Danny Kanell, a former college football quarterback and current analyst, took to social media to express his frustration after seeing the latest College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings, specifically regarding the placements of Miami and Alabama. His anger stemmed from the fact that Miami, after a shocking upset loss to Syracuse, dropped six spots to No. 12, while Alabama, despite suffering multiple losses earlier in the season, moved up to No. 11, leapfrogging the Hurricanes in the process. This decision by the CFP committee sparked controversy and fueled Kanell’s criticism of how the rankings were determined.
The controversy revolves around the criteria used by the CFP selection committee. Typically, the committee evaluates teams based on a combination of factors, including wins, strength of schedule, conference championships, and head-to-head matchups. In Miami’s case, their impressive early-season performance, which included wins over ranked teams, was marred by the loss to Syracuse, a result that knocked them out of the conversation for a playoff spot. However, Kanell’s issue with the rankings isn’t solely based on Miami’s drop but rather the elevation of Alabama over them.
Alabama, despite suffering losses to Texas and LSU earlier in the season, had remained in the playoff picture due to their reputation, strength of schedule, and the perceived toughness of the SEC. However, Kanell and many others argued that Alabama’s path to a high ranking was padded by their brand, rather than the quality of their season. He believed that the Crimson Tide had been given more grace by the committee due to their history of success and the aura surrounding their program, regardless of the fact that they had lost games.
Kanell also voiced concerns that the committee’s treatment of Miami was unfair, highlighting that the Hurricanes’ early season success should have been valued more than one loss. He pointed out that Miami’s loss to Syracuse, while surprising, shouldn’t have been enough to drop them so drastically in the rankings, especially when compared to Alabama, who had multiple losses. According to Kanell, this inconsistency in how the committee ranks teams based on past reputation versus present performance leads to unfair rankings and undermines the integrity of the selection process.
Alabama’s rise in the rankings, despite their own stumbles, also led Kanell to question the CFP committee’s true intentions. He suggested that the committee might be influenced by factors such as television ratings, fan interest, and the brand power of major programs like Alabama, which are often more lucrative for the College Football Playoff and its partners. Kanell’s frustration was a reflection of a broader criticism that many fans and analysts have leveled against the CFP system: that it too often rewards teams with historical prestige rather than rewarding teams based on their current season’s performance.
In conclusion, Danny Kanell’s reaction to the College Football Playoff rankings served as a commentary on the flaws he perceives in the selection process. His outburst highlighted concerns about inconsistency in the rankings and the potential for bias toward high-profile programs like Alabama. With the playoff picture becoming clearer as the season progresses, the conversation around how teams are ranked will continue to stir debate among fans, analysts, and those involved in the sport.
