I really didn't want to write about the college football playoffs two columns in a row, but some of the takes out there are just too stupid to go unaddressed.
Having said that, there is a reasonable, intelligent debate to be had that boils down to "which deserves more favor: teams with good wins, but bad losses, or teams with no good wins, but no bad losses?"
That is a good question. It's not the argument we are having, though. The argument we are having is, "Is the SEC so many orders of magnitude better than the other conferences, and having to play SEC teams most weeks is so indescribably brutal that any SEC team with a whisker of an argument for the playoff should automatically be in?" The answer, my friends, is hell no.
The SEC went 13-7 this year against other Power 4 squads + Notre Dame. That is indeed the best. They are in fact the best football conference. But 13-7 isn't 19-1 or 18-2 or 17-3. It's 65%. It's the best, but it's not dominant. SEC claims of domination are ridiculously overstated.
Secondly, the team that most SEC stans are rallying around, Alabama, finished 5-3 in conference. That is just not playoff-caliber when 2 of those losses were to 6-6 teams (one of which was a blowout and pretty recent).
Another SEC 3-loss team wringing their hands (especially their coach, Lane Kiffin, who I want to like, but he makes it hard) is Ole Miss, who lost to 4-8 Kentucky at home.
South Carolina has the "best" losses of the 3-loss bunch, but even they have a worse loss (LSU) than Indiana (Ohio State) or SMU (BYU and Clemson) has, according to the rankings. I bring up SMU and Indiana because those are the two teams who got at-large bids into the playoffs that the SEC advocates think should have been left out.
They weren't, though, and the message from the committee seems clear: if you're going to lose multiple times, lose only to the best. That's not just clear, it's reasonable.
Another reason I'm grateful for the inclusion of SMU and Indiana over Alabama and Ole Miss is that it puts to bed this ridiculous conspiracy theory that the bids will go to whomever ESPN wants them to go to. Hell, the CFP committee made decisions that leave a ton of money on the table, since obviously Alabama in the playoffs would generate a lot of revenue than Indiana or SMU. How refreshing in this day and age.
It's a shame how much air the SEC dolts can suck out of a room, because this is a real feel-good story for Indiana and SMU. This is Indiana's first 10-win season EVER.
Then there's SMU. When I was a little kid, I remember them being elite. Then the death penalty hit, and it took them so long to recover that it's said they're the reason the NCAA hasn't levied the death penalty against a program since.
But they're finally all the way back, for now at least. The problem is, nobody in Dallas cares. I live in Dallas. If you're a college sports fan around here, chances are it's of Texas or Oklahoma, and if not them, then one of the schools that have stayed in power conferences for the last 50 years, like Texas Tech or Baylor. But really, the only team filthy casuals glom onto 'round these parts are the Dallas Cowboys.
It might sound like I'm arguing against myself when I see the inclusion of SMU is good for the sport when I just said no one cares about them. As a national product, however, we do want, need, and like underdogs. Do you remember when the best soccer teams in Europe were going to break away and form their own super league or whatever? The backlash against it couldn't have been stronger, and it effectively killed the super league.
I can only hope the same backlash will occur if the SEC tries to take its ball and go home if it doesn't get preferential treatment in the future (and worse it if convinces the Big Ten to come along). It's hard for me to overstate how much I will hate it if that happens.
In the meantime, though, I'm going to enjoy this. Go 'Stangs. Go Hoosiers.
Leave a Comment