College Football Playoff Expansion: Weighing Pros and Cons

College Football Playoff expansion feels less like a question at this point and more like a matter of when, not if. The issue is that nobody in the sport seems aligned on whether fans should actually welcome it.

Doubling the 12-team field has already split opinion across the offseason, with a vocal mix of fans and media pushing back against the idea of further dilution, even as the decision-makers behind the scenes continue to lean the other direction. The leadership of college football remains far from settled on what the postseason should ultimately look like long-term.

What is clear: momentum is building around a 24-team format. TV executives have shown increasing support, and three of the Power Four commissioners -- not the SEC's Greg Sankey -- have helped fuel that conversation. The idea has steadily gained traction, emerging from spring meetings and entering the summer calendar.

Inside the SEC's spring meetings: A 9-game schedule and a growing frustration with the CFP Brandon Marcello

CFP officials are expected to reconvene later this month for another round of discussions, where the next phase of expansion talks will come into sharper focus. The direction is forming. The consensus, however, is not.

Sankey shared last week the importance of "informed decision-making" and said a decision from the SEC is tied to the coaches, athletic directors and presidents. Meanwhile, the Big Ten has drawn its line in the sand in favor of a 24-team field , with others following suit.

Earlier this year, American Football Coaches Association executive director Craig Bohl said the AFCA recommended increasing the CFP bracket to a maximum number of teams, eliminating conference championship games and ending the season during the second week of January. With  decision-makers  in the Big Ten and the SEC at a stalemate  over future CFP formats, the 24-team format would include multiple automatic qualifiers per conference, while the SEC's 16-team preference is the "5+11" format.

Before the sport's decision-makers meet this month to try to rectify postseason differences, there are pros and cons of expansion worth examining.

The case for expansion

If the playoff expands to 24, it would create another round of postseason viewership and 12 more games overall, nixing conference championship weekend and altering the end-of-season calendar. The preferred 24-team proposal reportedly includes one auto-bid, the Group of Six champion, along with 23 at-large selections as determined by the selection committee. There's also a model centered on 16 automatic qualifiers from power conferences, six from the Group of Six, and six at-large spots, but that offering is reportedly not the primary preference among most coaches and Power Four administrators.

More inclusion

The Big Ten sifted through the numbers dating back to the first year of CFP expansion this spring and determined 80 different programs would have appeared in the playoff since 2014 if we had had a 24-team bracket. That means there are dozens of fanbases who may have reached an all-time high in watching their team compete for a spot in the national championship conversation.

Expansion is momentous for the middle-feeders of the Power Four conferences. Occasionally, those programs will now get a shot.

And for those knocking unfamiliar brand names getting more bites at the apple, there is a narrative that teams in the back end of the rankings aren't actually capable of winning a national championship. Yes, the chances are high that the No. 19 seed won't win multiple games during the postseason, leading to a title. However, we just witnessed Miami -- as the last team in -- reach the championship game last season, so that's not necessarily a guarantee.

Now, the question is, where's the line of demarcation? Could we, theoretically, see a four-loss team appear in an expanded bracket? At its core, expansion is a correction mechanism and a money-printing decision. The current system still punishes early-season variance in a sport where schedules are wildly unequal, and roster disparities between elite programs and everyone else continue to grow. A 24-team format acknowledges that reality and formalizes what the eye test already tells us: the best teams are overwhelmingly concentrated in the Big Ten and SEC based on roster talent, and those leagues are already functioning as de facto playoff qualifiers every Saturday.

It also solves one of college football's biggest structural issues: uneven data evaluation. A 24-team bracket reduces the over-reliance on subjective ranking gymnastics and allows the sport to absorb conference imbalance organically. That, in turn, reduces the controversy that currently dominates the calendar between the start of November and Selection Sunday during conference championship weekend.

A possible fix for the college football calendar

The strongest arguments for CFP expansion aren't just about access or fairness -- it's also about fixing a college football calendar that is already stretched, uneven and increasingly misaligned with how the sport is consumed, scheduled and monetized. A 24-team format creates structure where chaos currently lives. Right now, the season funnels into a compressed selection process that forces massive judgment calls in early December, which then rolls directly into the early signing period, coaching carousel, the singular transfer portal window in January and later, the academic calendar. This season's national championship game will be played on Jan. 25, 2027, the latest ever in college football.

Several coaches have called for a cleaner schedule. Oregon's Dan Lanning wants the national championship game and college football season to officially end on Jan. 1, while Ohio State's Ryan Day wants games to be over before roster decisions are made. Starting the season sooner would rectify some of these complaints in a 24-team era if proposals are met.

