The University of Alabama is expressing deep frustration after being excluded from this year’s College Football Playoff, sparking a broader debate over how strength of schedule is evaluated in the selection process.
The Crimson Tide finished the season with a 9-3 record but were the first team left out of the playoff.
Instead, the final at-large spot went to 11-2 SMU, despite the Mustangs losing to Clemson in the ACC Championship Game.
Alabama’s resume included a grueling schedule, yet their defeats to 6-6 Vanderbilt and 6-6 Oklahoma proved costly.
Alabama Athletic Director Greg Byrne didn’t hide his dissatisfaction, suggesting that the Tide may rethink their future scheduling strategy.
“Disappointed with the outcome and felt we were one of the 12 best teams in the country,” Byrne stated. “We had an extremely challenging schedule and recognize there were two games in particular that we did not perform as well as we should have.
“We have said that we would need to see how strength of schedule would be evaluated by the CFP. With this outcome, we will need to asses how many P4 non-conference games make sense in the future to put us in the best position to participate in the CFP. That is not good for college football.”
His comments quickly drew attention, including a “community notes” correction on X, pointing out that Alabama’s non-conference schedule this year was relatively soft.
The note highlighted Alabama’s opponents outside the SEC: two Group of Five teams (Western Kentucky and USF), one FCS team, and a struggling Power 4 team in 5-7 Wisconsin.
“All of Alabama’s losses came in conference play,” the note reads. “Alabama’s non-conference schedule was one of the easiest in the country, playing two Group of Five schools, WKU and USF, one FCS school and one Power 4 team, the 5-7 Wisconsin Badgers who finished 12th in the Big Ten.”
Needless to say, Byrne’s stance did not sit well with many college football fans.
“FYI, SMUs out of conference schedule was more difficult than Bama’s this year,” one fan wrote.
“You played a sub .500 Wisconsin, Western Kentucky, USF and Mercer and 8 conference games (losing 3) You know what would probably have gotten you a playoff bid this season? Beating, say, Ohio State or Penn State in the non-con rather than USF,” another fan added.
“You went undefeated against the non-conference opponents you scheduled. Don’t lose by 21 points to a bad Oklahoma team or lose to Vanderbilt for the first time in 2 generations and this doesn’t happen,” said another.
Legendary Tide coach Nick Saban echoed Byrne’s sentiments during an appearance on ESPN, raising concerns about how the CFP’s approach might discourage teams from scheduling marquee matchups in the future.
“If we don’t take strength of schedule into consideration, is there any benefit to scheduling really good teams in the future,” Saban said. Here at Alabama, we’re supposed to play Notre Dame, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Florida State in the future outside the league.
“Those are great games for fans to see, and that’s what I think we should be doing in college football is creating more good inventory for great games that people are interested in, but do you enhance people wanting to do that – what’s the athletic director going to do?
“He may go cancel all those games now, knowing the SEC is tough enough,” Saban concluded.
The debate over Alabama’s exclusion shines a spotlight on the CFP’s selection process.
As one of the most polarizing programs in the sport, many are enjoying the fact that Alabama got the playoff door slammed in their face.
While they certainly faced a tougher schedule than SMU, the fact of the matter is all they had to do was beat Oklahoma (or Vanderbilt earlier in the season), but they blew it.
Having said that, where do you stand on the whole Alabama-SMU debate?
If those two teams played each other ten times, what would the results look like???
