Your constant fixation on number of losses without accounting for strength of schedule is getting very tiresome.
Miami has played one team in the top 20 of F+ all year: 8-4 Louisville in a back and forth shootout. Bama played 4 teams in the top 20 and went 3-1.
Miami only played 3 teams in the top 40 all year. Bama played 7.
Miami got an absolute cakewalk of a schedule and still dropped two games. There's no legitimate basis for claiming they absolutely deserved a playoff spot.
Exactly. I don't get why people act like SMU will be robbed if they lose to Clemson and are out. You can mess around with the cutoffs, but SMU has only played one team in the top 20 and they lost to them. Clemson will be their second. If they go 0-2 against top 20 teams (neither of which are in the top 15), there's no reason why they should get to be in the CFP. On the flip side, Clemson is 0-3 against top 20 teams, so if SMU is even one of the 20 best teams in the country, they should be able to handle Clemson and guarantee their spot in the CFP.
People need to stop fixating so much on number of losses when there's such huge schedule disparity. The ACC is an absolute fucking joke of a conference. Their bad teams are horrible, and the ACC's top 3 teams (SMU, Miami, Clemson) didn't play each other. Duke is 46th in F+ and they went 1-3 against teams in the top 50. They are 9-3 because they go to play 8 teams outside of the top 50 in CFB. That's not a power conference schedule and shouldn't be treated as such.
This is a great example of people not understanding how bad the ACC is. Oklahoma is 31st in F+. They would be favored on a neutral field against all of Duke (46th), Georgia Tech(42nd), and Syracuse (50th). Oklahoma would not have had to play all 3 of SMU, Clemson, and Miami, and they would probably be 9-3 instead of Duke.
It really shouldn't be this hard to understand that you can't just compare records straight up, especially when you're talking about ACC teams versus the SEC.