Arizona State head coach Kenny Dillingham has set the college football world ablaze with a blistering takedown of the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee. In a scathing statement, Dillingham called the committee members “ego-driven elitists rigging college football’s future” and accused them of using personal biases to shape the playoff landscape, prioritizing prestige and financial gain over fairness and competition.
Dillingham’s comments come amidst growing discontent over the perceived inequities in the CFP selection process, which many believe disproportionately favors historically dominant programs while shutting out deserving underdogs. As debates intensify over this year’s controversial selections and the broader fairness of the system, Dillingham’s unapologetic critique has divided fans, coaches, and analysts alike.
The Core of Dillingham’s Criticism
At the heart of Dillingham’s remarks is a longstanding grievance shared by many within the college football community: the CFP’s opaque decision-making process and its apparent favoritism toward teams from powerhouse conferences. This year’s CFP selections reignited this controversy, with several teams left out despite impressive performances, while others with weaker resumes secured coveted playoff spots.
“The entire system is a sham,” Dillingham declared during a press conference. “It’s not about football anymore. It’s about branding, money, and keeping the same programs on top year after year. These decisions aren’t made on merit; they’re made on ego and personal connections.”
Dillingham also criticized the committee’s reliance on subjective metrics like the “eye test” and “strength of schedule,” arguing that these criteria often serve as excuses to elevate teams with historical prestige while marginalizing programs that lack name recognition but demonstrate undeniable excellence on the field.
“Since when did we start deciding championships based on popularity contests?” Dillingham asked. “This isn’t the College Football Beauty Pageant. It’s supposed to be about who earns it on the field.”
A System Rife With Bias?
Dillingham’s accusations tap into a broader critique of the CFP system: its tendency to disproportionately favor teams from the Power Five conferences (SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12, and Big 12) while overlooking programs from the Group of Five conferences or independent teams that lack the clout of their Power Five counterparts.
For example, in recent years, undefeated teams like UCF and Cincinnati have faced uphill battles to secure playoff spots despite their flawless records. Meanwhile, two-loss teams from the SEC or Big Ten have been granted playoff berths, with the committee justifying their inclusion based on perceived “strength of schedule.”
This year’s CFP decisions followed a similar pattern, with debates raging over the exclusion of certain teams and the inclusion of others that many felt were less deserving. Critics argue that the system prioritizes marquee matchups and television ratings over fairness, using subjective criteria to reinforce the dominance of established powerhouses.
Dillingham’s remarks go beyond critiquing the committee’s decisions; they highlight a deeper issue: the CFP’s role in perpetuating a cycle of inequality that stifles upward mobility for smaller programs. By consistently favoring the same elite programs, the CFP ensures that these teams remain in the national spotlight, attracting more recruits, funding, and fan support—while other programs struggle to break through.
The Fallout: Dillingham Divides the Football World
Dillingham’s fiery statements have sparked a fierce debate within the college football community. Some have praised him for speaking truth to power, applauding his willingness to call out a system that many perceive as rigged against underdogs. Others, however, have criticized his tone, accusing him of being unprofessional and overly emotional.
“Finally, someone is saying what we’ve all been thinking,” one fan tweeted. “The CFP is broken, and Dillingham just exposed the whole charade. It’s about time someone called them out.”
On the other hand, detractors argue that Dillingham’s comments cross the line, accusing him of undermining the legitimacy of the playoff system and disrespecting the hard work of the committee members.
“Dillingham’s rant is nothing more than sour grapes,” said one analyst. “The CFP isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system we’ve got. He should focus on winning games instead of blaming the system.”
Even some of Dillingham’s fellow coaches have weighed in, with opinions split over whether his comments were justified. While some privately share his frustrations, others have expressed concerns that his remarks could damage the credibility of the sport.
The Broader Implications: What’s at Stake?
Dillingham’s critique raises important questions about the future of college football. As the sport continues to evolve, with increasing commercialization and expanding playoff formats, the need for a fair and transparent system has never been greater.
The CFP, established in 2014, was intended to address the flaws of the previous Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system by providing a more objective method for determining the national champion. However, nearly a decade later, many argue that the CFP has simply replaced one flawed system with another—one that is equally, if not more, vulnerable to bias and manipulation.
The upcoming expansion of the CFP to 12 teams in 2024 is seen by many as a step in the right direction, providing more opportunities for deserving teams to compete. However, critics like Dillingham remain skeptical, questioning whether the expanded format will truly address the underlying issues of bias and inequality—or simply reinforce them on a larger scale.
“The problem isn’t just the number of teams,” Dillingham said. “It’s the people making the decisions. Until we fix that, it doesn’t matter if it’s four teams, 12 teams, or 100 teams—the system will still be broken.”
Can the CFP Be Fixed?
Dillingham’s comments have reignited calls for reform, with many advocating for greater transparency and accountability within the CFP selection process. Proposed solutions include:
Clearer Criteria: Establishing a more objective set of criteria for playoff selection, reducing the reliance on subjective metrics like the “eye test.”
Transparency: Requiring the committee to publicly release detailed explanations of their decisions, including how they weigh various factors.
Diverse Representation: Ensuring that the selection committee includes representatives from a wider range of conferences and backgrounds to prevent the dominance of Power Five perspectives.
Automatic Bids: Implementing a system in which conference champions automatically qualify for the playoff, reducing the committee’s influence over the selection process.
Advanced Analytics: Incorporating more advanced statistical models and data-driven analysis to guide decision-making, minimizing the role of personal biases.
While these reforms could help address some of the issues raised by Dillingham and others, they would require a significant overhaul of the current system—a prospect that may face resistance from those who benefit from the status quo.
Dillingham: A Hero or a Troublemaker?
Dillingham’s bold remarks have positioned him as both a champion for underdogs and a lightning rod for criticism. Whether you agree with his critique or not, there’s no denying that his comments have brought much-needed attention to the flaws of the CFP system.
For fans of smaller programs and advocates for fairness, Dillingham represents a voice of resistance against a system that often seems stacked against the little guy. For his detractors, however, he’s a loose cannon whose comments threaten to undermine the legitimacy of college football’s most prestigious event.
Conclusion: The Battle for College Football’s Soul
Kenny Dillingham’s scathing critique of the CFP committee has reignited a fierce debate about the fairness and future of college football. While his words may have ruffled feathers, they also serve as a rallying cry for those who believe the system is in dire need of reform.
As the CFP prepares to expand and college football continues to evolve, Dillingham’s comments highlight a fundamental question: Can the sport truly achieve fairness and equity in a landscape dominated by money, prestige, and entrenched power? Or will the same “ego-driven elitists” that Dillingham criticized continue to shape the game’s future?
One thing is certain: Dillingham’s words won’t be forgotten anytime soon. Whether they spark meaningful change or simply add fuel to the fire of an already contentious debate remains to be seen. F
or now, the battle for the soul of college football rages on.