After a one-week, health-related hiatus, welcome to the seventh Selection Sunday of the new Protest Playoff! This series has become even more relevant of late, as the prospects for a 16-team playoff starting in 2026 have seemed to dwindle amid the SEC/Big Ten detente.
For this first section of playoff recreations (2014-2024), this will be pretty easy. We have the committee’s final CFP rankings for each year and can seed off those, along with champions.
In case you’ve already forgotten, the final CFP
rankings for the 2018 season were (conference champions designated by asterisks):
- Alabama* (13-0)
- Clemson* (13-0)
- Notre Dame (12-0)
- Oklahoma* (12-1)
- Georgia (11-2)
- Ohio State* (12-1)
- Michigan (10-2)
- UCF* (12-0)
- Washington* (10-3)
- Florida (9-3)
- LSU (9-3)
- Penn State (9-3)
- Washington State (10-2)
- Kentucky (9-3)
- Texas (9-4)
- West Virginia (8-3)
- Utah (9-4)
- Mississippi State (8-4)
- Texas A&M (8-4)
- Syracuse (9-3)
- Fresno State* (11-2)
- Northwestern (8-5)
- Missouri (8-4)
- Iowa State (8-4)
- Boise State (10-3)
Other teams who made appearances in the CFP rankings in November and/or December, but could not stay in the final set, included Auburn (8-5), Boston College (7-5), Cincinnati (11-2), Iowa (9-4), Michigan State (7-6), NC State (9-4), Pittsburgh (7-7), Utah State (11-2) and Virginia (8-5).
Our Actual Field: 16 Teams, 5+11 Model
Under this model, the five* highest ranked conference champions — Alabama (SEC), Clemson (ACC), Oklahoma (Big 12), Ohio State (Big Ten) and UCF (AAC) — all would receive automatic bids, even though only three of them made the actual four-team playoff.
But seeding and byes are not tied to championship status, a decision that matches the one already reached for the 2025 12-team playoff after just one year of a flawed seeding process almost no one (outside of the ACC, Big 12 or Mountain West conferences) liked very much.
The remaining 11 teams* are drawn from the highest-ranked remaining schools in the committee’s final playoff rankings, yielding the following list of national seeds for PP 2018:
- Alabama
- Clemson
- Notre Dame
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- UCF
- Washington
- Florida
- LSU
- Penn State
- Washington State
- Kentucky
- Texas
- West Virginia
Unlike most years, our field matches the top 16 teams, like what happened in 2023.
Other than Fresno State (11-2) in the lowest quadrant of the CFP rankings, nobody left out had fewer than three losses, and those were Syracuse and Boise State. Seems OK!
It is worth noting here the greatest deviation between this model and the one I used in my 2009 series of posts: I included all 10 conference champions and only had six remaining at-large teams. While this is the more egalitarian model in terms of widening national participation across multiple levels of FBS, it is entirely unrealistic — even more so now that the P4 (and especially the B1G and SEC) continue to pull away financially.
However, for those who care, under that model Appalachian State (Sun Belt), Fresno State (MWC), Northern Illinois (MAC), and UAB (C-USA) would replace Washington State, Kentucky, Texas and West Virginia. I’m not so certain that wouldn’t have improved the field...
(*For those of you wondering why the Group of 5 does not have an “automatic” bid, remember: You are conflating their highest-ranked conference champion, part of the five mentioned above, with their “non-power” status. This occurred following the dissolution of the Pac-12. Prior to that, the model under discussion for a 12-team playoff was a 6+6 model, and I am going to proceed under the assumption that this would occur in a 16-team Power 5 field as well. But this is not technically written into the 12- or 16-team rules as they stand.)
Alternate Field: 16 Teams, Conference Auto-Bid Model
If the Big Ten’s preferred plan were applied instead, these would be your 16 teams (those in bold received the conference or G5 auto-bids; the rest are at-large selections):
- Alabama (SEC)
- Clemson (ACC)
- Notre Dame
- Oklahoma (Big 12)
- Georgia (SEC)
- Ohio State (B1G)
- Michigan (B1G)
- UCF (G5)
- Washington
- Florida (SEC)
- LSU (SEC)
- Penn State (B1G)
- Washington State
- Texas (Big 12)
- Syracuse (ACC)
- Northwestern (B1G)
It’s hard to speculate how this would have worked with a functional Pac-12, so I just left them in an at-large category instead of having to figure out any new conference quotas.
Oh, barf. Yet another example of an entirely undeserving Big Ten team — this time it’s No. 22 Northwestern at 8-5 — being invited in over a way more deserving West Virginia team.
Even worse, for the second straight year a one-bid ACC is unrightfully elevated to two bids by this asinine system, with Syracuse playing the role of Virginia, and Kentucky is also squeezed out. Take that, Greg Sankey!
(Admittedly, under current configurations, it’s actually Oklahoma and Washington who would count toward the P4 quotas, also potentially squeezing out LSU and Northwestern, but still — it’s an incredibly stupid system.)
This year is yet another example that acceding to the 4-4-2-2-1-3 madness could actually cost the Big 12 at-large playoff bids. Specifically this year, its only remaining current team!
Of course, this all presumes the biggest conferences would still play traditional championship games that produce rankings such as these; the plan, as we know, is to not.
