The fury surrounding college football's playoff selections has reached a fever pitch this season—and it's squarely aimed at the decision-makers themselves. As we dive into this year's mailbag, filled with passionate rants and sharp critiques, you'll see just how deep the discontent runs. But here's where it gets controversial: Is the committee truly biased, or are we all just seeing shadows where there are none? Stick around, because this edition peels back the layers of frustration, and it's the part most people miss that could change your view entirely.
Every year, the submissions I get for this post-selection mailbag serve as a barometer for how fed up fans and insiders are feeling. And let me tell you, the needle is swinging hard this time around.
For much of the College Football Playoff's four-team era, the debates felt milder and the outrage less intense compared to the chaotic days of the old Bowl Coalition System. But in two of the last three seasons—2023 with Florida State and now 2025 featuring Alabama and Notre Dame—the pendulum has swung back toward full-blown uproar.
Yet, this year's storm isn't about the playoff format itself. It's laser-focused on the committee.
Notre Dame's athletic director, Pete Bevacqua, is vocal about how the Atlantic Coast Conference caused 'permanent damage' to their partnership (as detailed in this New York Times article). He claims they were unfairly spotlighted in comparisons to Miami, time and again. For newcomers to college football, understand that the ACC is a major conference, and Notre Dame plays football independently but still reaps some perks like favorable scheduling and bowl invitations. So, does ACC commissioner Jim Phillips owe any allegiance to Notre Dame? After all, the Fighting Irish opted out of full conference membership for football but still enjoy those benefits. — Dave D.
Just picture it: About a year ago, Notre Dame became endearing for the first time under coach Marcus Freeman's leadership. Fans even sympathized with them during a tough Sunday afternoon. But it's been a wild ride watching them squander that goodwill and revert to their old villainous ways.
I feel for the players who chose to skip the bowl game, but Bevacqua's chosen battleground feels off-kilter (check out this piece for more on the blame game). He's exploding over his own conference because of some promotional tweets. Sure, the ACC could have been gentler in handling their partial member while advocating for their full one, but let's be real: The league was bound to champion Miami, and the biggest topic on the selection show for weeks was Miami versus Notre Dame. Should they have shifted focus to, say, Brigham Young University instead?
Plus, Bevacqua overlooks a key financial angle: The ACC could pocket anywhere from $4 million to $20 million in playoff revenue based on Miami's performance—money they wouldn't see a cent of from Notre Dame's games.
And let's not forget, lobbying is baked into this entire process. Conferences get direct lines to the committee, and commissioners and athletic directors for teams like Alabama and Miami were undoubtedly dialing in late on selection Saturday. If Bevacqua didn't join the fray, that's his oversight.
I'll cut Bevacqua some slack; he might have been swept up in the emotional tide, fueled by irate Notre Dame supporters. Still, this clash is sure to leave lasting scars on both sides.
If Virginia had clinched the win on Saturday and secured the ACC's automatic bid, would Miami have still edged out Notre Dame? — Jeremy S.
Absolutely, in my view, because the rankings would likely have kept them close, with Alabama still holding the top spot over both.
While I don't relish how things unfolded, I'm baffled that Notre Dame seemed blindsided by a possible late swap. I'd been calling it on 'The Audible' podcast for weeks, and it was echoed in other media.
But more crucially, committee member Hunter Yurachek hinted at it repeatedly!
On November 18: 'Looking at the squads between Notre Dame and Miami, Alabama has Auburn and a potential SEC title game ahead, BYU has more matches and a possible Big 12 championship. Miami needs to keep winning and hope those ahead stumble.'
And they did.
On November 25: 'Mid-season, Miami lacked offensive reliability, but they've turned it around in recent weeks. Miami's trajectory is upward.'
Then, last Tuesday (and this is where it gets juicy): 'Head-to-head matchups are a key factor, easier to weigh when teams are adjacent in rankings rather than separated.'
Yet, none of this drama should have erupted (as explored in this analysis). If rankings started just two weeks later, after Miami regained momentum, the gap might have been narrower—or even reversed. Or Yurachek could have noted Notre Dame's lackluster resume, making them vulnerable.
Above all: Alabama shouldn't rank above either!
The committee treated the Crimson Tide differently from teams that suffered similar conference championship blowouts. And that loss wasn't isolated; they dropped two of their last three against Power Four opponents and barely escaped the third. Quarterback Ty Simpson's form dipped after the October 25 South Carolina game, and their rushing attack—ranked 120th nationally—had been struggling for ages before that minus-3-yard disaster.
Still, the committee excused it all with a fresh rule: 'If you beat them once before, you're golden.'
Cue the conspiracy theories (dive into this roundup for more).
Miami jumping Notre Dame was telegraphed on the committee's weekly rankings show. (Charles LeClaire / Imagn Images)
Stew, it's evident the committee favors certain teams over fairness and steadiness, doing so openly because viewership remains strong enough to protect their income. At what audience drop would it force them to implement a more equitable process? — Nils
ESPN isn't helping by parading Nick Saban in his crimson jacket on a show centered on Alabama's playoff fate (read this for context). Or by having Kirk Herbstreit belt out the Notre Dame anthem live, only for fans to still label him an SEC puppet.
When I hear these dark suspicions about the committee's intentions, I have to ask: Who do people like Nils imagine sits on it? Disney CEO Bob Iger and ESPN boss Jimmy Pitaro?
The panel includes six athletic directors from different conferences; three retired coaches; a former NFL athlete; a consultant; and a veteran journalist (my buddy Ivan Maisel). By my tally, three have SEC ties, two ACC (three if Ivan's Stanford background counts), two Big Ten, two Big 12, and four from Group of Five schools. They get travel perks and free ice cream.
