College football has always been different from every other major American sport. Its traditions, rivalries, passionate fan bases and unforgiving regular season have helped distinguish it from the NFL and other professional leagues for generations. Every Saturday carried enormous implications, and for programs with national championship aspirations, a single defeat could change the course of an entire season.
Now, the sport appears increasingly determined to abandon one of the very characteristics that made it so captivating.
According to multiple reports Thursday, the College Football Playoff is nearing an agreement to expand its postseason field to 24 teams beginning in 2027, pending final approval. The proposed format would double the current 12-team bracket, potentially eliminate Power Four conference championship games and fundamentally reshape how college football determines its national champion. (CBS Sports)
On the surface, expansion sounds appealing. More teams competing for a national championship, additional postseason matchups and greater opportunities for programs traditionally excluded from championship consideration.
But beneath those benefits lies a much larger question that college football’s decision-makers seem increasingly unwilling to confront.
At what point does expanding the postseason begin diminishing the importance of the regular season?
For decades, college football operated under a system in which every game mattered because there was almost no margin for error. The sport has gradually moved away from that identity, first with the introduction of the four-team playoff in 2014, then with the expansion to 12 teams in 2024, and now potentially with a 24-team tournament.
The latest proposal would not simply represent another adjustment to the postseason. It could permanently change the way programs approach the final weeks of the regular season, including some of the most historic rivalries in American sports.
From the BCS to the Playoff: When Every Saturday Mattered
To understand what college football risks losing, it is worth remembering how the sport operated before the playoff era.
From 1998 through 2013, the Bowl Championship Series determined which two teams would compete for the national championship. The system was far from perfect. Computer rankings, human polls and controversial selections frequently left deserving programs without an opportunity to compete for a title.
Yet the BCS accomplished something that modern playoff expansion has progressively weakened: it made the regular season feel like an elimination tournament.
For programs competing at the highest level, every Saturday was effectively a postseason game. A September loss could damage championship aspirations before conference play even began. A defeat in November could erase months of hard work, regardless of how dominant a team had looked throughout the year.
There was little room for recovery, and that pressure created an atmosphere unlike anything else in American sports.
Consider the 2007 college football season, one of the most unpredictable in the sport’s history. No. 2 West Virginia entered its regular-season finale against an unranked Pittsburgh team needing a victory to position itself for the national championship game. Instead, the Mountaineers suffered a stunning 13-9 defeat, ending their championship hopes and opening the door for LSU to eventually claim the national title.
That game mattered because the consequences were absolute.
There was no expanded playoff bracket waiting to provide West Virginia with another opportunity. There was no discussion about whether the Mountaineers still deserved a postseason invitation despite the loss.
Their championship aspirations were over.
The BCS also produced controversies that demonstrated why reform was necessary. The undefeated 2004 Auburn Tigers were excluded from the national championship game, while the 2011 season ended with an Alabama-LSU rematch that sparked widespread debate.
Those shortcomings should not be forgotten. The system regularly failed programs that had legitimate arguments for inclusion.
But the solution to an imperfect championship selection process did not necessarily require sacrificing the urgency that made the regular season so compelling.
The Four-Team Playoff Preserved College Football’s Identity
When the College Football Playoff debuted in 2014, it represented a reasonable compromise between tradition and competitive fairness.
Instead of selecting only two teams, the committee would choose four national championship contenders, providing additional opportunities while maintaining the importance of regular-season results.
The change was significant, but the margin for error remained relatively small.
A single loss could still jeopardize a team’s playoff chances, while two losses frequently made qualification extremely difficult. Conference championships carried enormous weight, and late-season rivalry games continued to shape the national championship picture.
The inaugural playoff season offered a perfect example.
Ohio State entered its regular-season finale against Michigan with one loss and considerable uncertainty surrounding its postseason position. The Buckeyes defeated their rivals, but quarterback J.T. Barrett suffered a season-ending injury, forcing third-string quarterback Cardale Jones into the spotlight.
Ohio State then dismantled Wisconsin 59-0 in the Big Ten Championship Game, earning the final playoff spot before defeating Alabama and Oregon to capture the national championship.
Every step mattered.
A loss to Michigan would have ended the conversation. A poor performance against Wisconsin could have left the Buckeyes outside the four-team field.
The pressure of those games helped make Ohio State’s eventual championship run one of the most memorable stories in modern college football history.
Even near the end of the four-team era, the regular season maintained that unforgiving nature.
In 2023, Florida State finished undefeated and won the ACC championship but was controversially excluded from the playoff. Alabama, meanwhile, earned a selection after defeating Georgia in the SEC Championship Game.
