The College Football Playoff committee’s perceived lack of "love" for the Big 12 stems from a fundamental bias toward two key factors the conference historically lacked: undefeated champions and entrenched "blue blood" brands.

During the four-team era, the Big 12’s round-robin scheduling and deep parity often resulted in conference champions carrying one or two losses. While this demonstrated the league's competitive depth, the committee often penalized this "cannibalization." Instead of rewarding a team that survived a gauntlet, the CFP favored the narrative simplicity and media pull of unbeaten teams from the SEC or Big Ten, even those with weaker non-conference schedules. This was exemplified in 2014 when the 11-1 co-champions were left out for a less-tested Ohio State.

In the newly expanded 12-team playoff, the issue shifts from outright exclusion to seeding bias. While the Big 12 champion now receives an automatic bid, the historical lack of respect often translates into a lower ranking. A 10-2 Big 12 champion may find itself seeded fifth or sixth, forfeiting a crucial first-round bye, while a 10-2 team from another perceived "super-conference" is ranked fourth.

This continued undervaluation is rooted in brand perception. With Texas and Oklahoma having departed, the Big 12 lacks the narrative heft and established national dominance of the traditional powers. Until the conference establishes a new era of singular, top-tier elite programs—or until the committee begins to genuinely reward high-quality, strength-of-record wins over simple win-loss totals—the feeling that the CFP does not "love" the Big 12 will persist.