Here's something that i don't think anyone is asking. Why isn't anyone stumping for Iowa St., or Army, or Unlv? If losses don't hurt, then why are we even in the debate? Clemson had to win to get in. So now, they've decided that a team shouldn't drop in the polls if they lose? If that's the reasoning, then smu should still be ahead of Clemson.
There's no legit argument for putting in smu. At the end of the day, what they want to say is that smu's 2 losses are better than Bamas 3 losses, without looking at the wins. That logic is the ONLY way they justify putting in SMU. I just don't see it happening. You don't get rewarded for almost winning.
We're getting wound up because the talking heads want to see a nobody get in so they have a good story. Hate to break it to everyone who isnt a real cfb fan, but Cam is absolutely correct, no one wants to watch smu get beat all over the field. The ratings will never be high for teams like that. Smu, boise st, indiana ain't drawing a big tv audience, Cinderella story or not.
Also, there's no way smu beats Miami, ole miss, or scar, so how do they keep them high?