The argument that BYU and Utah are undervalued by the College Football Playoff Committee often centers on a deep-seated institutional and brand bias that favors traditional powerhouses. Despite both teams—especially after joining the new P4 conference—amassing solid resumes, the committee’s ranking logic appears inconsistent when compared to peer teams from the SEC or Big Ten. For BYU, the undervaluation is evident even in their best years. When the Cougars were undefeated, they were often ranked below one-loss teams from the perceived “elite” conferences, suggesting a penalty for a lack of "brand credibility" rather than on-field performance. After their first loss, the drop in rankings is often precipitous, falling behind two-loss teams like Texas or Oklahoma, who benefit from the narrative of “quality losses.” This differential treatment suggests the committee rewards the mere potential or reputation of established programs more than the actual, tangible Strength of Record (SOR) earned by BYU. Utah’s case highlights the harsh grading curve applied to Big 12 losses. As a consistently tough, defensive-minded program, their two losses this season came against other highly-ranked Big 12 teams (BYU and Texas Tech). Yet, their ranking near No. 13 keeps them just outside the contention tier, a placement often occupied by two-loss teams from other conferences that have a perceived higher overall floor. The Utes' methodical style, coupled with the committee's tendency to devalue close wins or reward teams for "style points," means Utah is held to a higher standard of dominance to secure an elite ranking. Ultimately, both Utah and BYU are fighting not just opponents on the field, but a long-standing culture that rewards historical brand over current results and strength metrics within a less historically favored conference.