The College Football Playoff committee’s decision to select SMU over Alabama has sparked massive arguments, as it disregards Alabama’s harder strength of schedule (SOS), better record against ranked opponents and higher placement in the AP Poll. Additionally, the committee’s rules about not punishing teams based on certain criteria have been inconsistently applied, raising questions about the integrity of the playoff selection process.

Alabama’s case

Alabama finished the season ranked 11th in the Associated Press Poll, a trusted ranking in college football. According to ON3, Alabama faced the third-toughest strength of schedule among teams in the AP Top 25, reflecting the challenges of competing in the SEC. Against this elite competition, Alabama posted a 3-1 record against ranked opponents, including:

• a win over No. 2 Georgia, the SEC champions, and a first-round bye playoff team.
• a win over No. 14 South Carolina, a strong, ranked SEC team.
• a win over No. 23 Missouri, another quality SEC opponent.
• a loss to No. 7 Tennessee, a playoff team ranked in the top 10.

These victories, especially the win over Georgia, underscore Alabama’s ability to perform at the highest level. While Alabama did suffer three losses (to No. 7 Tennessee, unranked Oklahoma and unranked Vanderbilt), their achievements against ranked opponents and the strength of their schedule more than compensate for those missteeps.

SMU’s case

SMU finished the season ranked 14th in the AP Poll and had the 21st-toughest strength of schedule among AP Top 25 teams, according to ON3—ranking only above Group of Five programs like Memphis, Army, UNLV and Boise State.

SMU went 0-2 against ranked opponents, losing to No. 17 BYU and No. 13 Clemson, and failed to win the ACC Championship game. While the committee promised not to punish teams for playing in their conference championship, SMU’s loss in that game adds to an already underwhelming resume.

SMU’s most notable victories came against unranked teams like TCU, Louisville, and Duke in overtime. None of these wins carry the weight of Alabama’s victories over ranked SEC teams, and SMU’s inability to secure even one win over a ranked opponent highlights the gap between the two resumes.

The committee’s role and strength of schedule

The College Football Playoff committee is tasked with selecting the four best teams in the nation based on factors such as SOS, quality wins, and head-to-head results. The committee claimed that teams competing in conference championships would not be punished, but their decision to elevate SMU over Alabama suggests otherwise: the committee clearly stated that teams that play in the conference championship would not be penalized for a loss, but if they’re not penalized for a loss, why are they rewarded with a win, like in Clemson’s case.

A team should not go unpunished for a loss unless it is also not rewarded for a win. Alabama did not play in the SEC Championship but still proved its worth with its 3-1 record against ranked opponents, compared to SMU’s 0-2.

The decision to reward SMU, which played a much weaker schedule, over Alabama undermines the importance of scheduling tough opponents. If teams like SMU, and for that matter Indiana, can make the playoffs by padding their record against weaker competition, what incentive is there for programs to schedule difficult games? Alabama’s third-ranked strength of schedule demonstrates their commitment to competing at the highest level, while SMU’s 21st-ranked SOS among AP Top 25 teams shows the opposite.

AP Poll and Perception

The AP Poll, widely respected as a measure of team quality, ranked Alabama at 11th and SMU at 14th—indicating that voters believed Alabama was the stronger team. Yet the committee ignored this evaluation, prioritizing SMU’s record over Alabama’s strength of schedule and quality wins.

Conclusion

Alabama’s resume—featuring the third-toughest strength of schedule among AP Top 25 teams, a 3-1 record against ranked opponents, and victories over No. 2 Georgia, No. 14 South Carolina, and No. 23 Missouri—proves they deserved a playoff spot. SMU, with the 21st-toughest SOS among AP Top 25 teams, no ranked wins and losses in critical games does not have a comparable case.

The committee’s promise not to punish teams for competing or not competing in conference championships is a hollow one, as Alabama’s far stronger resume was overlooked in favor of SMU’s weaker one. By rewarding SMU, the committee has devalued strength of schedule and quality wins, sending the wrong message to programs willing to take on tough schedules. Alabama earned their playoff spot, and leaving them out for SMU undermines the system’s integrity.

The Mustangs’ scoreless first half in Happy Valley while the Nittany Lions scored 28 is a confirmation that they did not deserve a spot that should have by right gone to the Crimson Tide.