Miami AD Dan Radakovich Criticizes CFP Committee After Alabama Earns Final Playoff Spot
The College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee’s decisions are always a lightning rod for controversy, and this year’s rankings are no exception. Following the latest reveal, Miami Athletic Director Dan Radakovich made waves with a pointed critique of the committee’s decision to place Alabama in the final playoff spot over Miami.
Taking to social media, Radakovich expressed his frustrations, saying:
“Really ?? ….what put Bama over the top of Miami for the last spot… Miami went 1-2 in their last 3 games (by an average of 4.5 pts, to a ranked Syracuse and GT team that just took UGA to 8OT). Bama went 2-1 (to 5-7 Auburn, destroyed by OU, and beat FCS Mercer).”
Radakovich’s frustration stems from what many Hurricanes fans feel was an uneven application of the CFP selection criteria. Miami’s late-season struggles—a close loss to a ranked Syracuse team and a nail-biting defeat against Georgia Tech, both by slim margins—were seemingly weighed heavily against them. However, those losses came against quality opponents, with Georgia Tech recently pushing top-ranked Georgia into an epic eight-overtime battle.
Meanwhile, Miami’s season as a whole had been impressive, highlighted by significant wins over [insert opponents], a strong non-conference schedule, and a defense ranked among the best in the nation. The Hurricanes’ overall body of work seemed to align with the committee’s stated emphasis on strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and quality wins.
On the other hand, Alabama’s inclusion has been met with skepticism. The Crimson Tide went 2-1 in their final three games, with a win over struggling Auburn (5-7) and an expected blowout against FCS opponent Mercer. However, their resounding loss to Oklahoma—a team that dominated them in all phases—raised questions about their resume’s strength compared to Miami’s.
Critics, including Radakovich, argue that Alabama’s reliance on name recognition and historical prestige may have tilted the scales. While the Crimson Tide have been a perennial playoff contender under Nick Saban, their performance this season lacked the dominance seen in years past.
Radakovich’s comments highlight a broader frustration with the perceived inconsistency of the CFP selection process. The committee has often emphasized factors such as conference championships, strength of schedule, and quality of wins. Yet, in this case, it seems Alabama’s reputation carried more weight than Miami’s arguably stronger resume.
“I’m not saying Miami was perfect,” Radakovich continued in a follow-up statement. “But if we’re evaluating based on what teams have done this season, not what they’ve done in years past, the decision is baffling.”
This criticism is not new; the CFP has faced calls for increased transparency and an expanded playoff format to reduce the subjectivity of the selection process. The current four-team structure often leaves deserving teams on the outside looking in, sparking debates that overshadow the games themselves.
For Miami, missing out on the playoffs is undoubtedly a bitter pill to swallow. However, the Hurricanes remain in contention for a major New Year’s Six bowl game, where they can showcase their talent on a national stage and build momentum for next season.
For the CFP committee, the fallout from this year’s rankings will only add to the growing calls for reform. With conferences like the SEC and ACC increasingly vocal about their concerns, the push for a 12-team playoff format may gain even more traction in the coming years.
As for Alabama, the pressure is on to validate the committee’s faith in their selection. Anything less than a strong showing in the playoff will only add fuel to the argument that Miami deserved the spot more.
In the end, Radakovich’s comments underline a frustration shared by fans and analysts alike: the need for clarity, consistency, and fairness in determining college football’s elite. Until those issues are addressed, controversies like this will continue to dominate the playoff conversation.