RIGGED

College Football can be so unfair to the power conferences. Thanks to one of the P4 leagues, not naming names, the ACC, the Group of Five conferences were able to sneak two teams into the College Football Playoff. And those two G5 teams did what so many P4 playoff teams did even better before them, they got thumped. Subsequently, many College Football talking heads are demanding a blowout proof playoff format by denying G5 teams access altogether. "The G5 should have their own playoff and we would watch," they say with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

They are not playing the same game. It is a safety issue. Never mind that G5 haters do not complain this much about P4 teams wasting 25% of their regular season schedule on low G5/FCS opponents. The P4 still want to play these games and count them towards determining playoff qualifiers while maximizing home and television games. They just do not want to include them in "their" playoff. After all, a G5 team will never win as if a fair opportunity to compete requires achieving a minimum level of success. This year's top seed is arguably the worst P4 program ever. So, maybe a G5 team could be awful for decades and finally catch lightening in a bottle like Indiana has provided they are able compete under a system that allows them to control their playoff destiny at the start of each season.

For decades, polls and committees have basically functioned as follows: Teams are ranked best to worst record and G like teams are assessed a two game penalty. Of course, that is an unwritten rule and there are exceptions. However, that is essentially the world which G like teams have competed in forever. How do you compete for the resources needed to be successful at the highest level when the best resources know you are eliminated before competition begins beyond a perfect storm of luck?

During the CFP era, 18 0-1 loss G5 teams were ranked in the final Top 25. Only two, 2021 Cincinnati and 2024 Boise State were not ranked behind at least one P4 team with 2+ more losses. The remaining 16 all ranked behind multiple P4 teams with 2+ more losses. Whatever the ceiling is for G5 teams, individually and collectively, whatever the level of parity possible between P4 and G5, no one can pretend that CFP and its predecessors ever afforded G like teams the opportunity to maximize their potential. 

Every year a G5 team is denied an opportunity, their critics are quick to suggest they load up their non-conference schedules with 2-3 games versus top P4 teams in order to prove their worthiness to those that get to judge them subjectively free of any conflicting interest. Insert eyeroll here. Of course, their helpful suggestion ignores the fact the the top P4 teams have no competitive incentive to accommodate them. How much more is a win versus James Madison or Tulane worth compared to any FCS opponent to a P4 team that makes playing the former worth it? On top of that, P4 leagues have started to mandate their teams play at least ten games versus P4 competition. How are all 68 G5 programs supposed to schedule 2-3 P4 teams that are good enough to provide them the opportunity to prove their worthiness? 

Beyond that, many G like programs have made the top 12 in one or more polls over the years without playing any number of P like teams. When did the goalposts get moved? After decades of competing under subjectively determined systems that typically penalize them two games, after their best programs have been invited into the P4 club in recent years, a year after NIU beat runner-up Notre Dame, the leftovers are given no time to build off of a benefit they have only had for two years, guaranteed access to the playoffs, without people wanting to take it from them. Why?  Because watching P4 teams blow out G5 teams is much less fun than watching P4 teams blow each other out. Rigged is an understatement.