>The only thing l’ll respond to is that the NCAA has never sanction a BCS national championship.

I know..? Thats not what you said though.

>Are you 12 years old?

Lol

>The other comments are already answered in the thread for comprehension by anyone with a high school reading level and a basic grasp of mathematics.

Insulting other peoples math skills when you cant move past only using win% is a bold move

>The team at the end of the year with the most wins is the most successful.

>I didn’t write total wins trumps championships

Pick one.

>The NCAA does[nt]?? sponsor a national championship award for football.

The NCAA does infact sponser multiple national championships for football.

>Prior to the BCS, the only championships awarded were conference titles.

Not by the NCAA, which seems to be your criteria

>The AP is just one of many polls and is not official.

Its reconized by the NCAA though. Again pick one.

>The most fair way to measure success is win percentage and trend that over time.

Not all competition is equal. There are highschools with better win% than the best college programs.

>It removes the recency bias of the chart,

What recency bias? Its not like UGA or FSU or Clemson are at the top of the list. Hell two of the top programs (UM and ND) havent been at the top in a while. Its honestly the opposite or recency bias from what i can tell

>We have a championship unlike football.

CFB has 2 championships ran by the NCAA and another one reconized by them.

>A win percentage is a better measurement of success than an opinion poll especially overtime because it irons good and bad years and shows consistency.

Only if the SoS were equal and the wins and losses came against relatively equal teams. If 2 teams go .750 over a bunch of years but one of them regularly beat top 10 teams and the other only plays a top 10ish team infrequently and losses every time then win% doesnt do a good job telling the whole story.

If you have a team who went 14-1 and lost in the championship and a team who ended 13-2 and beat them to win the championship and you try telling either team the 14-1 team was more successful you would get laughed out of the building.

Idk what sport/competition you play that total # of wins trumps winning it all but thats not how it works in CFB or any level of football

Winning alot of games isnt the same as winning the games that matter. They only have half a championship since WW2. Everyone else on here has multiple

The issue with rewarding conference championships is non of the conferences are equal. Winning the SEC is not the same as winning the Sunbelt or the Pac12. USC dominating the Pac12 for years on end would get more rewarded when OSU was just as good but split the B1G with UM more.