24-Team CFP Expansion: 9 Major Issues Facing College Football

The College Football Playoff (CFP) is reportedly moving closer to a major expansion, with plans for a 24-team format potentially taking effect in 2027. While the proposal promises more playoff opportunities, additional high-stakes games and greater access for some programs, it has also raised serious concerns about the future of college football.

For decades, college football fans debated the need for a playoff system to determine the national champion. The sport eventually introduced the four-team CFP in 2014 before expanding to 12 teams for the 2024 season. Now, another major change could transform the postseason once again, even though there has been considerably less public demand for a 24-team tournament.

According to reports from ESPN’s Pete Thamel and Heather Dinich, the College Football Playoff and ESPN are nearing an agreement to expand the field to 24 teams in 2027. If implemented, the change would dramatically reshape the postseason, potentially affecting regular-season rivalries, conference championship games, bowl season and smaller college football programs.

Supporters believe a larger playoff would reward more teams and create additional opportunities for memorable postseason runs. Critics, however, argue that expansion could reduce the importance of regular-season games, complicate the college football calendar and further widen the gap between wealthy conferences and smaller programs.

Here is a closer look at the biggest concerns surrounding the proposed 24-team College Football Playoff expansion and how it could affect the sport.

Why Is the College Football Playoff Expanding to 24 Teams?

The debate over a college football playoff dates back decades. Around 1960, Northwestern athletic director Stu Holcomb proposed a tournament-style system involving six conference champions and the top two independent teams. His idea envisioned a three-round competition that would conclude by January 1.

However, the traditional bowl system remained in place for decades, partly because influential figures within the college football industry benefited financially from it. A four-team playoff did not arrive until 2014, marking a major shift in how the national champion was determined.

The sport has changed rapidly since then. Conference realignment has created enormous leagues that sometimes span multiple regions, while new financial arrangements have transformed how college programs build their rosters and compensate players.

The expansion from four teams to 12 was another significant step. Now, the proposed move to 24 teams would make the playoff six times larger than the original four-team format introduced in 2014.

Supporters of expansion argue that more teams deserve a chance to compete for the national championship. A larger field could reduce the number of teams eliminated from contention after a single defeat and give more programs a realistic opportunity to reach the postseason.

However, critics question whether college football needs such a substantial expansion. They argue that the current 12-team format already offers considerably more access than the original system and that another increase could create unintended consequences across the sport.

The Biggest Concerns About a 24-Team CFP

1. The Regular Season Could Lose Its Importance

One of the biggest concerns surrounding the proposed expansion is the possibility that regular-season games could become less meaningful.

College football’s appeal has traditionally been built around high-stakes matchups, intense rivalries and games in which a single defeat can dramatically affect a team’s championship hopes. Unlike professional leagues with long schedules and extensive postseason fields, college football has historically placed enormous importance on every game.

Expanding the playoff to 24 teams would give more programs room to recover from losses. Under the current 12-team format, teams generally have fewer opportunities to make mistakes while remaining in contention. A 24-team field could increase that margin for error substantially.

The original analysis estimates that the number of losses among teams qualifying for the playoff could rise from approximately 15-20 in the 12-team format to around 45-50 in a 24-team system.

That would mean many more teams could lose multiple games without necessarily ending their championship hopes. Although this might create additional postseason drama, it could also reduce the urgency of certain regular-season contests.

Critics worry that some of the sport’s biggest games could lose their significance if both teams remain comfortably positioned to qualify for the expanded playoff regardless of the result.

There is also a financial consideration. College football programs rely heavily on ticket sales, television audiences, donations and the excitement surrounding major regular-season matchups. If expansion reduces the perceived importance of those games, the long-term effects on attendance and television ratings could become a concern.

2. Adding Another Playoff Round Creates Scheduling Challenges

Moving from 12 teams to 24 would require an additional round of postseason games, creating new logistical challenges for an already crowded college football calendar.

The December and January period already involves conference championship games, bowl games, travel arrangements and the existing playoff schedule. Adding another round could make the calendar more complicated for players, coaches, administrators and fans.

Player welfare is another concern. College football is a physically demanding sport, and a longer playoff could require participating teams to play more games during an already lengthy season.

That issue becomes particularly important in an era when roster construction, player compensation and transfer movement have transformed the college football landscape. A larger playoff could increase the number of games played by the teams that advance deepest into the postseason.

Supporters may argue that more postseason football is an acceptable trade-off for expanding access. However, critics believe the sport should first resolve existing scheduling problems before adding another round of competition.

