Tensions Rise: Iowa State and SMU Athletic Directors Clash Over CFP Rankings

In the ever-competitive world of college football, few things spark as much debate and controversy as the College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings. Recently, a fiery clash between the athletic directors of Iowa State and Southern Methodist University (SMU) over the latest CFP rankings has underscored just how high the stakes are for programs vying for a spot in the prestigious playoff. The confrontation, fueled by differing perspectives on fairness and team performance, has raised questions about the transparency of the ranking process, the influence of non-Power Five schools, and the broader implications of the CFP selection system.

The Iowa State-SMU Clash: A Heated Exchange

The latest confrontation came to light after the unveiling of the most recent CFP rankings, which placed Iowa State ahead of SMU despite both teams boasting impressive records. Iowa State, a member of the Big 12 Conference, and SMU, representing the American Athletic Conference (AAC), found themselves in the crossfire of what quickly became a tense and public dispute between their respective athletic directors.

In an open letter, Iowa State’s Athletic Director, Jamie Pollard, expressed disappointment over the perceived undervaluation of his team’s performance, citing their strength of schedule and key victories. Pollard argued that Iowa State’s placement in the rankings did not reflect their overall competitive balance and ability to challenge top-tier teams, which he felt should have earned them a higher spot.

On the other hand, SMU’s Athletic Director, Rick Hart, was equally vocal, calling the ranking of Iowa State above his team “unjustified” given SMU’s undefeated record at the time. Hart’s comments were pointed, questioning whether the CFP committee was placing undue emphasis on conference affiliation, rather than on objective metrics like win-loss record and head-to-head performance.

The Debate Over Rankings: Is Strength of Schedule Overrated?

At the heart of the debate lies a critical question: what factors should weigh most heavily in the CFP rankings? Historically, the College Football Playoff selection committee has given significant weight to strength of schedule, which has often worked against teams from smaller conferences. Iowa State, playing in the Big 12—a Power Five conference—benefits from facing top-tier competition week in and week out. This has led to arguments that schools from smaller conferences, like SMU, are often penalized for not playing the same caliber of opponents.

However, SMU’s undefeated record, including wins against ranked opponents, challenged this narrative. Rick Hart’s remarks echoed a growing sentiment among many mid-major programs: that the CFP rankings often unfairly dismiss their accomplishments due to biases against smaller conferences. Critics of the current system have long called for a more equitable way of determining playoff spots, arguing that it fails to accurately reflect the talent and merit of programs outside the Power Five.

• Iowa State’s Strength of Schedule: As a member of the Big 12, Iowa State plays against some of the best teams in the country, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Baylor. This tough schedule is often used to justify a higher ranking, even if their record isn’t as pristine as teams in smaller conferences.
• SMU’s Undefeated Record: SMU, on the other hand, has an undefeated record but has been criticized for a weaker schedule, with fewer nationally ranked opponents. Despite this, their dominance on the field has led some to argue they should be higher in the rankings.

Bias Toward Power Five Conferences?

One of the major criticisms of the CFP rankings is the perceived bias toward Power Five conferences, which include the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12. These conferences not only receive more media exposure but also attract larger recruiting classes and more financial resources, which gives their teams an advantage when it comes to national recognition. While the CFP committee insists that rankings are determined by a variety of factors, including performance against ranked opponents, margin of victory, and overall strength of schedule, there is a growing belief that Power Five teams are often given the benefit of the doubt.

For programs like SMU, this creates an uphill battle. While they may dominate their conference, the lack of national exposure and limited opportunities to play against top-tier opponents makes it difficult to garner the same level of respect. This leads to the perception that teams from smaller conferences, despite strong records, are often relegated to second-tier status, especially when compared to their Power Five counterparts.

The CFP Ranking System: A Flawed or Fair Process?

The CFP ranking system itself has long been a subject of debate. The current structure, which relies heavily on the judgment of a 13-member selection committee, has been criticized for its subjectivity. The committee evaluates teams based on a combination of criteria, including:

• Strength of schedule
• Head-to-head results
• Conference championships
• Key wins and losses
• Eye test (general performance on the field)

While these factors provide a comprehensive view of each team’s season, critics argue that the committee’s subjective nature can lead to inconsistent rankings, especially when it comes to comparing teams from different conferences. This issue has been highlighted by the Iowa State-SMU dispute, as both programs believe their records and accomplishments justify a better ranking, yet both have been evaluated differently.

The Need for a More Inclusive Playoff System

The rise in calls for a more inclusive College Football Playoff system is another critical angle to consider. For years, fans and analysts have pushed for a system that allows more teams—especially from Group of Five conferences—to have a chance at the playoff. In recent years, the debate has intensified as schools like SMU, Boise State, and Cincinnati have consistently performed at a high level, but remain largely excluded from the playoff picture due to their conference affiliations.

With the recent announcement that the College Football Playoff will expand to 12 teams in 2024, there is renewed optimism among mid-major programs that they will finally have a shot at the championship. Under the new system, six of the 12 playoff spots will be reserved for the highest-ranked conference champions from the Group of Five conferences. This expansion could give teams like SMU a greater opportunity to compete at the highest level, even if they don’t have the same strength of schedule as Power Five teams.

However, the move toward a 12-team playoff has also generated criticism. Some argue that it will water down the importance of the regular season, with more teams making the playoffs even if they fail to win their conference. Others believe the existing system already works well to determine the true national champion, and that expansion will dilute the competitive nature of the postseason.

The Future of College Football Playoff Rankings

The debate between Iowa State and SMU is just one example of the growing frustration felt by programs from non-Power Five conferences. While the current CFP system may work for some, it leaves much to be desired for others. As the playoff expands in 2024, it remains to be seen how the selection committee will adjust its ranking process to accommodate a larger field of teams.

In the meantime, schools like Iowa State and SMU will continue to press for recognition of their hard work, and the broader conversation about fairness, transparency, and bias in the CFP rankings is likely to persist. Whether the new playoff structure addresses these concerns or simply exacerbates them remains a key question as college football moves into an era of expanded postseason opportunities.

Conclusion

The recent clash between Iowa State and SMU over the CFP rankings has ignited a broader conversation about fairness and transparency in college football’s postseason system. As schools from different conferences continue to fight for recognition, the expansion of the College Football Playoff offers hope for more inclusive opportunities. However, until the new system is fully implemented, debates like the one between Pollard and Hart will likely continue to highlight the challenges and complexities of ranking teams in such a competitive landscape.

For more information on the upcoming changes to the College Football Playoff, visit the official NCAA site.

To learn more about the rankings process and how teams are evaluated, check out the College Footbal
See more Sky News Portal