You might convince me that the SEC's Hunter Yurachek and ACC's Carla Williams pulled strings for ESPN affiliates. But why would Nebraska's Troy Dannen—no ESPN link— or Nevada's Chris Ault fret over ratings?
'Come on, Stewart, wake up,' you might say. 'They're all marionettes. Those computers on screen are props; ESPN pulls the strings.'
If that's the case, it's an elaborate setup: flying folks to Dallas six times a month for two-day sessions at the Gaylord Texan. Why not hire locals or film in one day with costume changes?
Honestly, I believe they're mostly sincere folks with tough hides. I'll let others question their character.
Alabama doesn't belong, and it reeks of manipulation. Has The Athletic thought about auditing committee members' finances to check for bribes? Include their relatives too. — Phil T.
Speaking of, Ivan's ride was a fancy one last time I saw him. And his license plate? 'SANKEY1'—suspicious, right?
Why is the committee superior to a data-driven system like the old BCS? Clearly, human biases in a 12-person group, with active ADs, introduce more distortion, subjectivity, and evasion than automated or poll-based methods. — Sean C.
Over time, folks have distorted memories of the BCS formula. It was two-thirds subjective rankings, including the coaches' poll—which was even more skewed. USA Today revealed voters' ballots, showing antics like Bob Stoops inflating Oklahoma and tanking Northern Illinois in 2012 (spoiler: it backfired).
The computer part involved tweaking metrics. To discourage blowouts, BCS stripped margin of victory from ratings like Jeff Sagarin's, undermining their value. And fans would still cry foul over any system; programmers have biases too, with hometowns and alma maters affecting code.
The issue isn't committees per se—they thrive in basketball. But there, metrics are public, applied uniformly, and no chair contradicts himself weekly on TV.
As I noted Sunday, sport leaders see the weekly shows as problematic (this piece lays it out). Even ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit dubbed them 'a mistake and misleading.' If the committee abandoned preconceptions and announced Sunday that Alabama's resume edged Miami's, and Miami beat Notre Dame head-to-head, fans might grumble but nod along.
Bottom line: Retain the committee, but release metrics and ditch the shows. No more drama.
Darn! My team's season ended abruptly. How do I fill the holiday void? — Melissa B.
Try the Pop-Tarts Bowl—it's a riot, and the squads seem to have a blast (check this fun feature).
What's your take on slotting 11-1 James Madison over 8-5 Duke? This committee call isn't getting the spotlight it deserves. Sure, Duke has five losses, but they faced tougher foes than JMU. — Bradley M.
Pure schedule strength works for similar teams, but not here. One built a strong record against easy competition; the other, a weaker one against challenging opponents.
Thankfully, other data backs this up.
James Madison ranked 20-30 spots higher in strength-of-record metrics, indicating their 12-1 mark was tougher than Duke's 8-5. Plus, every major rating (SP+, FEI, Sagarin) crowns JMU as superior. I doubt the committee ever eyed Duke for the top 25.
On a related note, my big gripe: Stop badmouthing Group of Five programs! (This opinion piece expands on it.)
We've lamented for years the exclusion of teams like Utah, Boise State, TCU, or UCF from title chases. Now, with guaranteed spots for top Group of Five squads, the gripe is it's unjust to Notre Dame? James Madison can't help the ACC's tiebreakers producing a champion that might not have won the Sun Belt.
The real sore spot? Louisville, who beat both Miami and JMU directly.
Duke's 8-5 wasn't enough to leapfrog 12-1 James Madison. (Bob Donnan / Imagn Images)
Hey Stewart, playoff officials seek a new format. Easy solution: Take the Top 25 as the pool, have 25 play 24 for the final spot. Thoughts? — Marty S
Folks would freak if a 25th-ranked team slips to 26th last minute, then push for 32 teams.
Fox broadcasters practically crowned Fernando Mendoza Heisman winner Saturday, but isn't Diego Pavia's claim stronger? Pavia's stats are superior, and his team's revival is unmatched—no recent player boosted a program like he has Vanderbilt. Mendoza joined an already 11-win Indiana squad in 2024. — Jeffrey S.
Our Heisman straw poll (with 26 contributors using official scoring) shows a tight race between them. I can't reveal my vote early, but both made my ballot.
Pavia's case is powerhouse: Third in total offense (4,018 yards, 826 rushing), fourth in passer rating (171.5), 36 TDs. Leading Vanderbilt to 10 wins is monumental—they'd had just three winning seasons in 40 years before him, now two in two.
But Mendoza elevated Indiana too. Last year's breakthrough team lost to top foes; this year's won against No. 5 Oregon and No. 1 Ohio State long-term, plus late-game heroics at Iowa and Penn State. His passer rating (181.4), completion percentage (71.5 vs. 71.2), and TD-to-INT (33-6 vs. 27-8) edge Pavia's.
I backed Ashton Jeanty last year but cheered Travis Hunter's win. Same here—either would deliver a memorable speech.
Penn State vs. Clemson in the postseason, just like you forecasted preseason! — Martin D.
Spot on. And I'm on edge about it.
The Pinstripe Bowl includes ringing the NYSE bell with coaches and players. Fear the market crash!
In wrapping up, the 2025 playoff selections have ignited a wildfire of debate, from Notre Dame's snub to Alabama's inclusion and beyond. But is this all just emotional venting, or does it point to deeper flaws in the system? What do you think—should the committee be overhauled, or is human judgment inevitable in sports? And here's the controversial twist: Perhaps the real issue isn't bias, but our obsession with 'fairness' in a game that's anything but. Share your take in the comments—do you side with the critics, or defend the process? I'd love to hear it!
