Chris Fowler promises ESPN ‘plays no part’ in pulling strings for CFP committee

Chris Fowler says ESPN isn’t pulling the strings on College Football Playoff selection, whether you believe him or not.

Dan Patrick asked Fowler on Wednesday how much brand plays into the committee’s rankings, specifically about Notre Dame. When the Irish have 10 wins, does the committee see a good football team, or do they see Notre Dame?

“If you asked your viewers, they’d say it’s everything,” Fowler said. “I mean, they think that ESPN’s pulling the strings. ‘We want the biggest brands.’ I promise you, we play no part in that.”

It’s a familiar refrain for anyone who’s spent time around college football discourse the past decade. The theory is that ESPN, which owns the exclusive broadcast rights to the playoffs and operates the SEC Network, has a vested interest in propping up specific teams and conferences. Alabama gets three losses and still sneaks in? Must be ESPN. Notre Dame jumps a more deserving team? ESPN again. It’s a convenient explanation for outcomes people don’t like, and it’s been repeated enough that it’s become gospel in certain corners of sports media.

That said, it does feel like, every November and December, ESPN’s most prominent voices spend hours arguing why three-loss SEC teams deserve spots over one-loss teams from other conferences.

“You’re never going to dissuade the conspiracy theorists because they’re everywhere,” Fowler said.

He argued the committee’s track record shows brand doesn’t always win. SMU made the playoff. TCU reached the championship game in the four-team era. Alabama didn’t jump into the field this year simply because of the name on the jersey.

“I think they jumped up because the question of excluding a team that makes the SEC Championship Game and then loses after beating Georgia on the road in the regular season is pretty tricky, right?” Fowler said of the Crimson Tide. “That would be the first three-loss team to get in. Alabama wouldn’t get in because it’s a big brand, in my opinion.”

Fowler’s not denying that brand considerations exist in the public’s mind or even that committee members might subconsciously favor traditional powers. He’s saying ESPN doesn’t pull strings behind the scenes. Whether you believe that likely depends on how much you trust a massive media conglomerate that stands to benefit from higher-rated playoff games.

ESPN doesn’t need to tell the committee who to pick explicitly. The network’s wall-to-wall SEC coverage, its analysts constantly talking up the conference’s depth, the sheer volume of airtime devoted to Alabama and Georgia compared to, say, BYU or Miami, all of that shapes the narrative.

The playoff doesn’t generate more revenue based on who’s in the field. ESPN pays a set annual fee regardless of whether it’s Ohio State or SMU. But that ignores the longer game. When the next media rights deal comes up, ESPN needs playoff games that draw massive audiences to justify the expense. Notre Dame and Alabama deliver eyeballs. Boise State, not as much. The incentive structure is there even if there’s no direct financial bump for this season’s bracket.

The committee did give TCU a chance in the four-team format. They put SMU in last year. Those decisions matter, and Fowler is correct to point them out. But one or two exceptions don’t erase the pattern. The playoff era has overwhelmingly benefited the same programs, conferences, and brands. Sometimes that’s justified by on-field performance. Sometimes it feels like the benefit of the doubt always breaks in the same direction.

Maybe there’s no smoke-filled room where ESPN executives hand down orders. But there doesn’t need to be. The relationship between the network, the conferences it’s in business with, and the playoff it broadcasts is complicated enough that questions about influence aren’t going away, no matter how many times Fowler promises ESPN plays no part.