The College Football Playoff (CFP) is at a crossroads, and the debate is heating up: Should Group of Five (G5) teams be guaranteed a spot in the postseason tournament? This question has sparked intense discussions, especially after this year’s CFP field included two G5 teams—Tulane and James Madison—both of which fell in their first-round matchups against Ole Miss and Oregon, respectively. But here’s where it gets controversial: despite their losses, voices like former Tulane head coach Jon Sumrall are advocating for continued G5 access, arguing that these teams deserve a seat at the table.
Sumrall, whose Tulane team finished the season with an impressive 11 wins and a conference championship, didn’t hold back after their 41-10 loss to Ole Miss. “We won our conference championship, and the rules are what they were,” he said. “I think there should be access for at least one G5 team moving forward.” His bold statement highlights a growing sentiment: G5 teams, like Tulane, which defeated ACC champion Duke during the season, should be given opportunities over power conference teams with weaker records. And this is the part most people miss: Sumrall’s argument isn’t just about fairness—it’s about recognizing the achievements of teams that dominate their conferences, even if they’re not from the traditional powerhouses.
The controversy deepens when you consider the teams left out of this year’s playoff. Programs like Notre Dame, Texas, and BYU felt snubbed, especially after Miami secured the final at-large bid over the Fighting Irish—despite Notre Dame being ranked higher in the CFP standings for most of the season. Miami’s head-to-head win over Notre Dame added fuel to the fire, leaving fans and analysts divided. Should the playoffs prioritize the best overall teams, or should conference champions, regardless of their conference’s perceived strength, be rewarded?
Some argue that the CFP should expand to include the 12 best teams, period. But according to the final CFP rankings, Tulane was No. 20 and James Madison No. 24, raising questions about whether their inclusion was deserved. Sumrall acknowledges the criticism, especially after Tulane’s lopsided loss: “By how we played, we maybe didn’t help the critics of that,” he admitted. Yet, he stands firm: “There should at least be one G5 representative.”
As talks of expanding the CFP to 14 or 16 teams gain momentum, the future of G5 inclusion remains uncertain. Will this expansion ensure more opportunities for non-power conference teams, or will the debate only intensify? What do you think? Should G5 teams be guaranteed a spot, or should the CFP focus solely on the nation’s top programs? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation that’s far from over.
