GWINN: The CFP’s SEC Bias Doesn’t Just Apply to Alabama

The claim that the SEC has an outsized influence over the College Football Playoff (CFP) Selection Committee and that the committee is indeed biased toward that conference is no longer controversial.

In fact, even podcaster Josh Pate, often accused of being an SEC “homer,” has said that the SEC (along with the Big 10) has too much influence.

But those who think the evidence for this bias can only be found by looking at Alabama’s (absurdly high) ranking at #3 are mistaken. You can find evidence – and perhaps even better evidence – by looking at the SEC teams ranked at the back of the top 25.

Missouri (6-3): #22

Some will look at a three-loss Missouri sitting at 22 and think, no big deal. A three-loss team at 22? That’s where they should be. Who cares?

And they would be fine thinking that as long as they ignored the teams from other conferences with better records, who, for some reason, cannot get ranked at all.

Let’s look at the tale of the tape: Missouri’s best win of the season is a Week 5 curb-stomping of then-8th-ranked Florida. Their best out-of-conference win is a 17-point victory over archrival Kansas, which is at the bottom of the Big 12.

Meanwhile, SMU (7-2), also an ACC team with a better record than Missouri and no out-of-conference losses, can’t get ranked either.

Louisville (6-3) lost to Ole Miss by only three points. Meanwhile, LSU (#14) lost to Ole Miss by eight, and Missouri (22) lost to Ole Miss by 28.

So, how is a three-loss Missouri more deserving of a higher ranking than a three-loss Louisville with the same record and a closer loss against a common opponent?

Now, CFP Selection Committee Chairman Hunter Yurachek isn’t here to comment on this right now. But if we can channel him based on his explanation Tuesday night that Bama’s high ranking had much to do with their early-season win over Mississippi State, we can reasonably deduce that Yurachek would probably defend Missouri’s ranking by citing their early-season thumping of then-8th-ranked Florida.

But here’s the problem: I’m old enough to remember when Alabama’s loss to an absolutely wretched Florida State team got memory-holed by the committee because it was “early” in the season.

So, especially given that Florida is not only no longer eighth but is actually unranked, how is it fair to use early-season bias only when it benefits an SEC school and not when it hurts them? In fact, the committee has done essentially the same thing this year with #1 Georgia, as no one dares even discuss the fact that the Dawgs lost to a very underwhelming, unranked Auburn team at home.

The answer is, it’s not fair.

How much longer will the ACC and Big 10 put up with it?

That’s the real question.