The decision highlighted serious flaws in the selection process, but it also demonstrated how consequential individual games remained.
Under the four-team format, nearly every result involving a national championship contender had the potential to reshape the entire postseason.
The system was imperfect, but it preserved something essential: the feeling that college football’s championship race began in September, not December.
Expansion Has Already Changed the Meaning of a Loss
The introduction of the 12-team playoff in 2024 marked the beginning of a different philosophy.
Rather than requiring teams to build nearly flawless résumés, the expanded bracket created opportunities for programs to recover from multiple defeats.
There are clear advantages to that approach. More teams remain involved in the national championship conversation, and strong programs that suffer difficult losses are no longer automatically eliminated from contention.
However, the consequences of losing have undeniably changed.
Under the BCS system, a second loss was often devastating. Under the four-team playoff, it was frequently enough to eliminate a contender. Under a 12-team format, multiple losses can be overcome with a strong enough résumé.
That distinction matters.
A late-season defeat against a conference rival might once have ended a team’s championship aspirations. Today, the same loss could simply affect its seeding or determine whether it hosts a first-round playoff game.
Those outcomes still carry significance, but they are not equivalent.
There is an enormous difference between playing to keep a national championship dream alive and playing to determine where that championship pursuit will begin.
The 12-team playoff has already moved college football closer to the postseason model used by professional sports leagues, where regular-season defeats are often viewed as manageable setbacks rather than potentially defining moments.
A 16-team playoff, which has also been discussed extensively, would weaken that urgency further by providing four additional opportunities for teams to qualify.
Now, a proposed 24-team field threatens to accelerate that transformation dramatically.
A 24-Team Playoff Could Make November Football Less Consequential
The proposed expansion would reportedly feature 19 at-large selections, four Power Four conference champions and the highest-ranked Group of Six program. The top eight seeds would receive first-round byes, while additional postseason games would be played on campus.
The format would undoubtedly produce exciting matchups and provide opportunities for programs that might otherwise struggle to enter the championship conversation. (theScore)
But consider what this means for the nation’s traditional championship contenders.
A powerhouse program could conceivably lose three games, potentially even four depending on the strength of its schedule and the selection committee’s evaluation, and still find itself competing for a national championship.
A team could lose its biggest rivalry game, fail to win its conference and nevertheless receive another opportunity to compete for the sport’s ultimate prize.
In some circumstances, that might be justified. Not every loss carries the same weight, and teams competing in difficult conferences deserve consideration for the quality of their opponents.
Still, the broader consequences cannot be ignored.
If losing two or three games no longer threatens a program’s championship hopes, the emotional stakes surrounding those defeats inevitably change.
The difference between finishing 10-2 and 9-3 could become a matter of playoff positioning rather than qualification.
For fans of programs competing near the playoff cutoff, the final weeks of the season could become more exciting. But for the sport’s established contenders, the opposite may occur.
The biggest programs could enter November knowing their postseason invitations are all but guaranteed.
And once qualification is secure, a much more troubling question emerges.
Could Rivalry Week Become College Football’s Version of NFL Week 18?
Perhaps the most concerning potential consequence of a 24-team playoff is how it could influence decisions surrounding rivalry week.
Imagine Ohio State entering its annual matchup against Michigan with a 10-1 record, already assured of a postseason appearance. Suppose the Buckeyes have several key players dealing with minor injuries, including their starting quarterback or an All-American defensive lineman.
Under the BCS system, resting those players would have been almost unthinkable. A loss could have ended Ohio State’s national championship hopes.
Under the four-team playoff, the stakes would have remained similarly enormous.
Even with a 12-team field, losing to Michigan could significantly damage Ohio State’s seeding and eliminate its opportunity to host a playoff game.
But under a 24-team format, the calculation could look very different.
If Ohio State already knows it will participate in the postseason regardless of the result, would its coaching staff consider limiting the snaps of important players?
Would preserving the health of a starting quarterback become more important than securing another regular-season victory?
Could the same reasoning apply to Alabama against Auburn, Georgia against Georgia Tech, Florida against Florida State or USC against Notre Dame?
These are hypothetical scenarios, not decisions that any of those programs have announced. But they are questions college football must seriously consider before expanding its postseason.
The NFL already provides an example of what can happen when postseason positioning becomes more important than individual regular-season games.
Every year, teams that have secured favorable playoff positions face decisions about whether to rest starters during the final week of the season.
From a competitive standpoint, those decisions often make perfect sense.
Why risk losing a franchise quarterback in a relatively meaningless regular-season contest when the playoffs begin the following week?
But college football has historically operated under a different philosophy.
