Introduction

In a stunning twist in the world of college football, SMU has secured a spot in the College Football Playoff, sidelining powerhouse Alabama. This unprecedented decision has ignited discussions on the meritocracy—or lack thereof—in the playoff selection process.

A Decade of Selection Reliability

For nearly a decade, the College Football Playoff (CFP) committee has been generally reliable, consistently picking the right teams for the top four spots each year. However, 2023 marked a significant turning point. The committee faced backlash for excluding undefeated Atlantic Coast Conference champion Florida State in favor of a one-loss Alabama team that managed to snag a title from the Southeastern Conference (SEC). This controversial choice, which stemmed from Florida State’s late-season quarterback injury, raised eyebrows and skepticism about the selection committee's integrity.

The SEC and Big Ten Domination

Critics argue that this decision is part of a troubling trend where the SEC and Big Ten dominate college football, potentially leading to a so-called "superleague." This trend leaves non-SEC teams, like Florida State, in the dust despite their untarnished records. The committee’s choice to exclude Florida State was not just a one-time offense but indicative of a broader issue: the preferential treatment of teams from the two biggest conferences in college football.

The Expanded Playoff Bracket

Fast forward to the unveiling of the expanded playoff bracket this season, and once again, the stakes were high. The CFP committee was tasked with selecting 12 teams instead of the usual four. To the surprise of many, SMU from the ACC landed the 12th spot, while Alabama was entirely absent from this year's playoff.

A Comparative Analysis

The debate surrounding the inclusion of SMU over Alabama highlights key differences between the two programs: - SMU finished the regular season with just one loss, although they lost again in the ACC Championship Game against Clemson. In contrast, Alabama struggled with three losses, including a humiliating defeat against a mediocre Oklahoma team. - Alabama’s resume boasted wins over higher-ranked opponents, but their losses to lower-tier teams raised serious questions about their playoff worthiness. - SMU, though not as battle-tested as Alabama, showed resilience throughout the season and recorded losses to only ranked teams.

The Narrative of the SEC

The narrative surrounding the SEC is powerful, with its teams often receiving favorable recognition in playoff discussions, regardless of on-field performance. This perception has been reinforced by extensive media narratives that fuel audience expectations, creating an environment where SEC teams are given the benefit of the doubt.

What's at Stake?

As we enter this new era where 12 teams compete for the championship, the inclusion of non-SEC squads like SMU is refreshing. It signifies that there’s still hope for smaller programs and rewards teams that perform well throughout the season, irrespective of conference standings.

The Importance of Fairness

What’s at stake here is not only a fair assessment of talent but also the livelihood and enthusiasm of countless fanbases across the country. If the perception grows that deserving teams can be overlooked due to conference affiliation, the impact could be damaging to college football as a whole.

Conclusion

While it may be tempting to bet on Alabama in a playoff scenario due to their storied history and deep roster, the committee's responsibility has expanded. They must not only choose the most "talented" teams but also maintain fairness and respect for the entire landscape of college football—because, at the end of the day, every team's journey matters. As we gear up for the playoff, fans of SMU and other non-SEC schools can revel in hope, believing that a championship run is within reach. As the playoff narrative unfolds, one question remains: will the committee continue to uphold fairness, or will the whispers of a superleague grow louder? Stay tuned!