SMU's remarkable journey to claim the final at-large spot in the College Football Playoff has sparked significant discussions. This event led to a series of implications and potential changes in the playoff system. Let's delve deeper into the details.

The Battle for Playoff Spots and System Reforms

SMU vs. Alabama: A Millimeter Difference

SMU emerged victorious in a close battle with Alabama for the final at-large spot in the College Football Playoff. The difference between the two teams was astonishingly minimal, mere millimeters in some aspects. This close call highlighted the fine line between success and failure. Alabama's 24-3 loss to a lousy Oklahoma team a few weeks ago was a significant setback. Coupled with Clemson's dramatic last-play, game-winning field goal as the ACC champion, it seemed to tip the scales in SMU's favor. Both teams had their merits, but self-inflicted negatives also played a role. It was a matter of philosophy and decision-making that ultimately determined the outcome.The selection committee's previous week's ranking of SMU ahead of Alabama, based on incomplete data for promotional value, limited Alabama's options. Moving SMU down due to a championship game loss in its 13th game while Alabama played only 12 would have been an intellectually unsound decision. It could have punished SMU for reaching a conference title game and potentially discouraged future teams from aiming for such achievements.

SEC's Demands and the Playoff System

The SEC's potential demand for the playoff to expand to 14 or 16 teams with more automatic spots for its teams is a significant consideration. This move would have a profound impact on the playoff structure. If implemented, it would reshape the landscape of college football. However, it also raises questions about fairness and the balance between different conferences.The weekly rankings, designed to create interest and debate, often end up influencing the final rankings and seeding decisions. In this case, they prohibited the committee from making a full and holistic final decision on Sunday. This highlights the need for a more objective and comprehensive ranking system that takes into account all relevant factors.

Changes to the Playoff System

There are several simple changes that could enhance the playoff system. Firstly, getting rid of the requirement that the top four seeds must be conference champions would simplify the process and reduce imbalance in the bracket. Teams like Boise State ranked No. 9 but seeded third, and Arizona State ranked No. 11 but seeded fourth, getting a bye, is forced and doesn't reflect the true merit of the teams. Potentially reseeding the teams each round could be a viable option.Secondly, giving home field for the quarterfinals would add a significant appeal to the postseason. Currently, the first-round sites are on campuses, but the next round is played at neutral sites. This doesn't seem fair, especially for teams like Oregon that went 13-0 and is the No. 1 seed but has to play a higher-ranked team in a neutral site. Extending home-field advantage would make the playoffs more exciting for the fans and help retain the value of the regular season.Overall, despite the challenges and imperfections in the current playoff system, it remains a great addition to college football. The SEC, which played a significant role in creating the system, has the opportunity to lead the way in its tweaking and improvement.