Paul Finebaum, a prominent college football analyst, has strongly criticized the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee’s decision to include Southern Methodist University (SMU) over Alabama in the 2024 playoff race. Finebaum argues that the committee made a mistake by selecting SMU despite the school’s lack of significant competition and its weaker strength of schedule compared to the powerhouse Alabama Crimson Tide.
Alabama, a perennial College Football Playoff contender with a rich history of championships, had a slightly imperfect season but still demonstrated its superiority against top-tier opponents. While the Crimson Tide suffered a loss or two, Finebaum contends that their overall performance and ability to compete with the best teams in the country should have placed them in the playoff over SMU, which lacked the same caliber of opponents.
The committee’s rationale for selecting SMU is unclear to many analysts, including Finebaum, who points to the lack of notable victories for the Mustangs. SMU, while undefeated in its own right, played a schedule that did not feature the same high-level competition that Alabama faced in the Southeastern Conference (SEC). In contrast, Alabama regularly squared off against top-ranked teams like Georgia, LSU, and Auburn—matchups that proved their worth as a playoff contender. Finebaum suggests that a team’s performance in a challenging conference should carry more weight than an undefeated record achieved against weaker opponents.
Furthermore, Finebaum emphasizes Alabama’s reputation as one of the premier programs in college football, led by a legendary coach in Nick Saban. Alabama’s inclusion in the playoff, despite having a loss or two, would reflect the team’s consistent excellence and ability to rise to the occasion in high-stakes games. SMU, on the other hand, while impressive in some respects, lacks the same legacy and would be less equipped to handle the intense pressure of playoff football.
Finebaum also critiques the committee’s approach to the selection process, noting that it seems to prioritize storylines and narratives over objective analysis of teams’ actual merits. The choice to include SMU may have been influenced by their underdog story, but this overlooks the fact that college football’s playoff should reward programs that have proven themselves against the best competition.
Ultimately, Finebaum believes that Alabama deserved to be in the playoff, stating that the selection committee made a clear mistake by putting SMU in over the Tide. His view highlights a deeper issue in the CFP selection process—whether the committee values the strength of schedule and the tradition of successful programs, or if they are too eager to embrace new stories at the cost of established football powerhouses.
