The College Football Playoff (CFP) has long been the gold standard for determining the best teams in college football, but in recent years, controversy and debate have often overshadowed the committee’s decisions. One of the latest chapters in this ongoing saga unfolded when SMU (Southern Methodist University) was selected to play in the New Year’s Six bowl game, only to be blown out by Penn State in a lopsided matchup. This game has sparked a fresh wave of criticism from Alabama football fans, who feel that the committee made a huge mistake by allowing SMU to participate, particularly in light of the performance they displayed in the game.
A Disastrous Blowout: SMU vs. Penn State
When SMU earned a spot in one of the premier bowl games, many fans were surprised. The Mustangs, despite a respectable season, seemed to lack the overall strength and dominance of other programs, especially teams like Alabama, Georgia, or even teams like Penn State. The expectation was that SMU would struggle against a team with the caliber and depth of a traditional powerhouse like Penn State.
The game itself was an unmitigated disaster for SMU. From the opening whistle, it was clear that Penn State was on a different level. They dominated both sides of the ball, leading to a crushing defeat for SMU. The final score was a blowout, with Penn State securing a commanding victory and sending a clear message to anyone watching that SMU did not belong in the Playoff picture.
Alabama fans were among the most vocal in expressing their displeasure with the result. For them, the blowout was not just about SMU’s poor performance—it was about the perceived injustice of their own team being left out of the Playoff in favor of a team that had no business being there.
The Root of the Frustration
Alabama football fans have always been passionate about their team’s place in the college football hierarchy. As one of the most successful and historically dominant programs in the sport, Alabama fans have come to expect a certain level of respect and recognition when it comes to postseason play. So when Alabama was left out of the CFP despite a strong season, many fans felt that the committee had failed to properly assess the merits of the team.
Alabama had just completed an impressive season, finishing with only two losses. Both of those losses came to ranked opponents—one in a heart-wrenching last-minute loss to Georgia and another to LSU in a game where the Tide showed significant resilience despite missing key players. With such a strong showing, many expected Alabama to earn a spot in the CFP, especially given their high-ranking performance in the polls and their strong strength of schedule. Yet, to the disbelief of many, the committee opted for teams like SMU, which were far less deserving.
The Case for Alabama Over SMU
The frustration of Alabama fans is rooted in their belief that SMU simply didn’t belong in the CFP conversation. The Mustangs, while a solid team in their own right, were nowhere near the level of teams like Alabama, which had proven its worth through a series of tough games against top-ranked opponents. Alabama fans argue that the Mustangs’ inclusion was a result of the committee’s attempt to balance rankings and avoid having too many teams from the same conference or region.
From a purely statistical standpoint, Alabama had one of the best defenses in the country, as well as an offense led by one of the most talented quarterbacks in the game. They were battle-tested, having faced some of the most difficult teams in college football, and their losses, while painful, were to top-tier programs. On the other hand, SMU’s schedule was filled with weaker opponents, and while they performed admirably, they simply hadn’t faced the same level of competition.
Furthermore, Alabama’s overall recruiting strength and history of success weighed heavily in their favor. The Crimson Tide are a program with a legacy of excellence, having won multiple national championships in the past decade. Their reputation, talent pool, and consistency should have earned them a higher ranking than teams like SMU, which had yet to prove it could consistently compete with the nation’s elite.
Why the CFP Committee Got It Wrong
Alabama fans are not alone in their frustration with the selection process. Many believe the CFP committee’s decision-making is inconsistent and driven by factors other than the quality of the teams themselves. The selection process, which takes into account conference championships, strength of schedule, and overall performance, is often criticized for being subjective. Fans of other programs, including Alabama, feel that the committee’s selections reflect more about marketability, TV ratings, and conference politics than they do about actual football performance.
In the case of SMU, some Alabama fans argue that the committee made a blatant attempt to be “inclusive” and boost the image of the Playoff. SMU is a program with a strong fanbase and an exciting offensive style, which may have appealed to the committee as a way to inject more excitement into the Playoff. However, Alabama fans argue that selecting a team like SMU, which couldn’t keep up with the big boys, was an obvious mistake that exposed the flaws in the CFP system.
The loss to Penn State only underscored these concerns. The Mustangs’ blowout defeat proved that they were out of their depth against a well-rounded, high-caliber team like Penn State. By contrast, Alabama had already shown they could compete and challenge teams like Georgia, LSU, and others at the top of the rankings. The committee’s decision to exclude Alabama in favor of SMU seemed even more indefensible after watching the blowout unfold.
The Future of the CFP and Alabama’s Role
The selection of teams for the College Football Playoff has long been a source of contention, but recent decisions—like the one involving SMU—have brought the flaws in the system into sharper focus. Alabama’s passionate response is a testament to the increasing frustration many feel with the committee’s lack of transparency and consistency.
As the sport moves forward, changes to the CFP structure are likely. With the growing calls for expansion and more inclusive formats, fans hope that future decisions will better reflect a team’s actual merits rather than a reliance on conference affiliation, marketability, or other extraneous factors. Alabama’s continued success on the field, combined with the ever-growing national recognition of their program, suggests that the Tide will remain in the conversation for years to come. However, many believe that a more comprehensive and fair playoff system will ultimately lead to better decisions, ensuring that teams like Alabama get the recognition they deserve and that the right teams are selected for the biggest stage.
For now, Alabama fans will continue to argue that SMU’s inclusion and subsequent blowout loss was a glaring example of the CFP committee getting it wrong—and they won’t soon forget it.