Alabama And South Carolina Deserved To Be In The Playoff Over SMU And Indiana

Nov 30, 2024; Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA; Alabama Crimson Tide quarterback Jalen Milroe (4) celebrates after defeating the Auburn Tigers at Bryant-Denny Stadium. Alabama won 28-14. Mandatory Credit: Gary Cosby Jr.-Imagn Images

When the final College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings were revealed, two names stood out—and not necessarily for the right reasons. SMU and Indiana punched their tickets to the postseason party, but their invitations came at the expense of Alabama and South Carolina. Let’s break down why the committee might have fumbled this decision and how these two Southeastern Conference (SEC) powerhouses had stronger cases for inclusion.

Strength of Schedule: The Elephant in the Room

Alabama’s résumé speaks for itself. The Crimson Tide navigated one of the toughest schedules in the nation, facing multiple top-10 opponents and emerging victorious in high-pressure situations. Their two losses, though closely contested, came against playoff-caliber teams. Compare that to SMU’s road through the AAC, where a softer slate of opponents padded their win total but didn’t provide the same level of challenge.

South Carolina also had a brutal schedule, battling SEC heavyweights week in and week out. Despite a couple of blemishes in the loss column, the Gamecocks proved they could compete with the best. Meanwhile, Indiana’s schedule, while respectable, didn’t feature nearly the same level of competition or stakes. A win over a middling Big Ten opponent doesn’t carry the same weight as going toe-to-toe with Georgia or LSU.

Eye Test: Dominance Matters

Beyond the wins and losses, the eye test tells a compelling story. Alabama’s offensive firepower and defensive prowess are on a different level. Whether it was a dominant performance against a ranked SEC opponent or a gritty road win in hostile territory, the Tide consistently passed the “wow factor” test.

South Carolina’s late-season surge was equally impressive. With a balanced attack and a defense that found its stride, the Gamecocks were peaking at the right time—a key factor the committee traditionally values. On the flip side, SMU’s blowouts against lower-tier teams and Indiana’s close calls against unranked foes didn’t exude the same level of playoff readiness.

Conference Bias or Missed Opportunity?

It’s no secret that the SEC is the gold standard of college football. Year after year, the conference produces champions, NFL-ready talent, and must-watch matchups. By excluding Alabama and South Carolina, the committee sidelined two programs from the nation’s most competitive conference in favor of teams from weaker leagues.

This decision also raises questions about consistency. If strength of schedule and quality wins are supposed to matter, how do SMU and Indiana leapfrog two SEC programs with better résumés? It feels like a missed opportunity to showcase the best the sport has to offer on the game’s biggest stage.

Fan Engagement and the “What If?” Factor

There’s also the undeniable draw of marquee names. Alabama in the CFP is a guaranteed ratings boost and a storyline factory. South Carolina’s Cinderella-esque rise this season captivated fans and set the stage for an underdog narrative that could’ve electrified the playoff. SMU and Indiana, while commendable, don’t bring the same level of national intrigue.

What’s Next?

The decision is in the books, and SMU and Indiana will have their shot to prove they belong. But if they falter, the committee’s choice will only draw more scrutiny. Meanwhile, Alabama and South Carolina will use their bowl games as a statement, showcasing what the playoff is missing this year.

In the end, the College Football Playoff is about crowning the best team in the nation. Leaving out Alabama and South Carolina—two teams built to thrive in the crucible of postseason football—feels like a missed opportunity to truly find out who deserves the title of champion.