Reevaluating the Playoff Backlash: Indiana and SMU Deserve More Respect After Losses

As the dust settles on the first round of the College Football Playoff (CFP), a narrative is emerging that demands reconsideration—one that highlights the misplaced critiques of Indiana and SMU following their lopsided losses. The backlash against these teams had been swift and merciless, led by notable pundits such as Kirk Herbstreit and Paul Finebaum, alongside the trolling of Lane Kiffin. This criticism stemmed from an ingrained assumption that teams from the SEC, particularly Alabama, would have fared better in the playoff setting. The narrative leading up to the playoffs was tinged with skepticism about the qualifications of Indiana and SMU, as many believed that teams from the SEC, even in their down years, would inherently be more competitive. Critics pointed to point spreads and the wealth of talent that SEC teams boast. However, the reality of college football is far more nuanced, as demonstrated by the results of the playoff games. Let’s not forget that Indiana, despite being dismissed, has had moments of brilliance this season. They previously defeated Michigan and put forth a greater valiant effort against Ohio State than many expected. Their season should be celebrated for its successes rather than reduced to a singular playoff performance. Meanwhile, SMU’s quarterback, Kevin Jennings, was chastised for turnovers that marred their game against Penn State. Yet, one could easily draw parallels to Alabama’s own quarterback, Jalen Milroe, who suffered a similar fate with multiple turnovers in their playoff match against Michigan. This underscores a fundamental truth about the unpredictable nature of college football—bad days can happen to any team, regardless of pedigree. Critics, particularly those in the media, seemed eager to disregard the merit of Indiana and SMU, while holding onto a romanticized image of a dominant Alabama program. It’s essential to acknowledge that while Alabama remains a powerhouse, this year’s team was not without its flaws, evidenced by its losses to notably weaker opponents. The perception that SEC teams are guaranteed to outshine their counterparts is a misunderstanding of the college football landscape. The unpredictability of the sport is precisely what makes it so captivating. The SEC may indeed be the strongest conference, but it does not guarantee success in every scenario. The backlash against Indiana and SMU feels particularly misplaced when one examines the committee's selection process. The 12-team playoff format was designed to increase access and provide a more expansive field for competition. While it’s easy to dismiss teams that do not fit the mold of traditional powerhouses, it’s vital to remember the broader purpose of the playoff system: to create opportunities for teams that have historically been overlooked. In the end, the results of the first-round games should serve as a lesson in humility for the critics. The narrative that SEC teams would have inherently performed better was proven wrong, and the pundit class owes a reconsideration of their stance on Indiana and SMU. The beauty of college football lies in its unpredictability, and next time, perhaps, a more measured approach to evaluation will prevail. The playoff format has opened doors for teams and narratives that deserve respect, not derision. As we continue to witness the ebbs and flows of this sport, let’s champion the achievements of all teams, rather than allowing biases and preconceived notions to cloud our judgment. This is a call for reflection in a game that thrives on the unexpected, where every team has a story worth telling.