According to his social media claims, Danny Kanell, a CBS college football commentator, is not pleased that Notre Dame “hacked the CFP.”

In the world of college football, few things stir up as much passion and debate as the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection process. This postseason format, designed to determine the national champion of NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision, has been met with criticism from fans, analysts, and former players since its inception. And now, a new layer of controversy has been added to the ongoing CFP debate, with CBS college football commentator Danny Kanell at the forefront.

Kanell, a former quarterback and current outspoken analyst, took to social media to voice his displeasure with Notre Dame’s performance and its perceived ability to “hack” the CFP system. His comments have sparked significant conversation, raising questions about the integrity of the system, the role of independent programs like Notre Dame, and the evolving dynamics of college football at large.

The Context: Notre Dame’s CFP Journey

Before diving into Kanell’s critique, it’s important to understand the context surrounding Notre Dame’s relationship with the College Football Playoff. The Fighting Irish, an independent program with a long and storied history, has often found itself in a unique position compared to other Power Five programs. They are not bound by conference championship games, meaning they must rely solely on their regular season performance to earn a spot in the playoff.

Since the CFP’s inception in 2014, Notre Dame has been a regular contender for a playoff berth. However, their inclusion in the field has often sparked debates due to their independent status and the perception that they might not face the same level of competition as teams from conferences with championship games. Notre Dame’s lone playoff appearance came in 2018, when they were dominated by Clemson in the semifinals, but the Irish remained a perennial threat to make the CFP under head coach Brian Kelly.

The 2024 season, however, saw Notre Dame facing a particularly difficult situation. With a few high-profile wins but a couple of losses, including a controversial game against a top-ranked opponent, many believed the Irish’s chances of making the CFP were slim. However, by the time the selection committee met to announce the playoff field, Notre Dame found themselves in the conversation, much to the surprise of many.

Kanell’s Critique: “Hacking the CFP”

It was during this period that Danny Kanell, known for his bold and often controversial opinions, took to social media to criticize Notre Dame’s place in the playoff race. In a series of tweets, Kanell expressed his belief that Notre Dame had found a way to “hack” the CFP system, leveraging its national brand and independence to secure a spot in the postseason despite not meeting the same criteria as conference champions.

Kanell’s criticism centered on several key points. First, he questioned the fairness of Notre Dame’s independence and the fact that they were not required to win a conference championship to make the playoff. Unlike teams from conferences like the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC, who must first navigate a grueling conference schedule and then win a championship game, Notre Dame could theoretically enter the playoff with just a solid regular season, regardless of conference title implications.

Kanell also pointed to what he perceived as an inflated reputation for Notre Dame. The Fighting Irish have a massive fan base, significant television contracts, and a storied history that many consider a driving factor behind their CFP inclusion. Kanell argued that these factors were contributing to the program’s ability to “hack” the system, securing spots in the playoff even if their resume didn’t stack up against other deserving teams.

But perhaps the most pointed criticism came from Kanell’s assertion that Notre Dame was “gaming” the system in favor of an easy path. In his view, the absence of a conference championship game allowed Notre Dame to avoid potential pitfalls and risky matchups, thus benefiting from an easier path to the playoff. This was a stark contrast to the challenges faced by teams in conferences like the SEC, which often fielded multiple top-tier teams but required teams to win a conference title to earn a playoff spot.

The CFP System: A Question of Fairness?

Kanell’s claims about Notre Dame’s ability to “hack” the CFP system draw attention to broader debates about fairness and parity in college football. While the CFP selection committee is tasked with choosing the four best teams, the criteria they use—strength of schedule, conference championships, head-to-head results, and other factors—have been contentious from the start. For teams like Notre Dame, the lack of a conference championship game is seen by some as an unfair advantage, while others argue that the Fighting Irish’s independence should be celebrated.

One of the central points of contention is whether an independent team like Notre Dame should be held to the same standards as conference champions. Critics of the current system, like Kanell, argue that a conference championship game adds a layer of complexity and pressure that teams like Notre Dame don’t face. After all, a team in a major conference such as the SEC or Big Ten has to win an additional game to secure a playoff spot, while Notre Dame can rest easy knowing that their regular-season record may be sufficient to earn a spot.

Conversely, supporters of Notre Dame’s independent status argue that the team’s schedule is just as difficult as any Power Five conference schedule. The Fighting Irish consistently play a challenging mix of opponents, including a host of top-tier teams from various conferences. This, they claim, proves that Notre Dame is held to a high standard, despite the lack of a conference title.

What Is “Hacking” the CFP, Really?

When Kanell uses the term “hacking the CFP,” he implies that Notre Dame is exploiting a loophole in the system, using their independent status to their advantage. But is this really the case? Does Notre Dame’s lack of a conference championship game genuinely give them an unfair advantage?

The answer, as is often the case in college football debates, is more nuanced than a simple yes or no. Notre Dame has consistently scheduled difficult opponents, and while the lack of a conference title game is certainly a factor in the CFP selection process, it is not the only factor. Strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and the overall performance of a team during the regular season play a major role in CFP considerations. Additionally, the committee has consistently chosen the best teams available, regardless of whether they come from a conference or remain independent.

What’s more, Notre Dame’s place in the playoff field isn’t guaranteed. Their 2018 appearance in the CFP came after a regular-season performance that included wins over top teams like Michigan and Stanford. While they were soundly beaten by Clemson in the semifinals, the Irish earned their spot based on the merit of their regular season.

In many ways, Kanell’s critique is aimed less at Notre Dame’s actions and more at a system he feels is flawed. If anything, his criticism highlights a broader issue with the CFP itself: the subjectivity involved in the selection process. Given the varying criteria and the committee’s discretion, it’s easy for certain teams—like Notre Dame—to find ways to get an edge. In that sense, “hacking the CFP” might not be so much about cheating the system as it is about navigating its inherent flaws.

The Debate: Tradition vs. Modernity

Danny Kanell’s comments also touch on a broader debate about the role of tradition in college football. For many years, Notre Dame was one of the few elite programs not tied to a conference, and their independence was a point of pride. But as the sport has evolved, and especially with the advent of the CFP, that independence has become a double-edged sword.

For those like Kanell, it seems that the sport is better suited to a model where conference champions are rewarded for their success with automatic bids into the playoff. This, in his view, is how parity and fairness should be ensured. By contrast, Notre Dame’s independent status—while historically significant—seems increasingly out of place in an era where conferences have become the primary drivers of college football’s postseason.

As college football continues to evolve, so too will the debates about the fairness and structure of the CFP. Danny Kanell’s critique of Notre Dame’s ability to “hack” the system is part of a larger conversation about how the sport should balance tradition with modern competitiveness. While Notre Dame remains a dominant force, their independent status will likely continue to be a point of contention as long as the CFP exists in its current form.

For now, Notre Dame’s place in the CFP will depend on their performance on the field, the quality of their opponents, and how the selection committee evaluates their resume. Kanell’s concerns, however, may only gain more traction as the system continues to evolve, especially with talks of expansion and the future of conference realignment. As these changes unfold, it will be interesting to see how Notre Dame—and other independent teams—adapt to the ever-shifting landscape of college football.

In the meantime, fans and analysts will continue to debate whether Notre Dame’s success in the CFP is a product of their excellence or the result of a system that may be ripe for change. Regardless of the outcome, Kanell’s comments have sparked a conversation that will shape the future of college football for years to come.