Financial impact

A 24-team bracket is designed to unlock massive revenue for the sport's entire ecosystem. The immediate driver is inventory -- more games means more media rights windows, more sponsorship placements and more premium advertising slots in the most valuable stretch of the college football calendar.

Networks already paying billions for postseason access in the SEC and Big Ten would be competing for expanded CFP packages that include first-round games, additional elimination rounds and campus-hosted matchups. That creates scarcity at the top end of the market -- the exact condition that drives rights fees higher, not lower. Bowl consolidation and postseason clarity reduce fragmentation, too. Instead of dozens of loosely defined matchups, college football's postseason product is centralized under a single branded playoff umbrella -- increasing national relevance and simplifying marketing for networks and advertisers.

Fewer opt-outs, less coaching chaos

More than a dozen players decided to skip last season's Pinstripe Bowl featuring Penn State and Clemson , further watering down a matchup of teams that did not want to be there. An elite Notre Dame team skipped the postseason altogether after being left out of the CFP. Unfortunately, these instances are now considered the norm in college football's new era. Expansion wouldn't necessarily improve bowl season or save it from eventual extinction, but there would be more games with actual stakes in the postseason vs. exhibitions that often shape the following season's roster.

Coaching chaos is baked into the system now, but this could potentially result in fewer firings. The biggest driver of coaching turnover -- resources vs. results -- doesn't change. NIL disparity, roster retention and transfer portal volatility still decide who survives long-term. However, a 24-team field may slightly smooth the panic spikes. Would Brian Kelly have been fired at LSU after a 5-3 start in the further expansion era? Likely not if three losses no longer take you completely out of the playoff picture. Penn State canned James Franklin five games into the season, a year after he took the Nittany Lions to the CFP semifinal. No one's safe any longer, but there's some sense of self-preservation from those -- well, all coaches -- in favor of playoff expansion.

Drawbacks of expansion

Beware of competitive imbalance. Expansion increases access for Group of Six programs and others within the Power Four, likely getting first-time designations, but the first-round reality would likely produce more lopsided matchups. The gap between elite rosters and lower-seeded entrants remains significant, raising questions about whether the opening round is compelling television or predictable. Expansion solves access questions, but it risks reshaping the sport's DNA in ways that may not be reversible.

Impact on the regular season

College football thrives on urgency. Every loss carries weight. However, dilution is coming. The moment the CFP balloons to 24 teams, the regular season changes -- especially for the powers inside the SEC and Big Ten. What used to feel like a weekly elimination tournament down the stretch suddenly becomes more like an NFL-style playoff chase, where depth, durability and surviving the grind matter more than perfection.

Right now, two bad Saturdays can derail a national title contender. Two losses? Historically dangerous territory. But in a 24-team format, the margin for error expands dramatically for the SEC and Big Ten because of one simple truth: strength of schedule becomes impossible to ignore when those leagues are stacking elite opponents every week.

Imagine a three-loss Georgia team that spent two months navigating Texas , Alabama , LSU, Oklahoma and others. Compare that résumé to a two-loss team from a weaker conference that avoided ranked opponents almost entirely. In a 24-team CFP, the committee is taking the battle-tested SEC roster nearly every time, as the eye test and the data overwhelmingly support it.

The same applies in the Big Ten. Programs like Ohio State, Michigan , Indiana , Oregon and Penn State are now beating each other up in a superconference loaded with NFL talent. A 9-3 record in that league would carry far more weight than a prettier record elsewhere. Expansion would essentially reward roster strength and schedule difficulty over clean records.

That changes coaching strategy, too. Instead of "must-win every week," the focus becomes peaking in November and being healthy enough for a postseason run. And make no mistake, television executives would love it. More SEC and Big Ten brands in the bracket means higher ratings and more playoff inventory. Expansion to 24 teams would not create more parity at the top of the sport. It would likely strengthen the grip the SEC and Big Ten already have on college football because more bids mean more access for the richest, deepest rosters in America.

The end of conference championship games

The first weekend in December, which is historically reserved for conference championships, is living on borrowed time. The math simply stops making sense for the power conferences -- especially the SEC and Big Ten -- when additional playoff access becomes virtually guaranteed.

Right now, league title games serve as a necessary final checkpoint for playoff selection. They create separation between elite teams and provide the committee with one more marquee data point. But in a 24-team bracket, that urgency disappears. A two- or three-loss Georgia or Ohio State is getting in regardless. So why risk an extra loss, key injuries or fatigue one week before the postseason?

That's why administrators have quickly realized championship games are more of a liability than a reward. Coaches already complain about the physical toll of playing an additional high-stakes game after navigating a brutal regular season. Add a four-round playoff path afterward, and the wear becomes unsustainable. The alternative is crowning

_Originally reported by [CBS Sports](https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-pros-cons/)._