Who is the College Football Playoff rankings show serving?
Well, not Kirk Herbstreit anymore, but it’s just another notch in the content machine without any real, tangible value to anyone.
Take the subjectivity of the CFP Committee, for example.
No one could possibly explain why Penn State was ranked over Indiana — and don’t get Chris ‘Mad Dog’ Russo started. Booger McFarland sat there, incredulous himself, wondering how a one-loss Penn State team could be ranked over Indiana, even though they have a common opponent — UCLA — who the Hoosiers beat 42-13, while the Nittany Lions beat the Bruins, 27-11.
“The committee using subjectivity when they want to use it,” McFarland said.
Greg McElroy, Booger McFarland, and Joey Galloway react to the second College Football Playoff Rankings on ESPN.
“The committee using subjectivity when they want to use it.” – McFarland
“Army is being disrespected… Army is undefeated.” – Galloway #CFP 🏈📺🎙️ https://t.co/WSk9BKNdsi pic.twitter.com/ps2ffmae9G
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) November 13, 2024
That’s even more true regarding an undefeated Army team, which Joey Galloway claimed was being disrespected. But he wasn’t exactly being taken seriously by his colleagues, who scoffed at the idea that an undefeated service academy should be bumped higher from No. 25 to No. 24.
Greg McElroy laughed off the idea, saying their only win over a team over .500 came against an East Carolina team that had already fired its head coach.
Fair, but where’s the subjectivity?
Rece Davis said that the Army would get its chance when they travel to Notre Dame the Saturday before Thanksgiving.
But the problem runs deeper than a Nov. 23 game in South Bend.
It goes deeper than Army being disrespected or Penn State getting a pass.
The heart of the issue lies in the entire structure of the CFP and how its committee operates behind a cloak of subjectivity. There’s no clear criteria that fans can rely on from week to week, making the rankings feel more like a reality TV show than a fair assessment of college football’s best teams. It’s been a criticism of the committee all along, from Ohio State leapfrogging Baylor and TCU in its first year to an undefeated Florida State being snubbed in the last week a year ago. And the expansion to 12 teams from 4 has further muddied the waters of what exactly it is that we’re watching each week.
That’s not a knock on Davis, Galloway, McFarland or McElory; it’s just the reality of the situation.
And the situation is that the rankings show isn’t just about listing the top teams; it’s about creating narratives that stir the pot. Every ranking reveal feeds a cycle of tribalism, where fanbases feel validated or slighted, depending on how their team is treated by the committee (and ESPN). And when there’s a perception that the committee is cherry-picking subjectivity to fit a desired narrative, there’s no putting the toothpaste back into that tube.
We don’t have to look much further than the rumblings of ESPN pushing a three-loss SEC team, whether it be LSU or in the hypothetical scenario that Georgia loses to Tennessee this weekend. Granted, it’s made its way all over the network’s airwaves, but it just feels like if there wasn’t a weekly ranking reveal to scrutinize, it wouldn’t necessarily become such a dominant talking point that only alienates the viewership.
But in essence, the CFP’s subjectivity opens Pandora’s Box. It gives credence to fans to argue that there’s a bias in favoring certain teams or conferences because it feels like the committee can shift the goalposts whenever it suits them.
If the ranking criteria aren’t clearly defined, it’s easy for fans to believe that the CFP favors powerhouse conferences like the SEC while undervaluing programs from outside the traditional elite. When the committee can emphasize strength of schedule one week and then lean on “quality losses” the next, it invites accusations of favoritism and regional bias.
Without a rankings show, would a lot of this drama and hand-wringing simply disappear?
It’s hard to say.
But, the rankings have become more about entertainment value and less about actual clarity. Instead of helping fans understand the best teams in the country, the show often muddies the waters with subjective choices and controversial decisions. By constantly feeding narratives and creating talking points for pundits, the show just creates a cycle of debate without a clear payoff.
For a program that’s supposed to clarify the playoff picture, the CFP Rankings Show often feels like it serves the content machine more than the fans.
