forums

Does Miami Make The CFP in 2025?

Do our Canes make the 2025 CFP?

  • Total voters
    296
The only way in is Alabama wins the SECCG and BYU loses the Big 12 CG (probably by a large margin to ensure Miami can jump them).

They have set themselves up for Alabama to drop 1 to keep the buffer between Miami and ND with a loss. BYU in and ND and Miami out with a win.

Then, they obviously have to honor the H2H with them side by side. TBD if they even do that. I don't think they do.

Outside chance at BYU and Alabama getting blown out and Miami jumping both. Don't think there's a path for Miami to jump Alabama. They went up 1 to give them room to go up or down to keep Miami offset from ND.
 
Advertisement
aelmiami said:
Yes. If BYU loses.

Do I think the committee wants us in? No. But I don’t think they want to ruin the sport and completely disregard the H2H.
Click to expand...
You are completely and totally wrong.

The committee does not care about “the sport”, and there is zero evidence to suggest Miami will jump ND. In fact, they’ve already said Miami will NOT jump ND.
 
I have placed a bet for ND to miss playoffs and Miami to make it. I expect to lose money cause the committee is ******* retarded and in NDs pocket. Why ESPN would be begging for ND (an NBC property) over elevating Miami (an ESPN property) is insane. But whatever. You’d think long term it’s better for ESPN if Miami is a playoff team then all next season they will be showing ACC games with us as by far the top media draw… but maybe I’m crazy
 
Calinative said:
I have placed a bet for ND to miss playoffs and Miami to make it. I expect to lose money cause the committee is ******* retarded and in NDs pocket. Why ESPN would be begging for ND (an NBC property) over elevating Miami (an ESPN property) is insane. But whatever. You’d think long term it’s better for ESPN if Miami is a playoff team then all next season they will be showing ACC games with us as by far the top media draw… but maybe I’m crazy
Click to expand...
It's a good bet I think. Prediction market seems like best way to play it, sell half once TTU wins and before Bama has the chance to potentially **** the bed
 
Advertisement
Calinative said:
I have placed a bet for ND to miss playoffs and Miami to make it. I expect to lose money cause the committee is ******* retarded and in NDs pocket. Why ESPN would be begging for ND (an NBC property) over elevating Miami (an ESPN property) is insane. But whatever. You’d think long term it’s better for ESPN if Miami is a playoff team then all next season they will be showing ACC games with us as by far the top media draw… but maybe I’m crazy
Click to expand...
I put some money on ND to miss the CFP as well. I think they're in a very tricky spot. (I also put $10 on Miami to win the natty at +10000 just for ***** and giggles)
 
B and C

Let the B1G and $EC take their ball and go home. Have their own playoff. Personally would love to see them dare to do it and see if it would be a success. Tired of the politicking, groveling, whatever you want to call it.

I'll watch whatever Miami plays in.
 
OrangeBowlMagic said:
I'm not going by Vegas odds. If you do, then ND > Miami, because they'd be 5.5 to 6 against us on a neutral. I'm going by resume. OU's resume deserves to have them ranked ahead of ND, and they are.

I'd much rather play OU, of course. But we're all here arguing Miami's resume > ND's resume for justification to put us in. If it was just Vegas/power rankings, we'd be behind ND (but above several other playoff teams, which is insanely frustrating).
Click to expand...
Fair enough. And I know the committee is not technically supposed to predict future performance anyhow. Not to be existential or anything, but what is a resume? It seems in many ways to be boiled down to good/bad wins/losses. But the committee is permitted to consider basically whatever data it wants. Computer rankings are certainly part of it, and although they are not perfect, they universally view OU as not being a playoff team based on their performance as a whole. Then you have things like analytics/rankings related to their putrid offense. But it is hard to poke holes in their "resume" if we're just talking about good/bad wins/losses.
 
There is no advocate in that room for us. Playoffs by committee is scummy. There is no transparency on methods to seeding, and the going sentiment is that committee members weigh their feelings (non-numerical analysis) more when voting. The whole system needs blowing up--not regulation, not auditing, not compromising--BLOWN... Up!

There are many people right now with doubts that the committee is acting in good faith; and because of the governance in place, what body exists to ensure it is acting in good faith? Call me new-fashioned but I grew up in the Sarbanes-Oxley era of transparency. No corporate body would operate ethically+legally the same way this committee operates (don't even 'at me', this committee essentially operates functionally as a corporate board)

1764787234207.png



I pumped the resumes of all 12 members of the committee into AI and asked "Here are the biographies of the 12 members on the CFP. I am trying to build a case for Bias against the college football playoff committee. From these bios, is there evidence that bias might exist against Atlantic Coast Conference teams? Is the ACC represented well enough on this committee?"

