I was out of town this weekend in Fargo watching North Dakota State lose a first round playoff game for the first time in like 30+ years (blowing a 14 point lead in about 5 minutes no less!) so I was unable to actually watch any of the conference championship games. I also haven't read the hundreds/thousands of posts on this topic so my thoughts have likely been expressed by others but here we go (posting this for my own sanity).
1. Notre Dame should have been in over Alabama. Alabama melted down the last month. They are essentially a 7 on 7 team on offense now. They haven't showed up for a game since either Tennessee or Vanderbilt (depending on how you look at it). Struggled with SoCar, LSU, lost to OU, needed everything to go right to beat *Auburn* and got the shit kicked out of them by Georgia. The conventional thinking and I think the committee has said in the past that recent play matters. Well Alabama sucked the last 6 weeks. They had a great win at Georgia and a very good win against Vanderbilt. But the rest of their season was lackluster at best and downright mediocre down the stretch.
Even putting aside their downward trend, strictly looking at the committee, Notre Dame was placed above Alabama after they lost to OU. They did *nothing* to jump ND. The committee cannot explain that away. It just can't be done. Auburn lost to everyone this year. Beating Auburn should not be rewarded with anything. I could see showing a 11-0 Alabama some grace if they had lost to Auburn (rivalry game!) but that wasn't the case here. Alabama did nothing to jump Notre Dame. So the committee either screwed up their ranking putting ND above Alabama or they screwed up putting Alabama above ND after the Auburn game. They never addressed that in a coherent way that I saw.
Finally, the conference championships need to be addressed. If there is a reward for winning, there needs to be at least the potential for negative consequence for losing. Alabama getting jail sexed on national TV, looking completely helpless, while already being essentially a bubble team needs to have consequences. Had Alabama lost 31-28 or 21-17 or even made the game remotely competitive, I could be convinced they should have maybe only dropped a spot or something. BYU faced consequences. Why didn't Alabama?
2. Notre Dame should have been in over Miami.
This one is pretty straightforward. On Tuesday, Notre Dame was better than Miami. On Sunday morning, Notre Dame was not better, despite neither team playing nor any common opponents or whatever playing. Notre Dame and Miami were idle in every sense of the word. This was one of two things IMO. 1) the pressure from national media and conference politicking wore the committee down (which is a problem) or 2) the committee decided that they were wrong from the get go that Notre Dame was a better team.
If (1), I think the committee was deathly afraid of the backlash of the ACC (espn partner?) not getting a team in the field. I don't think there would have been much/any backlash if/when Notre Dame proceeded to win a game or two in the playoffs. *Everyone* other than Miami homers and the bona fide ND haters seemed to basically agree that ND is a better team. But the wailing and gnashing of teeth would have been loud until that happened.
3. Notre Dame is justified and probably correct to decline a bowl invitation.
This may become a norm. I guess it depends how much conferences start fining their members for not playing games. But the bowl system has been on life support for the better part of a couple decades, probably since at least 2014 and absolutely since 12 team playoff. Now that a dozen teams have a shot at the national championship, the rest is just functionally the NIT and/or the other NCAA basketball post-season tourneys. Its not a reward for a great season. Its just a silly exhibition game for losers who didn't make it to The Show. I don't see a ton of value in the extra fifteen practices, but if Freeman wants those extra practices, I would encourage ND to consider just having the practices and fighting it out in litigation or paying a fine if necessary.
As to the act of actually declining the bowl invite, I also support it on the grounds of not giving ESPN what they want. If someone gives you a shit sandwich and tells you to eat it in front of everyone, I don't see the value in doing so. All the talk about "you are only hurting yourselves" or "think about the kids/fans" is disingenuous. Its a silly exhibition game with a bunch of dudes sitting out. Its not 1996 anymore. People (myself included) shit on Christian McCaffrey for starting the trend of stars not playing in these games because its stupid. Now its just common knowledge that people with a decent draft stock will probably not play the game. Its implicitly acknowledged by *everyone* that the game doesn't matter. Particularly after you are told on Tuesday that you are almost certainly going to The Show, and everything went according to your needs on conference championship Saturday, and then the rug is pulled from under you.
People will talk about "oh competitors want to compete!" Thats also silly. I know they used to do it but probably still do, anyways, after my senior year of wrestling I got invited to some "best of the best" or whatever wrestling tournaments. Everyone who made it to a state championship final got invited to these big tournaments to compete against the finalists from other states. I don't know a single guy who went. Why? Because its a silly exhibition tournament after the season is over and a money grab for organizers.