413 Sports Reaction: Understanding Tulane and JMU — But the Notre Dame Snub Raises Real Questions

By Walker Johnson

Dec 9, 2025, 4:45PM

The College Football Playoff Selection Committee released its final rankings on Sunday and delivered a bracket that quickly sparked debate across the college football world. While most of the 12-team field was predictable, the final at-large spot — claimed by the Miami Hurricanes — reignited the long-running debate over consistency, transparency, and the committee’s approach to head-to-head evaluation.

Two things can be true at once:

Tulane and James Madison earned their playoff spot, while Notre Dame received a frustrating ranking keeping them out of the playoff.

This year’s bracket provides clarity in some areas and confusion in others, presenting a perfect example of how the expanded playoff era both solves old debates and introduces new ones.

The Case for Tulane and James Madison: Clear, Earned, and Deserved

Before diving into the controversy, it’s important to acknowledge the legitimacy of the two lowest-seeded conference champions: Tulane (No. 11) and James Madison (No. 12).

Tulane — A True Group of Five Champion

Tulane entered Championship Weekend at 11–2 and secured the American Athletic Conference title, finishing as one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. Their résumé is not smoke and mirrors as it includes:

• A conference title

• One of the nation’s most efficient offenses

• A defense that consistently improved over the back half of the season

• A strong closing stretch that validated their position

The Green Wave did not back their way into the field; they earned their way in through the structure the CFP was specifically designed to honor — rewarding conference champions and ensuring access for programs outside the power structure.

James Madison — A Remarkable Rise Continues

For James Madison, the playoff berth represents one of the modern era’s most extraordinary program ascents. Just two years removed from transitioning to FBS, JMU rolled through the Sun Belt with a 12–1 record and captured the conference crown.

Their resume falls perfectly within the CFP framework:

• Conference championship

• Consistent week-to-week performance

• A top-25 profile rooted in reliability

While critics may argue that JMU is not among the 12 “best” teams in the country, they are unquestionably among the 12 “most deserving” based on the committee’s established criteria. They checked every box required of a Group of Five champion, and their inclusion was not only justified — it was required.

In other words: Tulane and JMU’s inclusion was both reasonable and justified.

Notre Dame’s Omission: A Decision That Leaves Unresolved Tension

But the discussion turns sharply when the focus shifts to the final at-large spot — a spot that many assumed would ultimately belong to Notre Dame.

The Irish spent multiple weeks positioned ahead of Miami in the committee’s own rankings. Despite a paper-thin gap between the two teams statistically, Notre Dame maintained the edge week after week. Yet in the final and most important the ranking Miami suddenly jumped them.

The core question is obvious: What changed?

The Head-to-Head Factor — The Deciding Blow

Miami and Notre Dame met early in the season, and the Hurricanes emerged with a 27–24 victory. That game mattered then, and it mattered even more now.

When resumes are this similar, the committee has long stated that head-to-head competitions serve as a “primary differentiating factor.” That language is not vague — it clearly points to Miami holding the head-to-head advantage over Notre Dame.

And in this case, that one tiny result was the difference.

If these teams had not played each other, a strong argument could be made for Notre Dame’s body of work. But they did play each other — and Miami won.

From a pure policy standpoint, the committee’s explanation is straightforward: Miami beat Notre Dame, therefore the playoff spot was awarded to the Hurricanes.

But sometimes, policy alone should not be the deciding factor. It’s still leaves lingering, and understandable, frustration.

The Perception Problem: Why Was Notre Dame Ranked Higher for Weeks?

This is the point where the controversy deepens.

If Miami’s head-to-head win was the deciding factor and ultimately the justification for their selection…. Then why did the committee repeatedly place Notre Dame above Miami in the rankings throughout November?

That is the inconsistency Notre Dame fans, analysts, and even neutral observers have pointed out.

For weeks:

• Notre Dame was ahead of Miami.

• The committee spoke favorably about the Irish’s strength of schedule.

• Miami did not secure a necessary late season win to justify a jump over the Irish.

Yet on Selection Sunday, with no major new data points separating the teams the committee reversed course and chose Miami.

The Issue is Not the Outcome — It’s the Process

Most objective analysts can understand Miami’s inclusion based solely on the head-to-head result.

The frustration stems from how the committee arrived at that decision, and why it appeared to abandon its own weekly logic only at the very end.

Had Miami been consistently ranked ahead of Notre Dame all along especially given the head-to-head win. his decision would have been easier for the public to accept.

Instead, the committee effectively:

• Ignored head-to-head for weeks

• Then leaned on it in the end

• Without signaling a shift in evaluation

That inconsistency is what makes the Irish’s omission feel abrupt rather than justified.

A Fair Outcome That Still Feels Uneven

This playoff field is strong, balanced, and reflects the sport’s competitive depth.

The right conference champions made it.

The best at-large teams made it.

The bracket is compelling and competitive.

But the Notre Dame–Miami decision underscores a familiar tension in college football:

Even with data, results, and structure, the human element still influences the final word.

Notre Dame can acknowledge the validity of Miami’s head-to-head advantage.

But they are equally justified in questioning the process that positioned them above Miami until the crucial moment it mattered most.

In the end, the committee got a defensible result but the path they took to arrive there leaves room for scrutiny.

Final Thoughts

The expanded playoff is supposed to reduce controversy, not eliminate it entirely. This year proved that while the system is more inclusive, it still requires transparency, consistency, and a steady hand from the committee.

Tulane and James Madison earned their place, validating the broader vision of access and fairness.

Miami earned its spot based on results on the field.

Notre Dame serves as a reminder that even in the expanded era the margins are razor thin and the committee must communicate its rationale more clearly moving forward.