What had been rumored for some time became official Monday: the College Football Playoff will expand to 24 teams beginning in the 2027–28 season.
The response from fans, commentators, analysts and many people in the sport has largely been the same: why? The playoff had only four teams as recently as 2023, a format that kept the title race relatively exclusive. Usually, a team needed to be undefeated or have just one loss to contend—though Florida State’s undefeated season was a notable exception.
The field grew to 12 teams in 2024, giving programs more room to recover from a difficult stretch. Ohio State showed what that could mean in the 2024–25 season: after losing its final regular-season game, the Buckeyes regrouped and went on to win the championship.
The 12-team setup has generally struck a reasonable balance. It added high-stakes games on campus without wiping out bowl season or making the regular season feel pointless. Yet the 2026–27 playoff will be only the third played under that format before the sport moves on to an even larger field.
A 24-team tournament could leave many bowl games with little significance, as more of the best teams move into the playoff. Conference championship games may also lose importance. And the regular season, long one of college sports’ strongest features, could matter less if teams with three losses—and perhaps even four or five losses in the SEC—still make the field.
There may be more games between major programs if teams feel less pressure to avoid a damaging loss. But if the schedule does not change, the sport risks giving up much of what makes the regular season compelling. So, who was asking for this expansion, and why is it happening?
The answer appears to be money. The Big Ten pushed for a larger playoff, and other conferences eventually joined the effort. The SEC had resisted for a long time, but ultimately came around. With a bigger tournament, the conference could also press for more of its own teams to be included.
More playoff games mean more broadcast revenue from ESPN. Schools could host late-season games with a playoff spot at stake, then sell tickets to home playoff games. Coaches would have a lower bar for calling a season successful, while donors might see a clearer payoff for their contributions than a trip to a lower-profile bowl.
Fans seem to have had less influence. Many were opposed to expansion, according to surveys, but the decision went ahead. At a news conference, CFP executive director Rich Clark explained that the committee had heard those concerns, but still chose to move forward.
Clark argued that the new format would benefit the sport and its “stakeholders.” He said updated scheduling rules would encourage more compelling nonconference games, and that 16 playoff contests would be played on campus, bringing the tournament to students and local fans. He also said the CFP intended to make the expanded playoff a great experience for fans, athletes and schools.
Asked how the change might be received by fans, Clark acknowledged that many did not support a larger field. Their views, he said, were considered as part of the decision. Still, the committee decided to proceed.
That answer is hard to miss: the leaders knew plenty of fans were against expansion and went ahead anyway. A memorable playoff does not necessarily need 24 teams; a larger field could just as easily water down the games.
The 2025–26 season offered examples of mismatches between Power Four and Group of Six teams. Ole Miss beat Tulane 41–10, while Oregon defeated James Madison 51–34. During the previous season’s 12-team playoff, ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit also criticized Indiana’s inclusion after the Hoosiers lost 27–17. It is fair to wonder how competitive the 24th team in a 24-team bracket might be.
This is increasingly familiar in college football: short-term revenue seems to take priority over the sport’s long-term health. Fans may come after the financial interests. At least, this time, the decision-makers have been fairly open about hearing the objections and moving ahead anyway.
