In a compelling argument, Lashlee articulates why SMU's absence from the College Football Playoff would signify a fundamental injustice in the sport. He explores the implications of such a decision and what it means for the future of college football.
The College Football Playoff (CFP) has become the definitive avenue for determining the national champion in NCAA Division I football. Yet, a growing debate has emerged over whether all deserving teams have been given equal access to this prestigious postseason tournament. One particularly compelling argument has been made by Chad Lashlee, who suggests that excluding Southern Methodist University (SMU) from CFP contention would signal a fundamental injustice in the sport. Lashlee’s stance raises questions about the criteria used for inclusion, the evolution of college football, and what fairness means in today’s athletic landscape.
At the heart of Lashlee’s argument is the belief that SMU’s exclusion from the College Football Playoff would not only undermine the spirit of fair competition but also perpetuate a flawed system that privileges historical powerhouses over emerging programs. Lashlee, a former coach and sports analyst, emphasizes that SMU’s current trajectory, both on and off the field, showcases a team worthy of CFP contention, making their exclusion an injustice not only for the program but for college football fans across the nation.
Historically, SMU has been overshadowed by larger, more storied programs such as Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson, which have long dominated the postseason conversation. However, the landscape of college football has been changing rapidly. SMU, now consistently competing at a high level in the American Athletic Conference (AAC), has garnered attention for its impressive recruiting, dynamic offense, and resilience in the face of tough competition. A refusal to acknowledge SMU’s potential, according to Lashlee, would reflect an outdated and unfair perspective on what qualifies a team for the CFP.
To understand why Lashlee’s argument holds weight, it is important to recognize the current state of SMU’s football program. Under the leadership of head coach Rhett Lashlee, the Mustangs have elevated their profile in recent seasons, achieving strong records and competing at a level that has placed them on the radar of CFP observers.
SMU’s rise reflects broader trends in college football, where the traditional powerhouses are increasingly being challenged by programs outside the power conferences. While teams from the Power Five conferences still dominate the CFP picture, programs like SMU are slowly proving that they, too, can compete at the highest level.
The College Football Playoff, established in 2014, was designed to provide a more equitable and transparent method of determining the national champion. However, the system still faces criticism for its reliance on subjective selection criteria and its perceived bias toward teams from the Power Five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC).
Critics argue that this system inherently disadvantages teams from Group of Five conferences, such as SMU, by placing them at a structural disadvantage despite their on-field success. This raises important questions about the fairness of the playoff selection process and whether the current framework truly reflects the best teams in college football. As more teams outside the traditional powerhouses prove their competitiveness, the exclusion of such teams could further exacerbate the perception that the CFP is more about reputation than merit.
SMU’s exclusion from the CFP would send a message that the playoff system is not truly inclusive. While it is true that teams from non-Power Five conferences face challenges in terms of strength of schedule and limited exposure, these obstacles should not disqualify them from competing for a national title if their on-field performance warrants consideration. The current selection committee uses a mix of rankings, strength of schedule, and head-to-head results to determine playoff participants, but there is a growing sentiment that this system does not always reward the best teams equally.
If SMU were to finish the season with one or fewer losses and a strong performance in the AAC, they would likely have a compelling case for inclusion. This is particularly true if other highly ranked teams suffer losses or if the Mustangs have wins over highly ranked opponents. For Lashlee, the argument is clear: a team’s success should be evaluated on its current performance, not on historical legacy or conference affiliation.
Beyond SMU’s specific case, the exclusion of teams like them from the CFP raises larger questions about the future of college football. As the sport continues to evolve, the NCAA and its playoff system will have to reckon with issues of fairness, inclusion, and the role of the Power Five conferences in determining who gets a shot at the national championship.
One potential solution to this issue is the expansion of the College Football Playoff. Currently, the CFP consists of just four teams, all selected by a committee. Expanding the playoff to include more teams—such as an 8-team or 12-team format—would allow for more inclusivity, particularly for teams from non-Power Five conferences like SMU. This approach would provide a more level playing field and give deserving teams a fairer shot at national contention.
Several prominent figures in college football, including coaches and administrators, have already voiced support for expanding the CFP, and recent discussions indicate that change may be on the horizon. This could ultimately be a positive step for the sport, ensuring that the best teams—regardless of conference affiliation—are given the opportunity to compete for a national title.
Lashlee’s argument against SMU’s exclusion from the College Football Playoff brings to the forefront an important issue about fairness, opportunity, and the evolving nature of college football. While the traditional powerhouses still dominate the postseason landscape, programs like SMU have shown that they too deserve to be part of the conversation. A system that continues to overlook teams like SMU risks perpetuating a flawed and outdated hierarchy in college football, one that values historical legacy over current performance.
To ensure a truly equitable system, it may be time to rethink the criteria that govern CFP selection, potentially expanding the playoff to include more teams and provide greater opportunities for rising programs. In the end, the future of college football should be one that recognizes merit over tradition and gives every team a fair shot at glory.
For more information on the ongoing discussions about expanding the College Football Playoff, visit CBS Sports.
Additionally, learn more about the history of college football and the evolution of its postseason in our article here.
See more Highlights Daily
LaLiga chief questions if Real Madrid has lost its perspective in a heated sports controversy.
Discover how Sergio Ramos' move to Liga MX's Monterrey could transform Mexican football.
Ruben Amorim discusses Marcus Rashford's struggles with adaptation during his departure from the team.
Ange Postecoglou addresses Tottenham criticism, calling it 'irrelevant' and revealing insights into football management pressures.
Discover how Marshall Faulk is set to transform Colorado's running game as their new running…
Tennessee stuns UConn in a thrilling upset, captivating the crowd and shaking up college basketball…