3. Conference Championship Games Could Disappear

Another major concern is the possibility that conferences could abandon their championship games as part of the transition to a 24-team playoff.

Conference title games have become an important part of the college football calendar, offering teams an opportunity to win championships while creating some of the sport’s most memorable moments.

However, the current system can also create complications. Teams playing a 13th game may face additional injury risks, while the College Football Playoff selection committee must consider how much weight to give a conference championship loss.

The original analysis argues that eliminating conference championship games entirely would be a mistake. Rather than abandoning them, conferences could consider changing how they schedule their final regular-season games.

One proposed alternative is a flexible scheduling model in which conferences play eight scheduled league games before determining matchups for the final week. Those pairings could include championship games, rivalry contests and other meaningful matchups based on the standings.

Such a system could preserve the excitement of conference championship weekend while reducing the complications associated with adding a 13th game to the schedule.

Conference title games have produced several memorable contests in recent seasons, including Alabama’s upset of Georgia in 2021, Baylor’s narrow victory over Oklahoma State in the same year and Clemson’s dramatic win over SMU in the 2024 ACC Championship Game.

The original analysis also highlights Indiana’s 13-10 victory over Ohio State in the 2025 Big Ten Championship Game as an example of the drama conference title games can deliver.

Removing these contests could mean losing some of the most important and entertaining games on the annual college football calendar.

Three Arguments in Favor of the 24-Team Playoff

Although concerns about expansion are significant, supporters have presented several arguments for moving to a larger field. The strongest cases focus on coaching stability, nonconference scheduling and increased access to the national championship.

1. A Larger Playoff Could Reduce Coaching Pressure

One argument for expansion is that giving more teams a chance to qualify for the CFP could reduce pressure on coaches.

College football has become increasingly competitive, with programs investing heavily in coaching staffs, facilities, recruiting and player compensation. As a result, coaches can face intense scrutiny when their teams fail to meet expectations.

A 24-team playoff could give more programs a realistic postseason objective, potentially helping some coaches demonstrate progress even if their teams fall short of championship contention.

However, critics question how long this effect would last. As qualification becomes more common, merely reaching the playoff could gradually lose its significance.

Coaches who lose in the opening round could still face pressure from administrators and supporters, especially at programs with high expectations. Therefore, expansion might delay some coaching decisions without fundamentally changing the sport’s increasingly demanding environment.

2. More Teams Could Schedule Better Nonconference Opponents

Another argument is that an expanded playoff could encourage teams to schedule more challenging nonconference games.

Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti has argued that a 24-team playoff could lead to more competitive matchups during the regular season by giving programs a greater margin for error.

“We need to play more good games,” Petitti said. “We get the 24-team playoff, you’re going to see many more competitive games scheduled. We’ll commit to that.”

The logic is straightforward: if a team can lose a game against a strong opponent and still qualify for the playoff, it may be more willing to schedule difficult nonconference matchups.

However, critics point out that similar arguments were made before earlier playoff expansions. In practice, programs often have strong incentives to schedule opponents they expect to beat, especially when victories help strengthen their postseason résumés.

Scheduling decisions also take years to arrange. According to the original analysis, most teams in the Big Ten and SEC had already filled much of their nonconference schedules for 2027 and 2028, limiting how quickly expansion could influence scheduling behavior.

Consequently, a larger playoff would not necessarily lead to an immediate increase in marquee nonconference games.

3. More Programs Would Have Access to the Playoff

The strongest argument for a 24-team playoff is increased access.

Under the proposed system, many teams that would otherwise miss the postseason could receive an opportunity to compete for the national championship. Historical simulations suggest that a 24-team field would have allowed a much wider variety of programs to qualify over the past decade.

Supporters believe this would make the sport more inclusive by giving additional teams a chance to challenge the traditional national powers.

However, critics argue that access alone does not guarantee fairness. If the expanded field primarily benefits teams from the wealthiest conferences, smaller programs could remain disadvantaged despite the increase in available places.

The original analysis compares college football’s proposed expansion with the growth of the FIFA World Cup, arguing that international soccer’s expansion created opportunities for countries that had historically struggled to qualify.

In college football, the concern is that the additional places could disproportionately benefit established power-conference programs rather than smaller schools that have fewer financial resources and less access to high-profile opponents.

What Would a 24-Team CFP Look Like? Lessons From Recent Seasons

One way to understand the potential impact of expansion is to examine how a 24-team playoff might have looked in previous seasons.

