The release of the Week 13 College Football Playoff rankings has sparked significant discontent, particularly for Alabama and James Madison University, who feel their accomplishments are not adequately reflected in their placements despite strong performances.
On Tuesday, November 18, 2025, the College Football Playoff committee unveiled its latest top 25 rankings, setting the stage for the final stretch of the regular season. While the top three teams remained unchanged, Alabama’s drop to No. 10 and James Madison’s continued absence from the rankings have drawn sharp criticism from analysts and fans alike. The rankings are crucial as they determine which teams have a shot at the 12-team playoff, and perceived injustices can have major implications for postseason opportunities and team morale.
Alabama, with an 8-2 record, finds itself ranked behind Notre Dame and Oregon, despite having a more impressive résumé. The Crimson Tide have secured wins against No. 4 Georgia, No. 14 Vanderbilt, No. 20 Tennessee, and No. 22 Missouri, giving them four victories over ranked opponents. In contrast, Notre Dame has only one win against a ranked team (No. 15 USC), and Oregon lacks any significant ranked wins. Alabama’s recent two-point loss to Oklahoma, where they outperformed in yardage and net success rates, was penalized heavily, dropping them six spots, which many argue ignores context and performance metrics.
James Madison University, boasting a 9-1 record, remains unranked, while Group of 5 teams like Tulane receive preference. JMU has dominated the Sun Belt Conference, winning its seven conference games by an average of 24 points, with only one victory by fewer than 10 points. In the past month, the Dukes have outscored opponents 208-80 across four games. However, the committee appears to favor Tulane due to its Power 4 win over Duke, despite JMU’s consistent dominance over its schedule, which they cannot control, leading to frustration over the evaluation of strength of schedule versus quality of wins.
The committee’s approach has been criticized for lacking nuance, as it seems to simply adjust rankings based on wins and losses without reevaluating overall résumés. This method contrasts with the original intent of the selection committee, which was to provide fresh analysis each week. For instance, Alabama’s strong wins and unlucky loss are overlooked in favor of a punitive drop, while teams like Utah are ranked higher despite inferior strength of record and wins. This has raised questions about whether the committee is adhering to its mandate or falling back on simplistic, week-to-week adjustments.
Other programs are also affected; Michigan, ranked No. 18, has a better résumé than Utah but sits lower, potentially missing playoff opportunities even with a win over Ohio State. Similarly, Vanderbilt and Georgia Tech were jumped by Miami after having open dates, suggesting inconsistencies in how idle weeks are handled. This has led to broader concerns about the transparency and fairness of the ranking process, with some arguing that it undermines the competitive integrity of the sport and favors certain conferences or narratives over objective data.
The implications are significant, as teams on the bubble must win out and hope for committee favor. For Alabama, upcoming games against Auburn and in the SEC Championship could redeem their standing, while JMU must continue dominating and hope for a shift in committee perspective. The playoff picture is nearly set, with 10 spots seemingly locked, leaving little room for error and increasing the stakes for every remaining game, as even minor missteps could eliminate contenders from contention.
As the season concludes, the anger surrounding these rankings highlights ongoing debates about college football’s playoff system. The committee’s decisions will be closely watched, with potential consequences for team morale, recruiting, and the sport’s competitive balance. Fans and analysts await the final rankings to see if justice is served or if the status quo prevails, emphasizing the need for possible reforms to ensure a more equitable selection process in the future.
