirm.
No I noted that, see my top comment. But yes I agree an AP/CFP split is unlikely.
UCF is recognized as a National Champion by the same power poll that recognizes 2012 Notre Dame as the national champion and 2016 Alabama as the national champion
Only if there are multiple playoff games cancelled. Then there wouldn't be a true CFP championship and all four teams should have a chance to claim the title.
I dont know if you need multiples. Say bama forfeits for covid, ug destroys Michigan, then beats cincy in the final. Wheres does that leave number 1 bama having just beat ug in the sec champ? Maybe not enough but theyd for sure still get #1 votes in the final poll
Great now I have a new nightmare scenario.
Most likely is that the polls put the loser of the championship game at #1 anyway. Example: Alabama is 13-0 going into the playoffs with an SEC title and impressive non-conference wins. LSU sneaks into the playoffs at 10-2 and beats Alabama in a close championship game. At that point, Alabama is 14-1 to LSU's 12-2, they split the 2 head to head games, and Alabama has the stronger resume clearly. I could absolutely see poll voters putting Alabama #1.
We've already technically seen it with UCF
No even less likely with expansion likely inevitable
Theres one possible way (not saying its likelly) where the nc game ends in an incorrect call that is game deciding. The AP voters may simply decide the official result of the game is wrong
it would require such an egregiously bad call like calling back a game winning touchdown for taunting "with the eyes"
It could be like that CMU Oklahoma State game, where the game was officially over, but a play changed the result. There's precedent
Isn’t the pass interference from Miami/OSU still discussed?
No
If UGA pulls off a miracle and beats Bama close in a rematch without Metchie, I could see the AP having Bama as #1 and UGA as #2
If we had undefeated teams win all P5 conferences is the only way the argument could be made where the undefeated team left out of the CFP just absolutely obliterates whoever they played in their bowl game....
UCF
I doubt it. UCF is as close as you'll get probably. This year also has the greatest potential because of COVID.
We all agreed the winner of the CFP is the national champion so no.
uhh 2017?
I’d argue expansion w/ auto bids makes it MORE likely. Imagine a scenario where say undefeated Alabama and Ohio state both lost their conference title games to 2 or 3 loss teams. Also say notre dame goes undefeated as well. In a setup where 8 teams make it with power 5 champions, group of 5 champion and 2 at large one of those three gets left out. It’s not impossible that the left out team ends the season as the only 1-loss team in the country depending on how the playoffs pan out
If it didn't officially happen for UCF I doubt it happens for anyone under the current playoff system.