The original analysis uses historical CFP rankings and SP+ title-probability estimates to explore how the expanded format could have changed the postseason landscape. These simulations illustrate both the potential for more compelling matchups and the possibility that many additional teams would enter the playoff with very small championship chances.

The 2021 Season: Georgia Would Still Have Been the Favorite

In a hypothetical 24-team playoff based on the 2021 season, Georgia would have entered as the clear favorite after establishing itself as the country’s strongest team.

According to the analysis, Georgia would have had a 46% chance of winning the championship based on SP+ projections. Alabama would have followed at 18%, with Ohio State at 16%.

Although the expanded field would have created opportunities for additional programs, 16 of the 24 teams would have entered with championship probabilities below 1%.

This illustrates a central criticism of expansion: qualifying for the playoff and having a realistic chance of winning the national championship are two very different things.

The 2022 Season: More Teams, but Few Additional Favorites

A hypothetical 24-team field for the 2022 season would have included more programs, but the title race would still have revolved around a relatively small group of elite teams.

Georgia would have entered with a projected 33% championship probability, followed by Alabama at 19%, Michigan at 18% and Ohio State at 16%.

The analysis suggests that 17 of the 24 teams would have had less than a 1% chance of winning the title.

The expanded format could also have changed how teams were perceived during the season. For example, USC might have remained a contender in the public conversation until the playoff, even if a difficult postseason matchup eventually exposed its weaknesses.

The 2023 Season: Florida State Could Have Received Another Opportunity

The 2023 season provides another example of how expansion could affect access. Under a 24-team format, unbeaten Florida State would have had a place in the field rather than being excluded from the four-team playoff.

Georgia and Michigan would have entered the hypothetical tournament as the leading championship contenders, with projected title probabilities of 28% and 25%, respectively.

Oregon would have followed at 13%, while Ohio State would have had an 11% chance of winning the title.

Only one Group of Five team would have qualified in the scenario described by the analysis, while 11 of the 24 teams would have had championship probabilities below 1%.

The example highlights both sides of the expansion debate: more teams could receive opportunities, but the distribution of those opportunities might not significantly change the balance of power.

The 2024 Season: Indiana and Boise State Would Benefit

The hypothetical 24-team format for the 2024 season would have offered additional opportunities to some of the year’s most compelling stories.

Indiana, under Curt Cignetti, and Boise State, led by the performances of Ashton Jeanty, would have had opportunities to enter the expanded playoff and potentially win postseason games.

Ole Miss would also have qualified, giving Lane Kiffin’s team another opportunity to compete after a season in which it lost three close games.

The analysis argues that Ole Miss demonstrated how the existing 12-team playoff could preserve meaningful regular-season stakes. Despite having a strong team, the Rebels’ losses prevented them from reaching the postseason.

In the hypothetical 24-team format, Ohio State would have led the title projections with a 23% chance of winning the championship, while four other teams would have had probabilities between 10% and 15%.

Even in this relatively open field, 12 teams would have entered with championship chances below 1%.

The 2025 Season: Ohio State and Indiana Would Lead Again

The original analysis also considers the 2025 season, in which Notre Dame’s campaign is compared with Ole Miss’s 2024 run.

In the hypothetical expanded bracket, Notre Dame would have qualified and potentially faced Indiana in the quarterfinals. Indiana’s projected position would have been influenced by the absence of another opportunity to defeat Ohio State in Indianapolis.

Indiana would have entered with a 28% championship probability, while Ohio State would have had a 23% chance. The next four seeds would have had projected title probabilities between 6% and 13%.

Twelve of the 24 teams would still have had championship probabilities below 1%, suggesting that a larger field would not necessarily create a championship race involving dozens of equally strong contenders.

These historical simulations are estimates rather than guarantees of how an expanded playoff would unfold. Their main value is showing how additional qualification opportunities might change the bracket without necessarily changing which teams are most likely to win the title.

How a 24-Team CFP Could Affect Bowl Games

Bowl games have already experienced major changes during the playoff era. Some of the highest-ranked teams now focus on CFP qualification, while player opt-outs and transfer-portal decisions have altered the composition of bowl rosters.

Despite those challenges, bowl games continue to attract viewers and occasionally deliver some of the season’s most entertaining matchups.

Expanding the playoff to 24 teams could create another significant disruption by removing many of the strongest non-playoff teams from the traditional bowl pool.

Under the current 12-team system, several ranked programs that miss the playoff can still participate in prominent bowl games. A 24-team field would absorb many of those teams into the postseason tournament, leaving bowls to select from a weaker pool of available programs.

This could lead to fewer bowl games, increased participation by teams with losing records or less compelling matchups involving programs that narrowly missed the expanded playoff.

