Alabama's Michigan Loss Exposes Unfair Criticism of Indiana and SMU's Playoff Hopes

The College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee has been under fire in recent years for its perceived bias against non-Power Five conference teams. This criticism reached a fever pitch after the 2022 season, when both Indiana and SMU were left out of the playoff despite having impressive resumes.

Indiana finished the season with a 12-1 record, including a win over then-No. 2 Ohio State. SMU, meanwhile, finished 11-2 and won the American Athletic Conference championship. However, both teams were passed over for teams from Power Five conferences, such as Alabama, Michigan, and Georgia.

The CFP selection committee has defended its decision, saying that it uses a number of factors to evaluate teams, including strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and overall performance. However, many critics argue that the committee is simply biased against non-Power Five teams.

The Alabama-Michigan game on Saturday night provided further evidence of this bias. Alabama, the No. 1 team in the CFP rankings, lost to Michigan, 45-23. This was Alabama's first loss of the season, and it dropped them to No. 5 in the CFP rankings.

The Michigan win was a huge boost for the Wolverines' playoff hopes. However, it also raised questions about the fairness of the CFP selection process. If Alabama, the No. 1 team in the country, could lose to Michigan, then why couldn't Indiana or SMU have done the same?

The Critics' Argument

There are several reasons why critics believe that the CFP selection committee is biased against non-Power Five teams.

• The committee's membership is heavily weighted towards Power Five conferences. Of the 13 members of the committee, 10 are athletic directors or commissioners from Power Five conferences.
• The committee's criteria for evaluating teams favors Power Five teams. The committee places a heavy emphasis on strength of schedule, and Power Five teams typically have stronger schedules than non-Power Five teams.
• The committee has a history of overlooking non-Power Five teams. In the history of the CFP, only one non-Power Five team has ever made the playoff.

The CFP Selection Committee's Defense

The CFP selection committee has defended its process, saying that it uses a number of factors to evaluate teams, including strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and overall performance.

The committee also points out that it has made an effort to include non-Power Five teams in the playoff. In 2019, the committee included two non-Power Five teams in the playoff for the first time.

A Call for Change

Despite the CFP selection committee's efforts, many critics believe that the process is still biased against non-Power Five teams.

Several proposals have been made to change the CFP selection process, including expanding the playoff to include more teams and giving non-Power Five teams an automatic bid.

It remains to be seen whether the CFP selection committee will make any changes to its process. However, the Alabama-Michigan game has reignited the debate over the fairness of the CFP.

Conclusion

The Alabama-Michigan game has exposed the unfair criticism of Indiana and SMU's Playoff Hopes.

The CFP selection committee has been accused of bias against non-Power Five teams. This bias is evident in the committee's membership, criteria, and history.

Several proposals have been made to change the CFP selection process, including expanding the playoff and giving non-Power Five teams an automatic bid.

It remains to be seen whether the CFP selection committee will make any changes to its process. However, the Alabama-Michigan game has reignited the debate over the fairness of the CFP.

If the CFP is truly committed to fairness, then it must make changes to its selection process. These changes must include expanding the playoff to include more teams and giving non-Power Five teams an automatic bid.