The Ohio State-Michigan rivalry is not supposed to resemble an NFL regular-season finale between two teams with their postseason positions already secured.
The Iron Bowl should not become an opportunity for Alabama or Auburn to evaluate its depth chart ahead of December.
Rivalry week is one of college football’s defining traditions precisely because the games carry significance beyond their place on the schedule.
Of course, no serious college football observer should underestimate the importance of beating a rival. Coaches understand what those games mean to their programs, alumni and supporters.
Ohio State is not suddenly going to stop caring about Michigan because the playoff expands.
But caring about a rivalry and making strategic decisions about player availability are two different things.
If a coaching staff believes resting an injured starter improves its chances of winning a national championship, an expanded playoff could provide the justification to make that decision.
Even if only a handful of programs eventually adopt such an approach, the precedent would represent a significant departure from college football’s traditional identity.
Conference Championships Could Become Another Casualty
The potential elimination of Power Four conference championship games adds another layer to the controversy.
Under the proposed format, conferences would reportedly determine their champions without holding their traditional postseason title games, allowing the expanded playoff to fit within the college football calendar.
From a scheduling perspective, the decision is understandable.
A 24-team playoff requires additional rounds, and administrators must account for player workloads, academic calendars and television commitments.
However, eliminating conference championship games would remove another meaningful element of the college football season.
For decades, conference titles represented significant achievements in their own right.
Winning the Big Ten, SEC, ACC or Big 12 championship carried prestige regardless of whether a program ultimately captured the national title.
Conference championship games also provided memorable moments that helped shape the sport’s history, including upsets that completely altered the national championship picture.
Under the proposed system, some of those decisive matchups could disappear entirely.
A conference champion might instead be determined through regular-season standings and tiebreakers, potentially leaving fans without a definitive championship matchup between the league’s strongest teams.
Supporters of expansion will argue that replacing conference title games with additional playoff contests creates more meaningful postseason opportunities.
That argument has merit.
But it also reflects the larger transformation taking place throughout college football.
The sport is gradually shifting its emphasis away from conference championships and regular-season accomplishments toward one increasingly expansive national tournament.
There was a time when winning your conference was among the most important achievements in college football.
Now, conference championships risk becoming little more than another mechanism for determining playoff eligibility.
The Financial Incentive Behind Expansion Is Impossible to Ignore
The financial motivations surrounding playoff expansion are difficult to separate from the competitive arguments.
According to CBS Sports, discussions surrounding a 24-team tournament have included the possibility of generating hundreds of millions of dollars in additional annual media rights revenue, partly to compensate conferences for the potential elimination of their championship games.
The Big Ten has strongly supported a 24-team format, while the SEC initially favored a more modest expansion to 16 teams. (CBS Sports)
There is nothing inherently wrong with college football generating additional revenue.
The sport has become an enormous business, and its financial success supports athletic departments, facilities, scholarships and increasingly the athletes themselves.
However, the pursuit of additional revenue should not automatically outweigh the importance of preserving the product that made college football valuable in the first place.
More playoff games mean additional television inventory, larger broadcasting opportunities and greater commercial exposure.
But more football does not necessarily mean better football.
At some point, the value of individual games begins to decline as the number of opportunities to recover from defeat increases.
A national championship race involving only a handful of teams can create frustration among excluded programs, but a championship race involving nearly two dozen teams presents a different problem.
It risks turning a historically unforgiving regular season into a lengthy qualification process.
Former Alabama head coach Nick Saban has also expressed concerns about continued expansion, particularly regarding the number of games players could be required to participate in and whether the pursuit of additional revenue is overshadowing competitive considerations.
Saban has favored a smaller field, questioning whether significantly expanding the tournament is necessary to identify the nation’s best team. (247Sports)
His concerns deserve serious consideration.
College football players already endure physically demanding schedules, and an expanded postseason could require championship contenders to participate in significantly more games than previous generations.
The sport should be cautious about creating additional demands simply because television networks and conference administrators recognize the financial opportunities involved.
The Argument for Expansion Should Not Be Dismissed
Despite these concerns, supporters of a larger playoff field have legitimate reasons for advocating expansion.
One of the most compelling arguments is that a 24-team format would provide meaningful opportunities for programs outside college football’s traditional power structure.
Under the BCS system and four-team playoff, teams from smaller conferences frequently faced nearly impossible paths to national championship consideration.
Even undefeated seasons did not guarantee an opportunity to compete for a title.
An expanded field could help address those historical inequalities.
It could also keep more fan bases engaged throughout November, giving programs that have suffered early-season losses something meaningful to pursue.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti has argued that increasing the number of teams competing for postseason opportunities would make more regular-season games relevant, particularly for programs that might otherwise be eliminated from contention early. (Associated Press)
That argument is not without merit.