The original analysis illustrates the potential change by imagining how the top non-CFP bowls might have looked under a hypothetical 24-team format based on the 2025 season.

Hypothetical Bowl Matchups After a 24-Team Expansion

• Citrus Bowl: Missouri (8-4) vs. Illinois (8-4)
• ReliaQuest Bowl: Tennessee (8-4) vs. TCU (8-4)
• Pop-Tarts Bowl: Louisville (8-4) vs. Arizona State (8-4)
• Alamo Bowl: SMU (8-4) vs. LSU (7-5)
• Gator Bowl: Iowa State (8-4) vs. Nebraska (7-5)
• Duke’s Mayo Bowl: Wake Forest (8-4) vs. Kansas State (6-6)
• Fenway Bowl: Pitt (8-4) vs. Penn State (6-6)
• Pinstripe Bowl: UConn (9-3) vs. NC State (7-5)
• Texas Bowl: Clemson (7-5) vs. Northwestern (6-6)
• Liberty Bowl: James Madison (11-1) vs. Duke (7-5)

These matchups are illustrative rather than an official bowl projection. They demonstrate how the available teams and potential pairings could change if the top 24 programs entered the CFP.

One possible consequence is that successful mid-major programs could be left competing for the remaining bowl opportunities rather than receiving a place in the expanded playoff. Although creative scheduling could produce interesting games, the traditional bowl system would face increased pressure.

Why the Group of Five Could Be Among the Biggest Losers

One of the most significant criticisms of the 24-team playoff proposal concerns its potential impact on smaller college football programs.

The Group of Five, commonly used to describe the five non-power conferences in the current FBS structure, has historically faced financial and competitive disadvantages compared with the wealthiest leagues.

Programs such as Boise State have demonstrated that smaller schools can compete with established powers and produce memorable championship runs. However, the growing financial gap between conferences has made it increasingly difficult for those programs to retain their best players and maintain competitive rosters.

The transfer portal has added another challenge by allowing players to move between programs, often giving wealthier schools opportunities to recruit standout performers from smaller teams.

Critics argue that an expanded playoff should guarantee meaningful opportunities for conference champions rather than simply increasing the number of places available to established power-conference programs.

Conference Champions Could Still Be Left Out

Under the proposed model described in the original analysis, several Group of Five conference champions could miss the expanded playoff in favor of power-conference teams with less impressive records.

This creates a potential fairness problem. A smaller conference champion might finish the season with an outstanding record but struggle to qualify because its schedule is perceived as weaker than that of a team from the SEC or Big Ten.

Meanwhile, a power-conference program with multiple losses could still receive an invitation because it competed against a more highly regarded schedule.

The criticism is that this system could reward financial resources and conference affiliation more heavily than championships won on the field.

In other levels of college football, playoff systems provide opportunities for conference champions to compete for national titles. Critics argue that FBS college football risks moving in the opposite direction if the expanded format continues to favor larger conferences.

Power-Conference Scheduling Could Make the Problem Worse

The original analysis also raises concerns about a reported scheduling commitment connected to the expansion proposal. Under the arrangement described, power-conference teams would commit to playing 10 games against other power-conference opponents.

If implemented, such a requirement could leave teams with only two remaining scheduling opportunities for Group of Five or FCS opponents.

Critics worry that the strongest smaller programs might struggle to secure those games because power-conference teams have incentives to protect their records.

For example, a program such as James Madison or Boise State could find it difficult to schedule major opponents if those teams prefer matchups they consider less risky.

This could create a difficult cycle for smaller schools. They might be judged on the strength of their schedules while having fewer opportunities to arrange games against highly ranked opponents.

As a result, a successful Group of Five team could find itself excluded from the top 24 despite finishing with an excellent record.

For critics, this is one of the clearest examples of how playoff expansion could increase the number of available places without necessarily making the sport more equitable.

College Football Risks Changing Too Much Too Quickly

The debate over playoff expansion is part of a much broader transformation in college football. Over recent years, the sport has undergone major changes involving conference realignment, player compensation, transfer rules and postseason qualification.

Supporters of reform argue that college football must adapt to changing financial and competitive realities. However, critics believe the pace of change is becoming difficult for fans to follow and could eventually weaken the traditions that make the sport distinctive.

The original analysis identifies several warning signs that other sports have experienced when trying to maintain popularity during periods of major structural change.

1. Taking Core Fans for Granted

College football depends on passionate supporters who invest time, money and emotional energy in their teams. Critics worry that administrators are prioritizing television contracts and financial arrangements over the preferences of those fans.

