CFB discourse is a bit of an echo chamber. If one reasonably ‘big’ voice presents an opinion, it often reverberates across the landscape. The epicenter doesn’t even need to be a member of the national media. It can be a player, coach or fan just the same. One such opinion, perhaps fallacious and smeared in disregard, has simmered beneath the surface all year. It boiled over and made a mess after round 1 of the CFP.

Essentially, this opinion is that the 12-team playoff is not a fair reflection of the best this sport has to offer. This is reasonable; however, at the crux of this is an issue. This opinion largely stems from the notion that quality is not evenly distributed across the Power 4 conferences. Therefore, the teams representing the perceived ‘lesser’ conferences are imposters. The lopsided games that ensued on the weekend added fuel to this already prevalent line of thinking. 

The majority of the criticism was borne by the ACC. Their 2 representatives, SMU and Clemson, didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory. Off the back of their blowout losses, former CFB player turned analyst Greg McElroy stepped in to quell some of this criticism. He thinks it’s inappropriate to make blanket statements about any of the conferences on the back of 60 minutes of football. “You can look at certain teams in a conference and not jump to conclusions about the overall state of the conference,” he said during the Always College Football podcast.

McElroy then proceeded to drop a cipher, subliminally ranting about those who instigate this school of thinking. “It really frustrates me when I’m sitting there and I’m listening to people just bash the ACC. I’m sitting there, I’m watching Clemson-Texas. I had just watched SMU in Penn State, and all I’m listening to is all the ACC stinks. No, that the ACC doesn’t stink.” he remarked. McElroy reiterated one point over and over again, regarding how one performance against more stacked opposition is not a barometer of quality. “We don’t need to paint this broad brush over how good the ACC is because of two isolated performances against big time competition. Penn State’s very real, and so is Texas.”

He also mentioned how the representatives of the SEC, often considered superior to the rest, failed miserably. That doesn’t undermine the entire conference, either. Although he didn’t name his peers, a lot of this negativity towards the teams and conferences cropped up via other members of the media. Paul Finebaum and Kirk Herbstreit, both revered voices in the mediascape, have voiced their disdain with the CFP committee’s selections in the backwash of round 1.

Paul Finebaum and Kirk Herbstreit’s concerns heading into the CFP were somewhat validated

Finebaum has often been criticized for SEC bias and homerism. Well, he’s not thwarting that criticism any time soon. During the 2nd of the 4-game slate, he took to X. Paul Finebaum delivered a sarcastic jab at the committee and, by extension, their selected teams. “So far, the CFP selection committee has given us some blockbusters. Notre Dame led late over Indiana 27-3 and Penn State just went up on the committee’s final team [SMU] 28-0 at the half. Take a bow.” he wrote. Finebaum has held firm on his stance that Indiana shouldn’t be in the playoffs for a long time. Coincidentally or not, it’s funny that he hasn’t posted anything since Tennessee got blown out themselves!

Fellow ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit also echoed frustration around Indiana. He’s explicitly stated on national television that his main takeaway from the weekend’s games was the committee getting “caught up” in the hype around Cignetti’s Hoosiers. “Indiana having 11 wins and beating nobody doesn’t mean they’re one of the 12 best teams…there’s a big difference between deserving and best. [The CFP] is all about giving us the best 12 teams” said Herbstreit.

You can’t help but connect the dots about what’s at the root of this frustration for both entities. 3 SEC teams were left on the periphery of the top 12. Namely Alabama, Ole Miss, and South Carolina. Instead, it was Indiana and SMU that were accommodated. Both teams’ performances on the day suggest they, in reality, weren’t ‘better’ than the ones left out. Since there was no way to know that beforehand, it’s a futile exercise to make a comparison now. The teams that missed out did indeed have their opportunity to secure a berth. Hindsight is 20/20. One thing that is irrefutable is that the sheer volume of disdain around their attempt at creating equality among conferences will inadvertently seep into the committee’s thinking next season. Don’t expect these inter-conference cold wars to dissipate anytime soon.