Here’s a bold statement: Urban Meyer’s argument for excluding Group of 5 (G5) teams from the College Football Playoff might just be the most misguided take we’ve heard yet. But here’s where it gets controversial—while some claim it’s about fairness or safety, the real reason might be far less noble. Let’s dive in.
Over the past few weeks, prominent voices in college football have been clamoring to either limit or outright ban G5 schools from the playoff. The debate heated up after Tulane and James Madison failed to make their first-round matchups competitive, but the complaints didn’t start there. And this is the part most people miss—the arguments against G5 inclusion are often flimsy, if not outright hypocritical.
Critics point to blowout games as evidence that G5 teams don’t belong. But let’s be real—blowouts aren’t exclusive to G5 matchups. Power 5 teams like Oregon, Ohio State, and Notre Dame have been on the wrong end of lopsided games too. So, why the double standard? Is it really about the quality of play, or is something else at play?
Some argue that G5 teams haven’t earned their spot due to weaker schedules. But here’s the thing—isn’t that the very structure of college football? G5 schools are often forced into less competitive schedules because they’re denied access to the same resources and opportunities as their Power 5 counterparts. It’s a catch-22: they’re criticized for not playing tougher opponents, yet they’re systematically excluded from those matchups. Does this sound fair to you?
Then there’s the safety argument—the idea that G5 athletes are at risk when competing against Power 5 programs. But wait, aren’t these same teams playing each other throughout the season without anyone raising safety concerns? This argument feels more like a convenient excuse than a genuine issue.
The truth? The most honest reason to exclude G5 schools is likely about TV ratings. Blowout games don’t draw viewers, and networks want high-stakes, high-interest matchups. Everything else—the fairness, the safety, the competitive balance—feels like a rhetorical smokescreen.
Urban Meyer, a vocal critic of G5 inclusion, recently doubled down on his stance during The Triple Option podcast. He argued that including G5 teams isn’t fair to the players, coaches, or even the Power 5 teams left out. But let’s unpack that. Meyer seems to underestimate the potential for upsets, which are the lifeblood of tournaments like March Madness. Isn’t the possibility of a Cinderella story what makes sports thrilling? Why should college football be any different?
Meyer also claims that G5 teams are set up to fail, but James Madison’s 17-point loss to Oregon wasn’t the blowout some expected. The Dukes fought hard, and their players gained national exposure, elevated their program’s profile, and even opened doors for future opportunities. Isn’t that what college football is supposed to be about—growth, resilience, and opportunity?
The idea that G5 teams are somehow embarrassing the sport is laughable. If that’s the case, what about Ohio State’s 28-point loss to Alabama in 2021, or TCU’s 58-point drubbing by Georgia in 2023? By Meyer’s logic, those games should be equally embarrassing. But they’re not. Because the real embarrassment here isn’t the G5 teams—it’s the media’s reaction to them.
Here’s the bottom line: Excluding G5 teams from the College Football Playoff isn’t about fairness, safety, or even competition. It’s about protecting the status quo and prioritizing ratings over opportunity. But shouldn’t college football be a place where any team, regardless of their conference, has a shot at greatness? What do you think? Is Urban Meyer right, or is this exclusionary mindset holding the sport back? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments.
