Big 12 commissioner slams Notre Dame AD over CFP, ACC tirades

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark publicly rebuked Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua this week after Bevacqua accused the ACC of campaigning against the Irish during the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection process. Yormark called Bevacqua’s remarks “totally out of bounds” on Tuesday, after Bevacqua raised concerns Monday on The Dan Patrick Show and again at a press conference. The dispute follows the CFP committee’s selection of Alabama and Miami as the final two at-large teams, a choice that left BYU out and left the Big 12 with a single representative, Texas Tech. At the time of reporting, Bevacqua has said he spoke with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey about the CFP format, but there is no public record of a direct exchange between Bevacqua and Yormark.

Key takeaways

Brett Yormark (Big 12) publicly criticized Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua on Tuesday, calling his approach “totally out of bounds.”
Pete Bevacqua voiced on-air and at a press conference that the ACC ran a social media push he viewed as attacking Notre Dame during CFP debate.
The CFP committee selected Alabama and Miami as the final two at-large teams; BYU was not chosen.
The Big 12 received one CFP berth: Texas Tech; Yormark had hoped for multiple selections, including BYU.
Bevacqua confirmed a conversation with SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey about the CFP format; there is no known direct communication between Bevacqua and Yormark as of publication.
Yormark said he’s disappointed by the selection outcomes but ultimately believes the committee did a fair job.

Background

The College Football Playoff expanded conversations and politics have intensified as conferences and independents jockey for access and representation. Notre Dame, although independent in football, has a long-standing association with the ACC in other sports and has been a focal point in recent CFP debates because of its national profile. With the CFP selection process scrutinized more than ever, conference leaders and athletic directors have increasingly used public statements and social channels to press their cases.

Big 12 leadership entered the season hoping for stronger committee recognition, particularly for BYU after its move into the conference. Historically, conference reputations and media narratives can influence perceptions of team resumes; that pressure has encouraged commissioners to defend their members publicly. Those dynamics set the stage for a clash once the CFP at-large decisions were announced and some finalists from Power Five leagues were chosen over high-profile Group of Five or newly aligned teams.

Main event

On Tuesday, Brett Yormark, who became Big 12 commissioner in July 2022, criticized Pete Bevacqua’s public comments about the ACC and its commissioner, Jim Phillips. Speaking via Sports Business Journal and on X, Yormark described Bevacqua’s tone as “egregious” and “totally out of bounds,” and said he would give similar blunt feedback if the two met in person. Yormark’s rebuke followed Bevacqua’s allegation that the ACC mounted an active social campaign aimed at Notre Dame’s CFP prospects.

Bevacqua first aired his concerns on The Dan Patrick Show on Monday and repeated the point at a Tuesday press conference, stressing respect for ACC member institutions while criticizing what he described as a conference-organized attack on Notre Dame’s program. He emphasized that his issue was not with ACC universities or Miami but with the method and tone of the campaign. Bevacqua also said he had texted Dan Radakovich to congratulate Miami on its selection and had spoken with SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey about CFP format questions.

Yormark also addressed the Big 12’s own outcome: the conference landed a single CFP representative, Texas Tech, rather than multiple teams including BYU, which had been a significant push from some Big 12 constituencies. He expressed disappointment about BYU but said he accepted the committee’s work overall, calling the result “progress over perfection.” At the time of reporting, neither Yormark nor Bevacqua had confirmed any one-on-one conversation about the exchange beyond the comments made publicly.

Analysis & implications

The public exchange between two high-profile administrators highlights growing tensions around CFP selection narratives. When commissioners and ADs take disputes public, it can shift attention from objective resume-based evaluation to questions of influence and optics. That risks eroding perceived neutrality around the selection committee unless officials reinforce transparent, criteria-driven decision-making.

For the Big 12, limited CFP representation underscores the conference’s ongoing challenge to affirm its national standing after realignment. Even as BYU joined the league and provided marquee matchups, committee voters prioritized other resumes. That gap could influence future scheduling, nonconference contracts, and how conferences present metrics and context to the CFP committee.

For Notre Dame, allegations that a rival conference actively campaigned against it complicate relations with the ACC and could strain informal cooperation between conferences on scheduling and television windows. If such tactics become a norm, conferences may feel compelled to respond publicly, increasing friction between commissioners and creating a cycle of retaliatory messaging rather than private resolution.

Comparison & data

Subject	Outcome
Big 12 CFP berths (this selection)	1 (Texas Tech)
Final two at-large selections	Alabama (SEC), Miami (ACC)
BYU (Big 12)	Not selected

Summary of selection outcomes referenced in reporting; reflects CFP committee’s final at-large decisions and Big 12 representation.

The table above isolates the core outcomes that prompted public comments: the committee’s choice of Alabama and Miami as the last at-large teams and the Big 12’s single berth. Those facts framed both Bevacqua’s frustration and Yormark’s rebuttal. While one season’s CFP results do not determine long-term conference standing, they drive short-term narratives and negotiating leverage in media and broadcast discussions.

Reactions & quotes

Brett Yormark’s public reaction was terse and pointed; he framed Bevacqua’s conduct as inappropriate and emphasized collective accountability among leaders.

“I think his behavior has been egregious. He is totally out of bounds in his approach and if he was in the room, I’d tell him the same thing.”

Brett Yormark (Big 12 commissioner), via Sports Business Journal/X

Yormark paired criticism of tone with acceptance of the CFP results: he said he was disappointed BYU was not included but praised the committee’s overall work. That dual message mixes public rebuke with institutional diplomacy, signaling a desire to defend members without escalating a prolonged feud.

Pete Bevacqua characterized his remarks as defensive of Notre Dame’s program and critical of what he described as an ACC social campaign; he also sought to clarify his respect for ACC institutions and offered congratulations to Miami.

“We have the ultimate respect for our fellow universities in the ACC… it’s not about Miami. What surprised us was how the ACC Conference really went on a social media campaign, in my opinion, attacking our football program.”

Pete Bevacqua (Notre Dame AD), Dan Patrick Show / press conference

Explainer: How CFP at-large selections work

The College Football Playoff selection committee evaluates teams based on win-loss records, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, conference championships, and other contextual factors. While the process is governed by the committee’s stated criteria, narrative and public perception can still shape debate around borderline teams. Commissioners and ADs may lobby formally through data submissions or informally via public statements; however, the committee has maintained that its deliberations are independent and based on its established rubric.

Unconfirmed

Whether the ACC’s social media activity was centrally coordinated by conference leadership rather than by individual member programs or supporters remains unconfirmed.
Whether the ACC campaign, if coordinated, materially affected CFP committee voting patterns is unproven and not supported by public committee records.
Any private conversations between Yormark and Bevacqua beyond what’s been publicly acknowledged (Sankey’s call with Bevacqua) have not been confirmed.

Bottom line

The exchange between Yormark and Bevacqua signals a flashpoint in commissioner-level rhetoric around CFP outcomes: leaders are both defending members and wary of public critique that could escalate into sustained interconference conflict. While the immediate dispute centers on social media and selection choices this cycle, its broader consequence is to raise questions about how commissioners coordinate privately and speak publicly about perceived slights.

Moving forward, expect increased attention to how conferences present teams’ resumes to the committee and how commissioners manage disputes behind closed doors. The CFP committee’s credibility hinges on perceived impartiality; sustained public friction among conference leaders could prompt calls for clearer engagement protocols or more explicit disclosure of lobbying activity.