Output:

⭐ Summary​

1. Yes, the committee is very lightly represented by members with deep ACC backgrounds.
Only two members have direct, substantial ties to ACC institutions:

ACC-Aligned Members​

  1. Jeff Long – Worked as a football staffer at NC State, Duke, and Miami (OH) but only NC State and Duke tie to ACC. Also served as athletic administrator at Virginia Tech (ACC member).
  2. Carla Williams – Current Athletic Director at Virginia, one of the ACC’s flagship programs.
That’s ~2 out of 12 members — 16.7% ACC representation.


⭐ Is There Evidence in the Bios of Potential Bias Against the ACC?​

✔ There IS evidence the committee is dominated by voices from the Big Ten, SEC, and West Coast football ecosystems — not the ACC.​

This matters because:​

  • These members have professional, cultural, and historical exposure to certain conferences more than others.
  • Implicit bias tends to follow familiarity networks (not malice), and these bios show the ACC is significantly less familiar to most committee members.
1764787831394.png



⭐ Could Bias Against the ACC Be Plausibly Argued? (Using Only Bio Evidence)​

✔ Yes, you can argue that ACC teams are structurally disadvantaged in the CFP room, based on the following facts derived from the bios:​

1. The ACC has the weakest representation of any power conference.​

Only Jeff Long and Carla Williams provide genuine ACC institutional perspectives.

2. The committee is dominated by the SEC, Big Ten, and West Coast voices.​

These conferences:
  • Control the most revenue
  • Have historically performed better
  • Have strong media ecosystems
  • Are generally perceived as “stronger”
This influences implicit judgment, even if unconsciously.

3. Several committee members have professional incentives or historical loyalty to rival conferences.​

4. No former ACC head coach is on the committee.​

But there are multiple former coaches from the Big Ten and West Coast.

5. Only one sitting ACC Athletic Director is present.​

Carla Williams (UVA).
Compare this with:
  • SEC: multiple ADs & major voices
  • Big Ten: multiple ADs/coaches
  • Pac-12/MWC: very heavy representation
This imbalance strengthens a case that the ACC is comparatively outnumbered in the decision room.

📌 Can You Claim Structural or Representation-Based Bias Against the ACC? ​

Yes — Absolutely.
And the facts to support it are strong:

You can reasonably argue:​

"The CFP committee is disproportionately staffed by members with strong SEC, Big Ten, and West Coast backgrounds, while the ACC is the least represented Power Five conference. This inherent imbalance increases the likelihood of biased evaluations, even if unintentional."
Click to expand...
This is exactly the type of argument used in congressional hearings, NCAA governance critiques, and realignment discourse.

⭐ Verdict​

Is the ACC represented well enough?​

➡️ No. The ACC is underrepresented relative to every other major conference.

Does the composition allow you to argue reasonable bias against the ACC?​

➡️Yes. The committee composition clearly lends itself to implicit conference bias shaped by experience, loyalty networks, and regional exposure.


I have long been a fan of fair, transparent and consistent committee reaction to on-field outcomes. Last night, we learned that the committee "got clarification" on last years rule about not moving idle teams around during championship week. This year, they are doing it. So what is the rule? Are the rules suggestions or subjective? Because the committee changes, are the rules and precedents set for FSU in '23 in effect today or was that just Boo Corrigan's one-off rule not to be applied to Ole Miss. College Football feels a little less interesting when you consider all the non-football related distractions such as this stupid committee. We need to disband this committee, end the incestual relationship football has with these networks, standardize refereeing across the entire sport, allow for transparent ref explanation and discipline when found to be in error. Smartest country on Earth and we cannot freakin' figure out enforcing the fair and equitable selection of playoff participation pool. Get the F!@k out of here.
 
Advertisement
Miami is ****ed. They set it up to give them 3 outs of Miami getting in.

1) Bama loss
2) BYU win
3) BYU close loss

The chances that Bama wins, BYU gets blown out is about 10-15%. So our playoff chances realistically are sitting about 5%

Shafted
 
MumbleRap said:
Miami is ****ed. They set it up to give them 3 outs of Miami getting in.

1) Bama loss
2) BYU win
3) BYU close loss

The chances that Bama wins, BYU gets blown out is about 10-15%. So our playoff chances realistically are sitting about 5%

Shafted
Click to expand...
BYU just needs to lose. It doesn't matter if it's close or a blowout. Regardless of what else happens they will not make the playoff if they lose (odds are now the same for them to beat TTU and to make the playoff). I can't envision a world in which BYU loses a close game and we don't jump ahead of them in the final rankings
 
MumbleRap said:
Miami is ****ed. They set it up to give them 3 outs of Miami getting in.

1) Bama loss
2) BYU win
3) BYU close loss

The chances that Bama wins, BYU gets blown out is about 10-15%. So our playoff chances realistically are sitting about 5%

Shafted
Click to expand...

The chances that Bama wins (2.5 point dog) and BYU gets blown out (13 point dog) are 10%? No.
 
Back
Top