The Ability To Stack The Box

Sage Steele Questions ESPN’s Playoff Influence: Indiana and Notre Dame Are Caught in the Middle of the SEC Debate

By Hoosier Enquirer Sports Desk

The College Football Playoff is supposed to determine the best teams in America. But as the first 2026 rankings demonstrate, there is growing concern that the process is becoming as much about conference reputations,

television relationships and media narratives as what happens on the football field.

Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele is asking questions that college football fans should not dismiss. In her November 6 discussion, titled Is the College Football Playoff Committee RIGGED? | SEC Bias & Notre Dame, Steele examines the relationship between ESPN, the SEC and the playoff selection process.

For Indiana University and, especially, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, this is not an abstract argument. Both programs have a direct stake in whether the playoff selection process consistently rewards performance rather than institutional reputation.

And the events of November 7 have made the discussion considerably more interesting.

Indiana: The defending champion has reason to question the narrative

Indiana entered the first CFP rankings at No. 4 with an 8-1 record, making the Hoosiers the highest-ranked Big Ten team.

That sounds impressive, but the rankings also placed two-loss Alabama at No. 5, ahead of undefeated UCLA at No. 8. Ohio State, the team responsible for Indiana’s only loss, appeared at No. 12.

The SEC received 10 positions in the initial Top 25, compared with six for the Big Ten.

Indiana coach Curt Cignetti was not impressed with the surrounding media narrative.

Cignetti criticized ESPN’s favorable treatment of the SEC, saying that commentators who are not technically employed by the network nevertheless follow its company line. He also pointed to the number of SEC teams receiving favorable positioning.

His criticism was significant because Indiana has earned its national standing through actual results. Cignetti has repeatedly emphasized that the Hoosiers have one of the country’s strongest collections of victories against teams with winning records.

The committee’s chairman, Hunter Yurachek, cited Indiana’s 5-1 record against teams with records of .500 or better as an important distinction when explaining why Indiana was ranked seven positions ahead of Notre Dame.

Indiana was on a bye when the initial rankings were released. The Hoosiers now have an opportunity to strengthen their position against USC, Washington and Purdue.

But Indiana should be interested in more than its own ranking. If the committee applies different standards to different conferences, even a defending national champion could eventually become a victim of the same system.

Notre Dame: The real test of the committee’s credibility

The Fighting Irish have an even more immediate reason to pay attention.

Notre Dame entered the first CFP rankings at No. 11, despite holding the No. 4 position in the Associated Press poll.

The committee’s explanation was that Notre Dame lacked a signature victory.

That assessment was difficult for Irish supporters to accept. Notre Dame had a 7-1 record, and its only loss came against Texas A&M. But the committee argued that the Irish had not played enough quality opponents to justify a higher position.

The irony was obvious: Notre Dame was about to host undefeated No. 1 Miami.

The Irish had their opportunity to answer the committee on the field.

They did exactly that.

On November 7, Notre Dame defeated Miami 31-24 in South Bend. Quarterback CJ Carr threw for 319 yards and three touchdowns, and the Irish defense delivered the critical plays needed to protect the victory.

The win was more than an important result. It was the kind of signature victory the committee had said Notre Dame needed.

Now the question becomes whether the next rankings will reflect that accomplishment.

Notre Dame is an independent. It does not have a conference championship game to enhance its résumé or the institutional advantages associated with membership in the SEC or Big Ten. Its path to the playoff depends on the committee recognizing the quality of its schedule and the importance of its victories.

The Miami victory should eliminate much of the criticism about the Irish lacking a major win.

If the committee continues to undervalue Notre Dame, it will owe the public a detailed explanation.

The Alabama question: Why the four-position jump?

One of the most revealing aspects of the first rankings was Alabama’s placement.

The Crimson Tide appeared at No. 5 in the CFP rankings, four positions higher than their No. 9 position in the preceding AP poll.

This was not a four-position jump in consecutive CFP rankings, nor was it proof of manipulation. The AP poll and CFP committee are separate ranking systems.

Nevertheless, the difference raises a legitimate question: What did the committee see in Alabama’s résumé that justified such a substantial elevation?

Why was Alabama placed ahead of undefeated UCLA? Why did the committee apply its strength-of-schedule reasoning so generously to some SEC teams while Notre Dame was penalized for its schedule?

And why should a conference’s reputation become such a powerful consideration when individual teams are supposed to be evaluated on their own merits?

These questions are particularly relevant to Indiana, which has demonstrated that Big Ten teams can compete at the highest level without relying on the SEC’s historical reputation.

ESPN’s financial interests deserve scrutiny by Congress or at least the NCAAhere in Indianapolis

There is a reason Steele’s discussion has attracted attention.

ESPN has exclusive worldwide broadcasting rights to the entire College Football Playoff through the 2031-32 season. The agreement includes the playoff games, weekly rankings programs and selection show.

ESPN also has the national television rights to SEC football and a major commercial relationship with the conference through the SEC Network.

This creates a structural question that should not be ignored.

ESPN does not select the playoff teams. That responsibility belongs to the CFP selection committee. There is no established evidence that ESPN directs the committee’s votes.

But ESPN controls the exclusive television presentation of the playoff while maintaining substantial financial interests in a conference whose teams are competing for playoff positions.

The network also has considerable influence over the national discussion surrounding those rankings.

That is enough to justify questions about whether the sport would benefit from multiple broadcasting partners and more independent coverage of the selection process.

The original negotiations for the expanded playoff included discussion of a multiple-network broadcasting model. The eventual exclusive ESPN agreement eliminated that competition for the main playoff rights.

Why should one network have such a commanding position over college football’s most important postseason event?

November 7 changed the argument

The results from Saturday added another dimension to the controversy.

Notre Dame defeated No. 1 Miami, 31-24. Oregon defeated Ohio State, 41-28. Alabama defeated LSU, 31-13. Georgia dominated Ole Miss, 42-7.

These results will have significant consequences for the next committee rankings.

For Notre Dame, the Miami victory provides a compelling reason to move substantially higher. For Indiana, Ohio State’s loss changes the competitive landscape in the Big Ten, although the Hoosiers still need to take care of their own remaining schedule.

The Irish have now demonstrated that they can defeat the nation’s top-ranked team. Indiana has already established itself as a national championship contender.

Neither school should have to depend on a television network’s preferred narrative to establish its credentials.

Who watches the watchdog? Tbis is a reoccurring problem today and it has caused the decline of courts, schools, elections and sports.

The short story the decline of sport starts with a plane crash over a sports venue, nd last Monday Night Football game had a fly over where a helicopter was nearly shot down over the stadium in Seattle by fireworks….

Sage Steele’s questions are important because the stakes are enormous.

A playoff invitation affects university revenue, recruiting, national exposure and the financial future of athletic programs. A ranking is not simply a number on a television graphic.

Indiana has worked hard to establish itself as a national power. Notre Dame has spent generations maintaining its independent identity and competing against the country’s best programs.

Both schools deserve a transparent process.

The committee should explain its decisions in a manner that makes sense to the universities and fans whose seasons are affected. ESPN should be willing to answer questions about its financial relationships and its influence over the national football conversation.

And the selection committee should remember that its credibility depends on applying its standards consistently.

Notre Dame has answered the committee’s demand for a signature victory. Indiana continues to defend its place among the country’s elite.

Now it is the committee’s turn to answer some questions.

The College Football Playoff should be about the best teams in America—not the best television relationships, the loudest conference lobbyists or the most powerful media narratives.