A three-time national champion quarterback from Alabama, A.J. McCarron, unloaded his frustrations on THE DYNASTY podcast, hosted by Chris Stewart and featuring Trent Richardson alongside him. His target? The CFP committee’s decision to favor SMU over Alabama in last season’s playoff rankings is a move he sees as a blatant disregard for strength of schedule and basic logic.
How Alabama’s Snub Sparked McCarron’s Outrage
Last season’s CFP selection left Alabama fans stunned. The Crimson Tide, a fixture in college football’s elite, posted a strong record but missed the 12-team playoff cut. SMU, meanwhile, secured a spot despite facing a noticeably lighter slate of opponents.
McCarron didn’t mince words on podcast: “You proved as a committee that you didn’t give one crap about strength of schedule.” He pointed to Alabama’s 9th-ranked strength of schedule compared to SMU’s 64th, per last season’s metrics, as evidence of an unjust snub.
Yet, the committee ranked SMU higher, a decision that baffled many. To make matters worse, Clemson, which beat SMU in the ACC championship and boasted a 54th-ranked strength of schedule, also landed below SMU in the final standings. McCarron’s disbelief was palpable: “What sense did that make?”
Why Strength of Schedule Fuels the Debate
McCarron’s core argument hinges on the strength of schedule as the cornerstone of playoff seeding. “The first metric on your system for seating teams should be strength of schedule,” he insisted on the podcast.
For him, it’s about rewarding teams that test themselves against top competition rather than padding records against weaker foes. Alabama’s schedule, packed with SEC grinders, reflects that philosophy. SMUs, by contrast, leaned on a softer ACC lineup, raising questions about whether their resume truly stacked up.
College football’s scheduling quirks amplify this issue. Unlike the NFL’s balanced matchups, teams juggle conference demands, historic rivalries, and strategic non-conference bookings.
Powerhouse conferences like the SEC often produce punishing schedules, while others offer a lighter road. Critics argue that ignoring this disparity punishes teams for playing in tougher leagues, potentially discouraging bold scheduling choices in the future.
What SEC’s Ninth Game Means for Playoffs
McCarron’s comments also spotlight the SEC’s internal wrestling match over scheduling and playoff representation. The conference is mulling a ninth game, which would ramp up a brutal slate but could risk more team losses. “If y’all want us to add a ninth game, you want us only to get a certain amount of automatic bids in here, how about you help us out?” he said, channeling SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey’s potential bargaining stance.
Sankey faces a tricky balancing act. More conference games could solidify the SEC’s reputation as the toughest league, but it might also knock teams out of playoff contention if losses pile up.
McCarron sees the CFP committee’s stance as a roadblock: if strength of schedule isn’t prioritized, the SEC’s gauntlet becomes a liability rather than an asset. His call for change is as much about protecting his conference as it is about fairness.
KEEP READING: ‘They Are Shooting for College Football Playoff’ — Insider Makes Feelings Clear on Illinois’ 2025 Expectations
The stakes are high. With the playoff now at 12 teams, automatic bids and at-large spots are hotly contested. The SEC wants its depth recognized, but a system that overlooks schedule toughness could cap its representation, even as its teams dominate national rankings late in the season.
The CFP’s growth to 12 teams was meant to settle old scores, but snubs like Alabama’s show the cracks haven’t healed. His push for strength of schedule as king isn’t a cure-all, but it forces a reckoning: what defines the “best” in a sport this chaotic?
College Sports Network has you covered with the latest news, analysis, insights, and trending stories in football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, and baseball!
