The final college football rankings and playoffs came out today, and controversy was going to be expected. This was because, in the ACC championship game, SMU lost to Clemson, propelling the Tigers to the playoffs, and making the playoff committee have to choose once more. Similarly to last year, they chose Alabama as the 4th seed, leaving out Florida State, a team who went undefeated and won the ACC but were left out due to their QB, Jordan Travis, getting injured. Now they had another decision to make, punish SMU for losing by removing them out of the playoffs entirely, or don’t get Alabama a chance. This time, they let SMU have one more shot and had them as the 11th seed taking on Penn State, but taking Alabama out of the picture. This, of course, raised many questions, comments, and the fanbase of Alabama “rolling” in their tide. But was it justified to leave them out of the playoffs because of SMU losing? I’ll take a look at some key reasons as to why they may have been left out in the first place, including reasons for including and not including them, starting with:
Case 1: The ACC Championship
As mentioned before, the Clemson Tigers punched their way into the playoffs, beating the SMU Mustangs 34-31. But the context of how this game should be mentioned. At the start, Clemson was beating the lights out of the Mustangs, 21-7 in the 1st quarter at some point. But what ended up happening was that the Mustangs fought tooth and nail to bring the game into a 31-point tie in the 4th Quarter, yet it was all for nought. Freshman kicker Nolan Hauser nailed a 56-yarder to punch the Tigers’ ticket to the playoff.
The main argument in this case is that SMU ended up only losing by 3 while trying to come back, rather than getting blown out entirely. Let’s say SMU only managed to score 7 points the entire game, and Clemson was just running up the score, 30-40 as an example. In that case, there would be an argument for leaving them out of the playoffs, as they didn’t prove to the world and the committee that they deserve to be there. This would leave a backdoor for Alabama to get in, as they were the next ranked team beneath SMU. But this wasn’t the case. Even the head coach of the Tigers, Dabo Swinney had this to say about the Mustangs: “That’s a playoff team, SMU, they better be in that dang playoff. There’s no way they shouldn’t miss the playoffs”. Considering this came from a coach who was a former regular in these playoffs, his words did carry some weight, as the Mustangs did fight tooth and nail to try and come back. Yet everyone thought this loss would propel them out, similar to Florida State last year. Especially when the Tide had something else going for them:
Case 2A: Strength of Schedule
The Crimson Tide had the 16th-highest SOS in the entirety of the FCS. Their main wins included vs Georgia, @LSU, and vs South Carolina. SMU on the other hand had the 60th SOS, their main wins including @Louisville, Vs Pitt, and Vs Duke. This reasoning puts Alabama way ahead of SMU, considering that their wins came against currently ranked teams as of today. However, SMU’s wins came against two former ranked teams and a pretty decent Duke team. This would seem to make a good argument for the Tide, as facing top teams and winning puts you amongst these top teams in the country but then you have some other cases that don’t really help them at all.
Case 2B: Non-Conference Strength of Schedule
Like any other college team, teams would schedule out-of-conference matches against other teams, to increase their SOS. But for Alabama, their main matches came against @Wisconson and VS USF of all teams. These won’t really help out their case, especially considering their others were to an FCS Mercer and a Sub-FBS WKU. I mean if you want to consider that WKU made their conference championship game, and Mercer is in the FCS Semifinals, that could have an argument if you want to literally take it too far. As for SMU, they had a slightly better schedule, losing to a currently ranked BYU and winning against TCU, both going to bowls. It doesn’t make sense to bring SOS into that matter if you want to include their entire schedule. Sure Alabama had the better SOS, but scheduling out-of-conference games like that won’t help the case. Even then, there is still one major case, that was most likely the main reason as to why Alabama got snubbed.
Case 3: Losses
Wins mean everything in sports, but losses also matter as much. Losses can determine if a team makes it to the playoffs, or not given a chance. For SMU, they ended the season 11-2, with an 8-0 undefeated record in conference play. The only losses were to, once again, a ranked BYU squad, and their recent loss to Clemson. Both of these losses, while detrimental, were by a combined six points, losing by a field goal to both teams.
As for Alabama, they finished the season 9-3, with a 5-3 conference record. One of their losses came to the current 9th-seed Tennessee Vols. If this was their only loss this season, then yes, they would have most likely made the playoffs regardless of SMU losing. But what about the other two losses? It was to an unranked Vanderbilt and Oklahoma, not the best losses you can have. Two teams that went 6-6 to end the year, the Tide lost all expectations to these teams. Against Vanderbilt, it was a five-point loss, after they just beat Georgia, and Alabama was ranked #1 in the country. But maybe they could have been slightly excused from that, it was just a five-point loss anyway. But then they lay an egg against a really, really mid-Oklahoma, losing by 21 points. This really brings the case for Alabama to make it to a close, because most of the internet believed that unless you win your conference, you shouldn’t sniff the playoffs with three in-conference losses. Now if those losses came out of conference, and were a similar 3-ish point loss to the likes of teams like Ohio State, or even Notre Dame, then maybe there was a chance to make it in. But as much as wins matter in this game, losses to teams you should have beaten matter as much.
Final Verdict
People originally thought that the committee would be biased toward the SEC, considering their prestige based on their name. But the committee let SMU get in this time, mainly due to the losses Alabama suffered, and SMU proving they can at least hang with top teams. The argument will now focus on whether SOS scheduling truly matters if you get snubbed by teams lower than yours, but it was either that or conference championships no longer have any form of relevance if you were going to punish the loser that badly. Personally, in my opinion, the answer to the main question of whether should be left out is this:
As much as SOS scheduling matters, losses also matter too. Even with a brand new head coach, losing to teams that you had no business losing means a lot. And in this case, Alabama losing to these conference teams should be grounds for not including them in the playoffs.
With that being said, off to Bowl Season! And don’t worry Alabama, you get a rematch with Michigan in the Reliaquest Bowl!
