What would SMU's record be if they played Alabama's schedule?

Well, let's see

SMU vs

SP+ 1-35 : 1-2 (L vs #15 Clemson N, W @ #18 Lville, L vs #20 BYU)

SP+ #36-50 : 4-0 (W @ #36 TCU, W @ #40 Duke, W vs #45 Cal, W vs #47 Pitt)

SP+ #51-75 : 1-0 (W vs #62 BC)

SP+ #76+ : 5-0 (W vs #84 FSU, W @ #76 Virginia, W @ #100 Stanford, W @ #115 Nevada, W vs FCS Houston Christian)


SMU with Alabama schedule
#7 Georgia (L)
@ #8 Tennessee (L)
#13 South Carolina (L)
@ #17 LSU (L)
#23 Missouri (W)
#29 Auburn (W)
@ #31 Oklahoma (W)
@ #58 Vanderbilt (W)
@ #64 Wisconsin (W)
#70 WKU (W)
#85 USF (W)
FCS Mercer (W)


We'll give them wins over everyone 36th or worse, like they did. So that's 5-0.

We'll give them 33% of all teams #35 or better, because that's what they did. So that's 2.3. We'll round up to 3.


So 8-4.

Just peak delusion

6-6 at best. Even Vandy is way better than Houston Christian.

To compare Alabama and SMU's arguments for the College Football Playoff (CFP) based on computer rankings, strength of schedule, resume strength, and SP+, we need to examine several key aspects.

1. Computer Rankings (SP+ and FEI)
SP+ (Bill Connelly): This metric evaluates a team’s offensive, defensive, and special teams efficiency. Historically, Alabama has been a top-ranked team in SP+ due to its elite recruiting, depth, and overall consistency. SMU, while competitive, typically doesn’t rank as highly as Alabama in SP+, often sitting outside the top 25.
FEI (Football Outsiders): Similar to SP+, FEI adjusts for schedule strength and accounts for team efficiency. Alabama’s rankings in FEI are usually in the top 10, given their dominance over a tougher schedule, while SMU would be ranked lower, likely in the 30-40 range.

2. Strength of Schedule
Alabama: Alabama plays in the SEC, which is widely regarded as one of the toughest conferences in college football, consistently producing high-ranking teams. They face numerous ranked teams, including high-tier opponents like Georgia, LSU, and other SEC contenders. Even Alabama's non-conference games typically come against Power Five opponents.
SMU: The American Athletic Conference (AAC), where SMU competes, is competitive but not on the same level as the SEC. SMU might face a few ranked teams per season but lacks the depth of competition that Alabama regularly encounters. This impacts SMU's strength of schedule and its argument for the CFP, as the committee often favors teams from Power Five conferences with a stronger overall schedule.

3. Resume Strength
Alabama: With multiple ranked wins from both conference and non-conference opponents, Alabama typically has a stronger resume in terms of notable victories. Their wins against top-tier SEC teams, especially those in the playoff conversation, give them a powerful argument for CFP inclusion.
SMU: While SMU might have a few impressive wins, their resume usually lacks the depth of ranked victories that Alabama consistently earns. Additionally, a weaker conference schedule hurts their overall strength of resume, especially when compared to a Power Five team like Alabama.

4. SP+ Comparison
Alabama: As a perennial top-5 team in SP+, Alabama typically benefits from their high efficiency on both sides of the ball. They are considered a championship-caliber team year after year due to their roster depth, coaching, and consistency against high-level competition.
SMU: SMU’s SP+ ranking is typically lower, and while they might have a strong offense, their defensive and overall efficiency usually don’t match Alabama’s elite levels. This is crucial in comparing playoff caliber teams, as SP+ values balanced, high-efficiency play on both sides of the ball.


Conclusion:
Alabama has a much stronger argument for the College Football Playoff based on computer rankings, strength of schedule, and overall resume strength. Their success in the SEC, along with top-tier efficiency metrics (SP+ and FEI), makes them a consistent playoff contender. SMU, while competitive, typically lacks the depth of ranked opponents and the overall efficiency to match Alabama’s credentials for CFP inclusion. Even with a strong record, SMU would likely fall short compared to Alabama due to the disparity in schedule and performance metrics.