The recent College Football Playoff (CFP) games have sparked intense debate, particularly regarding the criticism of Indiana and SMU’s inclusion in the playoff. Notably, Alabama’s loss to Michigan has raised questions about the validity of criticism aimed at Indiana and SMU.
Initially, many analysts, including Kirk Herbstreit, questioned Indiana’s presence in the playoff, citing their lopsided loss. However, it is essential to acknowledge that Alabama, considered a powerhouse, also suffered a significant upset. This unexpected outcome underscores the unpredictability of college football.
Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that Indiana and SMU had remarkable seasons, with Indiana beating Michigan and playing a closer game at Ohio State than Tennessee. These achievements demonstrate that they deserved their playoff spots.
The criticism directed at Indiana and SMU seems to stem from a bias toward traditional powerhouses like Alabama. However, this season has shown that even the most talented teams can have off days. The SEC’s reputation as the most talented conference does not guarantee success.
In hindsight, the intense backlash against Indiana and SMU appears misinformed. The committee’s selection of the 12-team playoff was correct, as it provided more access to teams. While Indiana and SMU may not have been national title contenders, their inclusion added excitement to the playoff.
The sport’s unpredictability is part of its appeal. Upsets happen, and point spreads are not always indicative of a game’s outcome. Alabama’s losses to unranked teams demonstrate that even the best teams can struggle.
In conclusion, the criticism of Indiana and SMU’s playoff inclusion seems unjustified. Their achievements warrant recognition, and the committee’s selection was correct. As fans and analysts, it is essential to appreciate the sport’s unpredictability and avoid making assumptions based on biases or hypothetical scenarios.