Alternate Model: 12 Teams, Straight Seeding
If the model scheduled to be used this fall (2025) were applied back to previous years, it would net the following 12-team field for the season under discussion (auto-bids in bold):
- Alabama
- Clemson
- Notre Dame
- Oklahoma
- Georgia
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- UCF
- Washington
- Florida
- LSU
- Penn State
So basically it’s 11 of the 12 New Year’s Six participants (No. 15 Texas would not receive an automatic bid under this model, but did receive one to the real Sugar Bowl), only instead the first-round matchups would be Penn State @ Georgia (winner meets Oklahoma in a bowl game), LSU @ Ohio State (winner gets Notre Dame), Florida @ Michigan (winner faces Clemson) and Washington @ UCF (winner has the honor of losing to Alabama, probably).
Alternate Model: 12 Teams, Original Seeding
Alternatively, you could field a 12-team field using the old seeding model used only in 2024:
- Alabama
- Clemson
- Oklahoma
- Ohio State
- Notre Dame
- Georgia
- Michigan
- UCF
- Washington
- Florida
- LSU
- Penn State
As you can see, this instead would produce first-round matchups of Penn State @ Notre Dame (winner meets Ohio State in a bowl game), LSU @ Georgia (winner gets Oklahoma), still Florida @ Michigan (still meeting Clemson), and Washington still goes to UCF.
Alternate Model: Eight Teams
For the sake of this exercise, I am going to assume the four major conferences would receive conference champion auto-bids and the other four teams would be selected at large. I think with only eight spots, the G5 would have a hard sell on getting an auto-bid.
(This is one of the reasons we jumped straight from four to 12, in fact — to avoid antitrust.)
I’m also going to presume under this model that champions would get to host, but since the first-round games likely would be played in bowl environments, that simply decides who gets to wear which jersey and possibly who gets which bowl (higher seeds closer to home):
- Alabama
- Clemson
- Oklahoma
- Ohio State
- Notre Dame
- Georgia
- Michigan
- UCF
Sucks to be the Pac-12 champion, Washington, under this model, I suppose.
Alternate Field: The CFP Four
- Alabama
- Clemson
- Notre Dame
- Oklahoma
Well, we know how this turned out. This CFP Playoff was both extremely entertaining and it featured the four surviving Power 4 conferences with teams that went a total of 50-1!
Alternate Field: The Good Ol’ BCS
The BCS would have produced an Alabama vs. Clemson matchup that is what we still ended up with in reality. This year was one of the few times the No. 2 seed advanced/won.
If you really want to go down this rabbit hole, the BCS Know How project has continued to project on X/Twitter what the original BCS standings would have looked like since 2013.
2018: What Really Happened
In short, Trevor Lawrence is what happened. As we all know, ACC champion Clemson started the fifth-ever four-team playoff as a No. 2 seed and was able to complete its quest for revenge, winning its second title in three seasons to match CFP archrival No. 1 Alabama.
The Tigers surprisingly dominated the Crimson Tide in a lopsided championship after absolutely immolating No. 2 seed Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl.
Alabama previously advanced by dispatching No. 4 seed Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.
Georgia, the first team “left out,” made its case for being left out by losing 28-21 to No. 15 Texas in the Sugar Bowl and letting the Longhorns proclaim themselves to be “back.”
In the Rose Bowl, No. 6 Ohio State barely escaped No. 9 Washington in a 28-23 thriller.
The Fiesta Bowl featured a highly anticipated matchup between No. 8 UCF and No. 11 LSU, but the Knights couldn’t replicate their 2017 “national title” feat in a displeasing 40-32 loss.
The least competitive New Year’s Six game of 2018 was the Peach Bowl, matching a Big Ten also-ran, Michigan, against an SEC afterthought, Florida, which rolled the Wolverines 41-15.
Among our other hypothetical playoff participants, these were the real-world finishes:
- Penn State lost the Citrus Bowl to Kentucky, 27-24, in a matchup of top-14 teams.
- Washington State edged the Big 12’s Iowa State, 28-26, in the Alamo Bowl.
- West Virginia lost to Syracuse, 34-18, in a fairly grotesque Camping World Bowl.
Honestly, when you see these results, I’m not really sure that any of these four teams had a strong case to justify inclusion in this particular playoff, but somebody had to make it in over a fairly undeserving Utah team. I’ll be interested to see if this is the year a team seeded 14th through 16th finally wins a game in either a hypothetical or true future playoff...
Wikipedia’s 2018 season summary
Tomorrow’s Games
To make these posts more fun and interactive, please vote for who you think would win each matchup! I can’t promise to take the votes into account because of the simulation process I use, but it will be interesting to see and discuss the results, plus they may serve as a sort of a tiebreaker if I end up needing one.
BracketCat’s Protest Playoff Archives
2024: Kickoff | Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | NC | Data
2023: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | NC | Data
2022: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | NC | Data
2021: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | NC | Data
2020: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | NC | Data
2019: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | NC | Data
2008: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Orange
2007: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Sugar | Data
2006: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Fiesta | Data
2005: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Rose | Data
2004: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Orange | Data
2003: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Sugar | Data
2002: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Fiesta | Data
2001: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Rose | Data
2000: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Orange | Data | Encore
1999: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Sugar | Data | Encore
1998: Selection Sunday | Sweet 16 (1) | Sweet 16 (2) | Elite 8 | Final 4 | Fiesta | Data | Encore