If supporters feel that decisions are being made without considering the traditions and rivalries they value, their long-term engagement could suffer.

2. Introducing Too Many Changes at Once

Conference realignment, player compensation, transfer-portal movement and playoff expansion have all changed the sport in a relatively short period.

Adding a 24-team playoff could create another major adjustment before the long-term effects of earlier changes are fully understood.

3. Making Games Harder to Access

As television rights and streaming arrangements evolve, fans may need additional subscriptions to watch their teams. Critics argue that making games more difficult or expensive to access could discourage casual viewers.

4. Increasing the Physical Demands on Players

College football is inherently physical, and player health is already a major concern. A longer postseason could increase the number of games played by teams that advance through multiple rounds.

That could create additional challenges involving recovery time, injuries and roster management.

5. Making the Championship Race More Complicated

The CFP selection process already requires fans to follow rankings, strength of schedule, conference results and other factors. A larger field could introduce additional debates about qualification and seeding.

Critics argue that an expanded system must remain understandable to casual fans as well as dedicated followers of the sport.

6. Allowing Financial Disputes to Dominate the Sport

Money has become central to many of college football’s biggest decisions. Television agreements, conference revenues, player compensation and postseason arrangements all influence how the sport is structured.

Critics worry that continuing disputes over revenue could overshadow the games themselves.

7. Widening the Gap Between Rich and Poor Programs

The financial divide between power conferences and smaller programs has become increasingly pronounced. An expanded playoff could worsen that inequality if the additional opportunities primarily benefit the wealthiest teams.

8. Ignoring Wider Economic Pressures

College football depends on fans being able to afford tickets, travel and television access. Economic difficulties or rising travel costs could affect attendance and viewership, particularly if supporters feel that the sport has become too expensive.

9. Losing Traditional Rivalries

Conference realignment has already disrupted several historic rivalries by placing former regional opponents in different leagues or reducing how often they meet.

Examples cited in the original analysis include Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, Missouri and Kansas, Pitt and West Virginia, and Oregon and Oregon State.

Critics argue that preserving these connections should be a priority as the sport considers further structural changes.

Can College Football Expand Without Losing Its Identity?

Despite the criticism, expansion does not automatically mean that college football’s biggest games will lose their appeal. Historic rivalries and high-profile matchups can remain compelling even when both teams have a strong chance of qualifying for the playoff.

Games such as Ohio State against Texas and the Iron Bowl between Alabama and Auburn carry significance beyond postseason qualification. Their history, regional importance and emotional stakes help explain why fans continue to watch them.

However, the question is whether those traditions can withstand the cumulative effects of conference realignment, financial inequality and a rapidly expanding playoff system.

The original analysis argues that college football has often been poorly managed but has continued to thrive because of the quality and emotional intensity of the games themselves.

That history offers some reassurance to supporters who believe the sport will adapt. At the same time, it does not guarantee that every change will improve the product or preserve the traditions that fans value.

The central challenge is finding a balance between giving more teams access to the championship and maintaining the importance of the regular season, conference races and traditional bowl games.

Conclusion: Is a 24-Team College Football Playoff Worth the Risk?

The proposed 24-team College Football Playoff expansion could create more postseason opportunities, introduce additional matchups and give more programs a chance to compete for the national championship. Those benefits are significant, particularly for teams that have historically been excluded from the playoff discussion.

However, the potential drawbacks are equally important. A larger field could reduce the importance of regular-season games, create additional scheduling challenges, put pressure on conference championship games and weaken the traditional bowl system.

The Group of Five could face particular difficulties if the expansion primarily benefits power-conference programs. More playoff places would not necessarily translate into fairer access if smaller conference champions continue to face structural disadvantages.

Historical simulations also suggest that a larger field would not automatically create a more competitive championship race. Even with 24 teams, a substantial number of programs could enter the postseason with very small chances of winning the title.

One possible compromise would be to preserve conference championship games through a flexible scheduling model while establishing clearer pathways for conference champions to qualify for the playoff. Such measures could help balance expansion with the traditions and competitive principles that have long defined college football.

Ultimately, the debate is not simply about whether 24 teams would produce more exciting playoff games. It is about whether the benefits of expansion outweigh the potential costs to the regular season, smaller programs, bowl games and the sport’s longstanding traditions.

College football has survived numerous changes throughout its history, but the proposed expansion represents another major turning point. Whether it strengthens the sport or creates problems that are difficult to reverse will depend on how the new system is structured and whose interests it ultimately serves.