REPORT: How the College Football Playoff Committee’s Bias Cost the Tennessee Vols a Shot at the Title

REPORT: How the College Football Playoff Committee’s Bias Cost the Tennessee Vols a Shot at the Title

The Tennessee Volunteers were unfairly sidelined in the latest College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings, despite a dominant 19-point win over Mississippi State. Even though the Vols improved to 8-2 with that victory, they remained stuck at No. 7 while two teams—BYU and Indiana—jumped ahead of them, despite their much less impressive wins.

This decision raised eyebrows, especially after College Football Playoff Committee chair Warde Manuel justified the rankings by citing Indiana and BYU’s “big wins” against struggling teams like Michigan and Utah. According to Manuel, Tennessee’s offense had “struggled” in the second half of the season, even though the Vols rank as the No. 15 scoring offense in the nation. Furthermore, Tennessee has been playing strong defense and winning games—attributes that should matter just as much as offensive stats. The committee’s oversight of this fact was glaring.

The real issue, however, lies in Manuel’s comments about the quality of Indiana’s victory. The Hoosiers beat a Michigan team that has faltered this season and is now sitting at 5-5. The idea that a win over a mediocre Michigan team could elevate Indiana above Tennessee, who had just beaten Mississippi State decisively, feels like a clear bias. The fact that Manuel is also the athletic director at Michigan raises serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest. His soft spot for the Big Ten—and Michigan in particular—appears to have influenced his evaluation of Indiana’s performance.

While the committee cited Indiana’s narrow victory over Michigan as justification for their ranking, it’s important to question whether the win was truly impressive. Michigan is not the powerhouse they were last season, and the victory over them doesn’t hold the weight it might have in past years. This bias towards Big Ten teams, especially one involving a sitting athletic director, highlights the flaws in the current CFP selection process.

The situation with BYU’s ranking is also problematic. While the Cougars are undefeated and have impressive wins over teams like SMU and Kansas State, their overall strength of schedule is questionable. Meanwhile, Tennessee’s resume, which includes a solid win over Mississippi State and a competitive SEC slate, deserved better treatment than it received.

Critics, including SEC Network’s Peter Burns, argue that sitting athletic directors should not be part of the CFP committee, as their allegiances inevitably skew rankings. As the system stands, teams like Tennessee, which play in a more competitive conference and face tougher competition, are at a disadvantage when biases cloud the selection process.

To fix the system, the CFP needs to expand the playoff format and remove individuals with direct ties to universities from the selection process. Until then, teams like Tennessee will continue to be hurt by the politics of college football, regardless of their on-field performance.