A heated discussion is taking place within college football regarding the potential expansion of the playoff pool from its current 12 teams to 24. The divisions in this debate are largely predictable.
Coaches are generally in favor of more teams, as playoff qualification often serves as a crucial factor in job security from one season to the next.
Broadcasters, such as ESPN, tend to prefer the existing structure. They argue that an increased number of playoff teams would further diminish the bowl system, which has already seen its significance reduced with the current playoff format.
Among the various conferences, the SEC has distinguished itself by not yet endorsing the expansion. Commissioner Greg Sankey recently addressed the conference’s hesitation to align with its power-conference counterparts’ push for a 24-team playoff.
“It doesn’t concern me,” Sankey remarked, as reported by Pete Thamel of ESPN. “People say that, but I question whether you truly observe college sports. Positions seem to shift frequently.”
The SEC has not yet formalized its ultimate view on the optimal size of the College Football Playoff (CFP) field.
“I am not opposed to 24 or 28 teams,” Sankey stated. “We must thoughtfully contribute to the decision-making process. I believe we effectively articulated our position last year regarding 16 teams. We will certainly consider other proposals this week and moving forward.”
His primary concern revolves around the potential for making the field excessively large too rapidly. Such a change could have implications for the regular season that might not be fully understood until the new structure is implemented.
“Whenever professional sports have augmented their postseason,” Sankey observed, “it has invariably been a minor adjustment. The jump from four to 12 [in the CFP] was monumental, but I believe it was justifiable. One needs to be cautious about how far to go, and that involves comprehending the competitive ramifications. Perhaps you bring more teams into the discussion, and you make a judgment because… a game might not possess the same level of leverage or value if both teams could potentially qualify [for the playoff].”
“That impact is minimal, but the capacity to bring more teams into the discourse should generate value in the regular season. Some aspects of this are quantifiable; others, to me, are a matter of judgment.”
The reality is that regardless of the field’s size, the last team to miss the cut will inevitably feel aggrieved, believing they deserved a spot and could have gone all the way if given the chance (e.g., Notre Dame in 2025). If the field expands to a point where the first team on the bubble genuinely has no realistic chance of winning the championship, many of the qualifying teams will likely face lopsided first-round defeats.
Last year, teams like Tulane and James Madison were arguably out of their depth in a 12-team field, a fact borne out by their first-round performances. Increasing the number of teams will only lead to more such situations.
An optimal solution might involve establishing an organized league (or multiple leagues) where playoff berths are awarded based on victories and losses, with schedules prioritizing genuine competitive balance rather than financial gain or easy wins. A system of leagues with promotion and relegation could be a viable option for all programs.
It has become fashionable to lament the instability in college football, particularly concerning player compensation. However, chaos has always been inherent in the sport, with conflicting polls, unbalanced schedules, and a frequent sense that the declared ‘champion’ is not truly the best team.
A comprehensive overhaul could mitigate much of this disorder. A ‘super league’ or a series of leagues would facilitate the creation of a multi-employer bargaining unit, finally abandoning the ‘student-athlete’ pretense and recognizing players as union members, complete with the rights, privileges, and obligations afforded to employee-athletes in professional leagues like the NFL.
Achieving universal agreement is incredibly challenging, if not impossible, primarily because prominent programs and power conferences are unwilling to risk their financial advantages or influence. Yet, if the sport is truly committed to resolving its inherent chaos, the solution does not lie in limiting players’ earning potential. Instead, it begins with programs and conferences acknowledging that the entire system is fundamentally flawed.
This might explain the SEC’s reluctance regarding playoff expansion. As college football increasingly resembles a professional league, those invested in its traditions may begin to advocate for it to become a professional league outright. If such a transformation occurs, conferences like the SEC stand to lose the considerable power and financial control they have enjoyed under the current system.
