Boise State Athletic Director Mockingly Labels New College Football Playoff Seeding Rules as the ‘Boise State Policy’ Amid Controversy
Boise State Athletic Director Curt Apsey has openly mocked the recently introduced College Football Playoff (CFP) seeding rules, dubbing them the “Boise State policy” in a pointed critique that has sparked conversation across the college football landscape. His remarks reflect the frustration and skepticism that many within the mid-major and Group of Five conferences harbor toward the CFP’s ongoing evolution, particularly regarding perceived biases that favor Power Five programs. The new seeding rules, designed to streamline the playoff process and purportedly create a fairer bracket, have instead raised questions about transparency, equity, and the opportunity for programs like Boise State to compete on a truly level playing field.
Boise State, historically a powerhouse in the Group of Five ranks, has long championed the cause of fair access to the CFP, arguing that teams outside the Power Five conferences deserve a shot at the national championship without being systematically disadvantaged by selection criteria. Apsey’s labeling of the seeding approach as the “Boise State policy” is steeped in irony: rather than recognizing Boise State’s repeated success and competitiveness, the new rules appear to further entrench the marginalization of programs like his own. This stance underscores a growing divide in college football, where smaller programs feel sidelined in favor of traditional blue-blood institutions with larger budgets, more media attention, and stronger historical clout.
The CFP recently announced changes to its seeding rules in an effort to address criticism of its prior selection and seeding methods. The goal, officially, is to create a bracket that better reflects on-field performance and strength of schedule, and to eliminate perceived political maneuvering or subjective judgments that have marred the playoff’s reputation. However, the new system’s mechanics rely heavily on power rankings, committee discretion, and criteria that implicitly benefit teams from Power Five conferences. For Boise State, this means their strong records and quality wins are often overshadowed by the prestige and marketability of larger programs, effectively capping their chances of earning a top seed or an at-large bid.
Curt Apsey’s mockery reveals a fundamental tension in the CFP’s current structure: the challenge of balancing competitive fairness with the commercial and political realities that govern college football. Boise State has been a model of sustained excellence, regularly outperforming expectations and challenging the established hierarchy. Yet despite these achievements, the new seeding rules seem to institutionalize a preference for teams from the Power Five, essentially creating a policy that works against Boise State’s interests. By naming the system after his own program, Apsey highlights the irony that Boise State is recognized not for its merits but as a benchmark for exclusion or manipulation within the playoff framework.
The frustration expressed by Boise State’s AD is shared by many in the Group of Five conferences. These programs have long argued that the CFP’s current model lacks inclusivity and fairness. They contend that the seeding rules disproportionately reward programs with strong financial backing, extensive media exposure, and historical prestige, rather than strictly rewarding teams based on their season performance. This creates a cycle where Power Five teams enjoy repeated opportunities for playoff success, while smaller programs struggle to break through, regardless of their on-field accomplishments.
Moreover, the controversy surrounding the new seeding rules is symptomatic of a larger debate about the future of college football. As the sport continues to grow commercially and expand its playoff format, questions arise about how to ensure equitable competition while maintaining the lucrative partnerships and fan interest that drive its popularity. For Boise State and similar programs, the dilemma is clear: how to compete on equal footing when the system appears structurally tilted against them.
Curt Apsey’s “Boise State policy” jab thus serves as a rallying cry for those who believe the CFP must do more to embrace inclusivity and fairness. It challenges the notion that seeding should be dictated by factors beyond wins and losses, urging the committee to reconsider how it evaluates teams from different conferences. If the goal is truly to crown the best team in college football, then the path to the playoff must be open and transparent for all contenders, not just the traditional powerhouses.
In addition to questioning the fairness of the new seeding rules, Apsey’s comments also underscore the importance of narrative and perception in college football. Boise State has often been cast as an underdog story—a program that defies expectations and challenges the status quo. This identity has garnered them a passionate fan base and respect nationally. However, when structural rules appear to diminish their opportunities, it threatens to undermine the spirit of competition that makes college football compelling. Apsey’s pointed remark is as much about protecting Boise State’s legacy as it is about critiquing the CFP’s administrative choices.
The broader implications of the “Boise State policy” label extend to ongoing discussions about how college football manages parity, revenue distribution, and playoff access. If programs outside the Power Five are perceived as second-class citizens, the sport risks alienating a significant portion of its fan base and diminishing the excitement of playoff unpredictability. Apsey’s criticism invites stakeholders—fans, administrators, and the CFP committee—to reflect on what kind of future college football envisions and how to build a playoff system that truly honors competitive merit.
As the debate continues, Boise State’s stance represents a call for greater transparency and fairness in college football governance. The “Boise State policy” serves as a symbolic indictment of seeding rules that, whether intentionally or not, reinforce existing inequalities. For a sport that thrives on passion, unpredictability, and meritocratic success, such policies risk eroding trust and enthusiasm among fans and participants alike.
In conclusion, Curt Apsey’s mockery of the new CFP seeding rules by dubbing them the “Boise State policy” is more than just a humorous jab—it is a pointed critique of a system that many believe favors tradition and power over performance and fairness. Boise State, as a leading Group of Five program, embodies the struggle of smaller schools fighting for recognition in a playoff landscape dominated by established powers. Apsey’s remarks highlight the need for ongoing dialogue and reform within the CFP to ensure that all teams, regardless of conference affiliation, have a genuine chance to compete for college football’s ultimate prize. Without such changes, the “Boise State policy” might remain a bitter reminder of the challenges facing programs outside the Power Five and the uphill battle for true playoff equity.
