The College Football Playoff (CFP) selection process is meant to be fair and impartial, ensuring the best teams compete for a national championship. However, the committee’s composition often raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. With athletic directors (ADs) serving on the committee—and even chairing it—can the group genuinely maintain objectivity?
The Influence of Athletic Directors
The CFP announced Tuesday that former Michigan State head coach Mark Dantonio will join Maryland athletic director Damon Evans, Middle Tennessee State AD Chris Massaro, former Ole Miss All-America tight end Wesley Walls, and former ESPN college football reporter Ivan Maisel as new members. Additionally, former USA Today sportswriter Steve Wieberg, who was part of the original CFP committee from 2014-2017, will return for a one-year term, replacing former Missouri head coach Gary Pinkel, who stepped down due to other commitments.
The presence of athletic directors on the committee has long been a point of contention. While these individuals bring extensive football knowledge and experience, their roles as active ADs create inherent conflicts. These administrators oversee athletic programs that could be directly affected by the rankings they help determine. Even if an AD is recused from discussions involving their own school, the overall voting process can still be influenced by personal relationships, conference affiliations, or indirect benefits.
The committee’s chairperson plays a crucial role in guiding discussions and shaping the overall selection process. With Baylor's active AD mack Rhodes currently serving, can they be fully neutral. While protocols exist to mitigate conflicts—such as recusal policies—critics argue that the mere presence of decision-makers with vested interests creates an unavoidable bias.
Past chairs have defended the process, emphasizing transparency and accountability. Yet, some fans and analysts remain skeptical, questioning if an AD’s implicit loyalty to their conference or personal affiliations can truly be set aside when evaluating teams.
To balance out potential AD bias, the CFP committee includes former coaches, media members, and administrators. The addition of Ivan Maisel, a longtime ESPN reporter, and the return of Steve Wieberg, a former USA Today journalist, could help provide a broader perspective. However, even journalists and former players bring their own biases, shaped by years of covering or participating in the sport.
Despite concerns, the CFP committee has largely produced competitive and compelling playoff matchups. While no selection process is perfect, the inclusion of diverse perspectives—ranging from ADs to media members—helps mitigate potential biases. Still, as college football continues to evolve with conference realignment and NIL-driven disparities, the debate over the committee’s objectivity will persist.
In the end, fans and analysts must decide: does the current system do enough to ensure fairness, or is it time for a change in how teams are selected for the College Football Playoff(again)?