A November matchup between two teams with three losses could suddenly carry substantial playoff implications. Programs that historically spent the final month of the season playing for bowl eligibility might instead be competing for a place in the national championship tournament.
For those teams and their supporters, expansion could make the regular season considerably more meaningful.
This is the central contradiction surrounding the debate.
A 24-team playoff could increase the number of meaningful games across college football while simultaneously reducing the importance of individual games involving the nation’s best teams.
Both outcomes can be true.
But college football must decide whether expanding the number of programs with championship aspirations is worth diminishing the consequences of losing for its established contenders.
College Football Risks Becoming Too Similar to the NFL
The NFL has perfected a postseason model built around qualification, seeding and elimination games.
Its regular season determines which teams advance, while its playoff system ultimately decides the champion.
College football has traditionally offered something different.
Its regular season was not merely preparation for the postseason. For much of its history, the regular season effectively was the postseason.
Every major rivalry, conference showdown and unexpected upset contributed to a championship race that unfolded over several months.
The sport’s unpredictability came not simply from the possibility of an upset, but from the consequences attached to that upset.
When an unranked team defeated a national championship contender, the result could alter the entire landscape of college football.
That is what made those Saturdays memorable.
A 24-team playoff would not eliminate upsets or diminish the passion of college football fans. Rivalries would continue, stadiums would remain packed and the sport would still produce extraordinary moments.
But the consequences surrounding those moments could become less significant.
A top-five team losing in November might no longer be a national championship-altering event. Instead, the conversation could revolve around whether that team falls from the fifth seed to the ninth.
That is a fundamentally different type of drama.
College football should not be afraid to evolve, but evolution should improve the sport without stripping away the characteristics that distinguish it.
The NFL already provides fans with an extensive playoff tournament.
College football does not need to become a smaller version of professional football to remain successful.
Where Does Expansion Finally End?
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current proposal is how quickly the conversation surrounding playoff expansion has accelerated.
The four-team playoff existed from 2014 through 2023. The 12-team format debuted in 2024 and remains in place for the 2026 season.
Yet before the expanded format has even completed its third season, college football is already approaching an agreement that would double the field again.
That raises an obvious question.
If 12 teams were not enough, and 16 teams are no longer considered sufficient, what guarantees that 24 teams will satisfy the sport’s decision-makers?
Eventually, there will be arguments for including the 25th-ranked team.
A program that finishes just outside the bracket will point to its difficult schedule, impressive victories or close losses as evidence that it deserves another opportunity.
Those arguments will sound familiar because they are the same arguments that have accompanied every previous postseason format.
Expansion does not eliminate controversy. It simply moves the debate further down the rankings.
At some point, college football must establish a reasonable limit rather than continually expanding its postseason to accommodate every program with a plausible championship argument.
A larger playoff field can create more opportunities, but it cannot guarantee that every deserving team will be included.
And the pursuit of that impossible objective should not come at the expense of the regular season.
College Football Must Decide What It Values Most
The proposed 24-team playoff is not yet official, and important details remain subject to final approval. But the direction of college football is becoming increasingly clear.
The sport is moving toward a future in which postseason access is broader, regular-season defeats are more forgiving and national championships are determined through an increasingly extensive tournament.
There are benefits to that approach, and supporters of expansion are right to emphasize the opportunities it creates.
But there is also a cost.
The BCS system was deeply flawed, yet it made every Saturday feel consequential. The four-team playoff improved access while largely preserving that urgency. The 12-team playoff began shifting the balance toward postseason opportunity, and a 16-team field would continue that trend.
A 24-team playoff could push the sport beyond a point from which it cannot easily return.
The possibility of teams resting starters during rivalry week may seem far-fetched today, but the incentives created by an expanded postseason make that scenario increasingly conceivable.
The potential disappearance of conference championship games would further weaken the significance of achievements that once defined successful college football seasons.
And the continued prioritization of postseason television revenue raises legitimate concerns about whether the sport’s decision-makers fully appreciate what they risk losing.
College football has never needed a perfect system to produce unforgettable moments.
It needed meaningful games, passionate rivalries and the understanding that every Saturday could change everything.
The sport’s greatest strength was never simply determining which team was the best at the end of January.
It was making the journey toward that championship matter from the opening weekend of September.
If college football continues expanding its postseason without considering what those changes mean for the regular season, it risks discovering that more championship opportunities do not necessarily create a better championship race.
Because when nearly everyone gets another chance, the first chance inevitably begins to mean a little less.
