When college football first moved to a playoff format, there were just four teams included. That limited field created an endless series of arguments as to the criteria and selection process for the selected teams.
Almost immediately, discussions started to expand the field to include more teams and, the theory went, end more of those arguments, make the tournament more exciting, and of course, increase television revenue. The 12-team field has, for the most part, achieved those goals.
There are on-campus playoff games, generally creating a compelling, exciting atmosphere with a high-stakes, winner-take-all matchup in front of home fans. There are weeks’ worth of games to watch and follow, sometimes pitting conference rivals against each other, or allowing for direct comparisons of top teams in different conferences.
ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. TAKE THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!
Still, with all the positives, the arguments around the selection process have not changed. The 2025 field being a near-perfect example. The Alabama Crimson Tide were blown out in the SEC Championship Game, yet still made the playoff with three losses, ahead of a two-loss Notre Dame team that had won 10 games in a row. Two Group of Five teams made the field, before being promptly demolished by Power Five teams in Oregon and Ole Miss.
That’s inevitably led to more discussion of expansions, and competing theories as to how best to expand. The Big Ten and SEC couldn’t agree on their preferred solution in the offseason, but the American Football Coaches Association has now come out in favor of a 24-team field, along with other changes. And that, unquestionably, is the worst possible answer.
COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF COMMITTEE SPARKS FRENZIED DEBATE AS NOTRE DAME KEPT OUT OF FINAL FIELD
While their recommendations are not binding, nor do they carry any specific authority, it’s still a powerful and influential group coming out in favor of a substantially larger field. The Big Ten Conference reportedly also prefers a 24-team format, while the SEC wants to expand to 16 teams instead.
The SEC’s right, and the Big Ten and the coaching association is wrong.
Many critics have said that the current schedule and format drag on too deep into January, with good reason. The 2026 National Championship Game was on Jan. 19, when the sport traditionally wrapped up in the first week of January. The coaches association wants to fix this by ending conference championship games and compressing the break between the end of the regular season and the start of the playoff. That makes sense; conference championship games serve little purpose in the modern college football landscape, and the traditional break in December had mostly existed for academic reasons. But nobody pretends academics matter for college football players in 2026, and shortening the lull could maintain momentum and move the National Championship up a few weeks.
But where they’re wrong is that 24 teams is simply too many. Not just because it would extend the playoff schedule significantly, but because it would include many teams that have no business participating in the College Football Playoff.
COACHES PUSH FOR 24-TEAM CFP, AS COLLEGE FOOTBALL HEADS TOWARDS PARTICIPATION TROPHY TERRITORY
In 2025, for example, the committee ranked an 8-4 Iowa team at No. 23. Arizona was ranked No. 17. Georgia Tech was No. 22. In 2024, UNLV finished the regular season at No. 24. Syracuse was No. 21 at 9-3. Mississippi State was No. 22 at 8-4 in 2022. That team lost by a combined score of 75-25 to Alabama and Georgia.
If there are already concerns over the lack of competitiveness in games against Group of Five teams, how would that be improved by including teams that lost four games?
But that’s not even the biggest issue. What a 24-team format would also do is diminish the importance of the best regular season in sports. What makes college football special is that each Saturday, there are games that have season-changing stakes in a way that the NFL can’t match. The 12-team format already reduced some of that impact, but it hasn’t eliminated it entirely. A 24-team format would.
We’re already seeing how the expanded field has changed non-conference scheduling for the worse, perhaps permanently. The USC-Notre Dame rivalry collapsed, in part, because both sides realized they had a better chance of reaching the playoff by avoiding each other. Many other big non-conference matchups have been canceled as the SEC moves to nine conference games. Imagine how much worse that scheduling would get if the field expands to 24?
For example, if you guarantee yourself three non-conference wins with cupcake opponents, all a big SEC or Big Ten program needs to reach the playoffs is to finish the conference schedule at 6-3 to essentially guarantee a spot. Even four losses, a 5-4 conference record, might be enough in some seasons. So why risk the additional loss by playing a tougher non-conference game?
Then there’s the other problem: the end-of-the-season rivalry games could be completely changed. Take, say, Ohio State-Michigan. Both teams hypothetically could enter the game at 9-2 and in the top 15 in the rankings. A loss wouldn’t matter for either side, since it would be viewed as a “quality” loss for strength of schedule purposes. Why would you risk your starters in a game with no benefit? Sure, maybe they play the first half, but with only seeding at stake, why push it?
A 16-team field makes more sense, if not leaving it at 12. Sixteen teams would allow for more teams in the SEC and Big Ten to make the field despite their tough schedules, while also incorporating Group of Five teams who deserve a chance too. But 24 goes too far, dilutes the field and hurts the regular season.
