Football
Featured Columnist IVDecember 8, 2024
Luke Hales/Getty Images
Warde Manuel, chairman of the College Football Playoff selection committee, said there was “quite a debate” between taking SMU or Alabama as the final choice in the 12-team field.
“The way SMU played in that (ACC title) game, losing on a last-second FG. We felt like in this case SMU had the nod above Alabama, but it’s no disrespect to Alabama’s strength of schedule,” Manuel said during Sunday’s bracket reveal, per Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger.
This was the biggest question heading into Sunday.
Alabama was the last at-large team when the committee unveiled the CFP bracket before the conference championships. SMU’s upset at the hands of Clemson in the ACC title game upended the status quo, however.
The Mustangs clawed back from a 17-point deficit in the second half and tied it up with 16 seconds left, but Nolan Hauser’s 56-yard field goal lifted Clemson to victory.
So the committee was left to pick between 11-2 SMU and 9-3 Alabama.
The Crimson Tide owns wins over Georgia, South Carolina and Missouri but lost to a pair of 6-6 foes (Vanderbilt and Oklahoma). The Mustangs ran the table in the ACC in the regular season, and their two defeats were by six combined points to Top 25 teams.
Manuel emphasized that strength of schedule is a factor the committee considers, and it played a role in helping separate Alabama from South Carolina and Ole Miss in the at-large battle between SEC teams. Strength of schedule only went so far, though.
Ross Dellenger @RossDellenger
Warde Manuel: “I want to make sure everybody understands that we value strength of schedule.”
Nicole Auerbach @NicoleAuerbach
CFP chair Warde Manuel: “We value strength of schedule, which is why Alabama with three losses is ranked ahead of other two-loss teams.”
Not surprisingly, Manuel’s comments and the committee’s final decision sparked differing reactions on social media:
Wes Rucker @wesrucker247
Strength of schedule and quality wins are no longer factors. The committee doesn’t have to tell us. It just showed us.
Design your schedules accordingly, college football administrators.
Sucks for fans.
Shehan Jeyarajah @ShehanJeyarajah
If you have a strong strength of schedule and lose the games, that’s nothing.
Matt Schick @ESPN_Schick
When you keep using strength of schedule as the main argument for inclusion, it’s pretty clear you know you didn’t win enough games.
I would much rather hear “conference affiliation” than “strength of schedule”. Because that’s what is meant by it.
Courtney McKinney @CourtAnne1225
Warde Manuel said “let me just say to ADs, you have to schedule the games that you need to schedule in the non conference that you feel is best for your teams, your fanbase” @Greg_Byrne let’s just schedule Mercer, ULM, ECU, and Troy every year. Please and thank you ????
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
A reminder: The strength of schedule argument is largely on realignment and by association commissioners and rightsholders who consolidated leagues and made it certain that HALF the teams in a league wouldn’t play each other. That leaves a schedule that is an annual crapshoot in…
Of course, the notion that major schools such as Alabama should schedule easy non-conference games every year moving forward elides who the Tide played outside of the SEC. They hosted Western Kentucky, South Florida and Mercer and hit the road to face off against Wisconsin at a time when the Badgers are still in a down phase.
The committee was in a difficult position.
Omitting Alabama was going to be an unpopular call when the Tide have some quality wins. The alternative was effectively punishing what had been a deserving team because it competed over the weekend while ‘Bama was at home.
All things considered, any three-loss team can’t have much complaint about missing out under the current format.
Read More Joseph Zucker