Being a college football fan right now feels almost absurd. And, honestly, it is.
The AP Top 25 has become something of a running joke, though at least it doesn’t carry much weight when the playoff decisions are made. Then the College Football Playoff selection committee released its latest rankings, and they were so difficult to defend that “bad” barely covers it.
The rankings are embarrassing, and they raise a bigger question: does the selection process need to be rebuilt from the ground up?
Starting in 2027, college football is set to move to a 24-team playoff. Supporters say the larger field will create more meaningful games, but it’s hard not to see the financial appeal, too. More games mean more valuable television rights. The format also has support from coaches who could benefit from greater job security, along with some conference leaders who seem oddly detached from what makes the sport compelling.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti offered a case for expansion this week, arguing that the 24-team format will give teams more to play for throughout the season. In a radio interview, he said teams would compete to make the top 24, then push for a place in the top 16 to earn a home game, and finally aim for the top eight to secure both a home game and a bye.
Petitti also said the current system has shown how hard it is to distinguish 12 teams from the rest, given how difficult road wins can be and how talent is spread across more programs. In his view, the sport needs to give fans more games that matter.
That argument feels disconnected from what makes college football different. The regular season matters precisely because there’s so little room for mistakes. A loss can change everything. Expand the playoff far enough, and those consequences fade, especially for teams in the Big Ten and SEC.
The committee’s decisions this season have already opened the door for a three-loss SEC team, or possibly more than one, to reach the playoff. Under a 24-team format, teams with four losses—and perhaps even five—could get in. That would make regular-season results matter less, not more.
Sure, a bigger playoff could lead to more games between well-known teams. But the idea that fans will feel the same urgency about teams fighting for a top-eight spot and a bye? I’m not convinced. It’s a very different kind of pressure from playing a game where a loss could end your season.
Petitti does have a point about home playoff games. He expects fans to turn out for on-campus matchups, especially when a team earns a home game that seemed unlikely at the start of the season. Those games could bring some memorable scenes.
Still, they may draw big crowds partly because the regular season has become less consequential. Attendance has already been a challenge for some major programs when the opponent isn’t a marquee draw. It’s fair to wonder how much interest there will be in matchups such as USC against Maryland or Miami against Stanford if the results carry less weight.
The financial motive behind playoff expansion is hardly a secret. More games create more attractive television packages, and a 24-team field gives Big Ten and SEC programs another reason to keep playing—and gives their fans a reason to keep watching—even after a rough stretch.
At some point, though, expanding the playoff starts to look like rewarding mediocrity for the sake of more revenue. College football has been moving in that direction for years, and it’s difficult to believe this will help turn it around.
