The debate over a two-loss champ vs. a one-loss non-champ intrigued me from a historical perspective: how was this debate viewed before the playoff era (and before the SEC is dominant era, e.g. before Alabama won in 2009).

Here are the top 5 of the BCS each year, with their number of pre-bowl losses in parenthesis. While using BCS rankings isn't perfect given that the playoff committee allegedly uses different criteria, it's a good metric to see what the consensus top 5 teams were.

1998: 1. Tennessee (0)*, 2. FSU (1)*, 3. Kansas St. (1)*, 4. Ohio State (1)*, 5. UCLA (1)*

This is the year that the Michigan State loss cost us. We had an outside shot at a split title had FSU beat Tennessee, because we actually were #2 in the AP poll. Had there been a playoff. This year, given that Kansas State and UCLA lost late, Ohio State would have definitely gotten in the playoff coming off a win over TTUN. No non-champs would have been in discussion.

1999: 1. FSU (0)*, 2. VT (0)*, 3. Nebraska (1)*, 4. Alabama (2)*, 5. Tennessee (2)

Pretty clear cut here, with Alabama get in as a two-loss champ, and no other one loss non-champs around.

2000: 1. Oklahoma (0)*, 2. FSU (1)*, 3. Miami (1)*, 4. Washington (1)*, 5. VT (1)

This was the year Miami got robbed, left out despite beating FSU. The playoff debate would have been between Pac-10 champ Washington and Big East runner up VT.

2001: 1. Miami (0)*, 2. Nebraska (1), 3. Colorado (2)*, 4. Oregon (1)*, 5. Florida (1)*

This year is the most controversial yet. Would the committee have put Colorado in over Nebraska, it just beat? Certainly Oregon and Florida would have been in. This type of scenario - losing your last game to another team in playoff contention - hasn't been experienced yet in the CFP era.

2002: 1. Miami (0)*, 2. Ohio State (0)*, 3. Georgia (1)*, 4. USC (2)*, 5. Iowa (1)

People forget that this Ohio State team never had to play Iowa. So that makes it hard to say whether Iowa would get in over USC, but maybe in this hypothetical world, Iowa is like Alabama and USC is like Ohio State this year? 

2003: 1. Oklahoma (0)*, 2. LSU (1)*, 3. USC (1)*, 4. Michigan (2)*, 5. Ohio State (2)

Michigan would have been in the playoff over us by virtue of their winning the game. 

2004. 1. USC (0)*, Oklahoma (0)*, Auburn (0)*, Texas (1)*, Cal (1)

Ah, the days when an undefeated SEC team was considered Wisconsin-esque. In this scenario, Texas probably gets in over Cal and Auburn doesn't get robbed.

2005: 1. USC (0)*, 2. Texas (0)*, 3. PSU (1)*, 4. Ohio State (2), 5. Oregon (1)*

This is, basically, this year's scenario, but without us being outright conference champs. Would two loss Ohio State have gotten in over one loss non-champ Oregon? Given that the two losses were to Texas and Penn State, possibly, but would depend on Oregon's schedule. I doubt that this committee would have put Ohio State in over Oregon, though, especially given that doing so would have set up possible rematches.

2006: 1. Ohio State (0)*, 2. Florida (1)*, 3. Michigan (1), 4. LSU (2), 5. USC (2)*

My guess is that USC gets in over LSU given that LSU just lost to Florida. But the Big10 gets 2 playoff teams here.

2007: 1. Ohio State (1)*, 2. LSU (2)*, 3. VT (2)*, 4. Oklahoma (2)*, 5. Georgia (2)

The biggest chaos year we have had in the BCS actually wouldn't have been so difficult for the playoff committee, as LSU would have been in over Georgia, and VT and Oklahoma would have been in as well. Weird how that works.

2008: 1. Oklahoma (1)*, 2. Florida (1)*, 3. Texas (1), 4. Alabama (1), 5. USC (1)*

This would have solved the controversy over Texas getting robbed despite beating Oklahoma, but would have been interesting to see if USC got the nod over Alabama, which just lost to Florida.

Lessons and Observations: Quite a few years would have had 2 loss champs make it in. On some occasions, one loss non-champs would have made it in, but probably not at the expense of a 2 loss champion. Also the addition of conference championship games makes this more difficult to decipher, given that only the Big 12 and SEC had one during this era.

Also, Ohio State may have played in 4 or 5 playoffs, with 1998 and 2005 being opportunities they didn't have under the BCS era.

Finally, the lesson I see most is that conference championships didn't really have the same weight in the polls as we may have though, with several years having conference runners up ahead of other conference champions. So I don't believe the CFP was doing anything entirely out of the historical norm, at least since the BCS was created. There would have been several times that conferences got 2 in. 1999, 2003, 2006, and 2007 all would have certainly seen a two-loss champion make it in, so if they had chosen Ohio State this year, that would have also not been entirely without precedent.