Debate Over College Football Playoff Format Continues

When college football transitioned to a playoff format, it started with just four teams. This limited approach has led to ongoing discussions about how teams are chosen and the criteria that determine selection.

Before long, there was talk about expanding the field, primarily to stifle discussions, boost excitement, and, of course, increase television revenue. The introduction of a 12-team format largely met those objectives.

Playoff games now take place on campus, resulting in intense, high-stakes matchups in front of enthusiastic home crowds. Fans can follow weeks of games, featuring rivalries and comparing top teams from various conferences. It adds a layer of engagement that’s pretty thrilling.

However, despite the excitement, the selection process continues to spark debate. A clear example came in 2025 when the Alabama Crimson Tide, despite a significant loss in the SEC Championship Game and three overall losses, moved ahead to the playoffs. They surpassed a two-loss Notre Dame team that had won 10 consecutive games. Interestingly, two Group of Five teams were included but faced quick exits against teams like Oregon State and Ole Miss.

This situation has reignited discussions about how to expand the playoff system appropriately. While the Big Ten and SEC couldn’t agree on a solution last offseason, the American Football Coaches Association recently backed a 24-team playoff. This, though, seems like a questionable move.

Even though their recommendations aren’t mandatory, they wield considerable influence among a significant portion of the college football community. The Big Ten reportedly favors a 24-team format as well, while the SEC prefers expanding to just 16 teams. In this case, it seems like the SEC’s approach might be more sensible.

Critics warn that such an expanded schedule could push the playoffs too far into January, which raises valid concerns. For instance, the 2026 National Championship Game is slated for January 19, whereas traditionally, the season wraps up by the first week of January. The coaching association thinks that eliminating conference championship games and minimizing the gap between the regular season and playoffs might help, which does have logic to it. The relevance of conference championships seems to diminish over time, and that December break largely existed for academic reasons—something few believe will be prioritized in 2026. Shortening that lull could maintain momentum for the championship.

On the other hand, though, the idea of a 24-team playoff simply seems excessive. It would extend the playoff timeline significantly and allow entry for teams that may not truly belong.

For instance, in 2025, an 8-4 Iowa State team was ranked 23rd. Teams like Arizona and Georgia Tech suffered similar fates. In fact, consider that in 2024, UNLV was 24th. If the concern is competitiveness, how does including a team with four losses improve anything?

Yet, that’s not the main drawback. A 24-team format could also reduce the significance of the regular season, which is often regarded as the best in sports. College football’s unique charm lies in its high-stakes games every Saturday—something the NFL can’t replicate. The 12-team structure has already somewhat weakened that aspect; a 24-team setup would likely diminish it even further.

Already, the expansion of the playoff format has changed non-conference schedules, and some rivalries, like USC and Notre Dame, have suffered as teams realized avoiding each other increases playoff chances. If the field grows to 24 teams, the situation might worsen.

Consider a scenario where a major program secures three easy wins against weaker opponents. All they’d need to advance is a 6-3 record in the conference; perhaps even a 5-4 record with four losses could suffice. This raises the question: why take the risk of tougher non-conference matchups?

In addition, traditional rivalry games could be impacted as well. Just think of Ohio State and Michigan. Even with both teams boasting strong records, the stakes may shift. If a loss is viewed as a “quality” loss, teams might be less inclined to go all out. After all, if seedings are the only concern, why risk injuries?

Instead of expanding to 24 teams, I think a 16-team format strikes a better balance. It would allow more SEC and Big Ten teams to participate while still giving deserving Group of Five teams a shot. Ultimately, 24 teams seems excessive, undermining the quality of the regular season.