When the College Football Playoff bracket was revealed, chaos followed, as it always does. Fans argued, pundits debated, and fingers were pointed squarely at the selection committee and its chairman, Arkansas AD Hunter Yurachek. Now that the first round of the CFP is officially in the books, we can finally ask the question that actually matters: Did the committee get it right?
Under the rules and circumstances they were given, the answer is yes.
The opening round played out mostly as expected. There were a few outright beatdowns, looking at you Group of Five teams, but there were also competitive and entertaining matchups that reminded us why expansion was needed in the first place. Blowouts don’t automatically mean the selections were wrong; they often just confirm the existing gap in college football.
Group of 5 and ACC Mess
The CFP rules clearly state that the five highest-ranked conference champions must be included. That’s the framework the committee was required to operate under, and within that framework, the selections were correct, even if the road there was chaotic. When originally created, many assumed that would include the four power 4 conference champions and one group of 5 representative. Well, we are all mistaken and the loophole presented itself far earlier than anyone would've thought.
James Madison went 12–1 and won the Sun Belt. Tulane captured the AAC with 11 wins on the year. Duke somehow emerged from the ACC as a five-loss conference champion in one of the most unpredictable seasons we’ve ever seen. Add in champions from the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12, Georgia, Indiana, and Texas Tech, and those were, by definition, the five highest-ranked conference champions available.
Was it messy? Absolutely. But the committee followed the rules.
Were These the 12 Best Teams in CFP?
The more complicated, and more interesting, question is whether these were the 12 best teams in the country. That answer is no, but that’s not entirely the committee’s fault. That’s a structural and format issue.
Ideally, this field looks different. You probably remove two Group of Five teams and replace them with two teams from the cluster that included Texas, Notre Dame, BYU, and Vanderbilt. That version of the bracket almost certainly gives us better first-round matchups across the board.
That said, the top of the field was handled properly. The top 10 teams were selected correctly, and Miami proved they belonged by walking into Kyle Field and knocking off a higher-ranked Texas A&M on the road. That win alone validated Miami’s inclusion and silenced much of the early criticism.
Now, as we head into the quarterfinals, we’re seeing what everyone wanted all along: eight teams that are either the best, or at least among the best, in the country. These matchups should deliver competitive, high-level football, which is the entire point of expanding the playoff.
Notre Dame Upset and Expansion Likely
Notre Dame fans can be upset, but their frustration is slightly misplaced. The committee had little choice but to rank Miami ahead of them due to the head-to-head result. If Notre Dame wants someone to blame, it should be the format that allowed two Group of Five teams to take spots ahead of them, not the committee following its own rules.
All signs point toward expansion to 16 teams in the near future. But the real issue may not be the number of teams, it’s how we get there. Automatic bids, conference imbalance, and uneven paths to qualification will continue to cause controversy unless those details are addressed.
As the season wraps up and we head into the offseason, speculation will only grow. For this year, though, credit is deserved. The committee, and Hunter Yurachek, got it right. Not perfectly, not without flaws, but correctly within the system they were tasked to uphold. Sometimes, that’s all you can ask for.