You don’t have to tell Rhett Lashlee and SMU twice about conference bias.
They experienced that in The American, which tried—and failed—to establish itself as a Power Six conference. Since leaving the AAC for greener pastures in the ACC, the thinking was that they’d no longer be in a single-bid conference, constantly overlooked in favor of the “elite.”
They may have forgotten to keep track of the SEC and Big Ten. But Lashlee hasn’t forgotten how the CFP committee treats the ACC.
SMU came in at No. 14 in the latest College Football Playoff rankings despite being 8-1 and undefeated in conference play. Its only loss came to 9-0 BYU in Week 2. The Mustangs have since won over Louisville, Pitt, and a really good Duke team. They have three dates with unranked ACC opponents remaining and should be a shoo-in for the ACC Conference Championship in Charlotte.
And yet, a two-loss SMU team, which in this scenario would have losses to two playoff teams — BYU and Miami — would 100 percent find its way out of CFP contention. The same could be said for a two-loss Miami team in that hypothetical scenario. But a three-loss SEC team? That’s a different story.
Recently, Lashlee spoke at length regarding the depth of his program’s new conference but also took issue with the perception that the ACC isn’t on par with the other college football powers leagues regarding CFP consideration.
Take notes, folks ✍️@rhettlashlee on the depth of the ACC. pic.twitter.com/xdXPD9TnJa
— ACC Football (@ACCFootball) November 13, 2024
“On behalf of the ACC, I think it is interesting,” he said. “Yeah, there’s normal brand biases for teams — I’m not really gonna get into that — but there’s conference biases. And I think it’s interesting that you look at the ACC; we have a winning record against the Big Ten this year. We have a winning record against the Big 12 this year. We don’t have a winning record against the SEC, but we have four games left and if we win enough of those, we would have a winning record.
“So, that’s still up in the air — it’s been competitive. And to look at our league and say we might be a one-bid league, but you look at another league that we have a winning record against and they’re going to get four in. It doesn’t make sense to me. It needs to make sense. When other leagues beat each other up internally, they’re considered a deep, solid league. When we beat up internally, we’re considered a weak league.
“When Kentucky beats Ole Miss when Arkansas goes and beats Tennessee when South Carolina goes and beats (Texas) A&M when Vandy goes and beats Alabama, that’s considered a deep league. When Georgia Tech beats Miami, when Louisville goes on the road and beats Clemson, when UVA goes on the road and beats Pitt, we’re not considered a deep league. I think we’re a pretty deep league.
“I just want our league to get the same respect that everyone else gets. I think we have at least two, probably three or four teams, still, that should be very well considered for the College Football Playoff in this league. And it shouldn’t be any different than the Big Ten or the Big 12.”
Lashlee said the Big 12 has a similar gripe, especially with an undefeated BYU.
“Make it make sense,” he continued. “When the data and the metrics say it should, I think that’s the biggest thing. I think our league has earned the right to be in the conversation. It’s insulting to say, ‘Oh, it’s a one-bid league, probably; maybe two.’ Yet, we got another league that the metrics don’t add up any better, as a matter of fact, worse, and we’re acting like they just have got four — and it’s done. Make it make sense.”
Lashlee and SMU have seen this story play out before, and they know all too well how it ends—don’t expect them to go quietly this time.
[The ACC]
