In a press conference on the day of the 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship in Santa Clara, CFP Chairman Mark Keenum downplayed media speculation about expanding from the then-current four-team field. “As far as expanding the number of teams in the Playoff, it’s way too soon to know if that is even a possibility,” said Keenum. That night’s Clemson-Alabama game would cap the fifth edition of the four-team playoff, and CFP management seemed hesitant to rush towards any changes that would disrupt the profitable model they had carefully created.
Eventually, those fears were dismissed in a pursuit of more money, and the 12-team playoff was created. Now, just two years into the current system, CFB leadership is poised to double the field to 24, according to ESPN’s Heather Dinich.
Details on the exact structure of the expanded playoff are scarce, but most reporting seems to indicate that the NCAA’s current structure for the 24-team FCS tournament is the most likely model. The top eight teams are given a bye to the Round of 16, so the first two rounds feature eight games each. The CFP could stage both of these rounds on consecutive weekends at campus sites, moving to the “New Years Six” bowl games for the quarterfinals and semifinals.
To institute changes to the 2027-28 playoff, CFP leadership has a deadline just two months away to decide on a format. With any change comes a number of questions regarding media partners, rights fees, scheduling, field selection, and more. But outside observers of this process would be right to wonder if any of this is worth it? Would doubling the size of the playoff field so soon into the current model create unintended consequences at the expense of one of the most significant regular seasons in sports?
What would be gained?
The primary driver to expansion talks is the potential increase in television rights fees. That extra money gets distributed back to conferences and eventually to the schools, who are facing rapidly rising costs for rosters, administrative support, and facilities. A 24-team field would create 12 additional games to be sold to TV partners, two of which would contractually belong to ESPN as a part of its current contract worth a reported $1.3 billion annually. ESPN and the CFP entered a 30-day exclusive negotiating window in early September, giving the CFP clarity into the value of the expanded playoff, but the incremental value of additional games would logically decrease somewhat each time the field grows.
The first round games would feature teams ranked #9-16 hosting teams ranked #17-24. To use last year’s final rankings as an example, this format would give audiences games like Virginia-Vanderbilt, Houston-BYU, and Tulane-Texas. There would certainly be an audience for these games, but they’re not exactly marquee draws. There would also be too many games to guarantee a standalone window in the first two rounds: a Friday doubleheader and six staggered games on Saturdays seems like the best solution.
It is not known if the ten games for sale would exclusively include early-round games, or if the bowl rounds could also be repackaged. It’s also unclear how an additional partner would affect ESPN’s existing sublicense to TNT Sports, which currently consists of two first-round games, two quarterfinals, and a semifinal. If that inventory remains with TNT, the highest-profile game ESPN would give up would likely be a single quarterfinal, assuming ESPN would not part ways with the Rose Bowl or be shut out of the semifinals and championship.
During negotiations in 2023 and 2024, the CFP was vocal about its desire to expand the playoff rights to multiple partners, but ESPN was the only network to submit a bid. In particular, Fox Sports’ disinterest in prior rounds of bidding, combined with their comments earlier this year about “rebalancing” their sports portfolio in the face of increased NFL rights fees, suggests that the appetite for early-round games may not be strong.
A secondary benefit to an expanded playoff would be that those additional games would come with real postseason stakes, a welcome reprieve from the plague of opt-outs and uninspired performances in bowl games in recent years. Playoff teams are much more likely to get their best play from their best players if there is a straightforward path to a national championship instead of condiment baths or ritual pastry sacrifices.
Easier access to the playoff is an attractive change for schools. Even programs without a realistic shot at a national title would love to boast about playoff appearances in marketing and recruitment materials, not to mention the revenue generated by an extra on-campus football game. Coaches with contract incentives for reaching the postseason would also appreciate the increased odds.
Proponents of the expanded field claim programs would be more inclined to schedule high-profile regular-season games, with the consequences of a single loss diminished, but that does not seem to fit with the ongoing trend of marquee matchup cancellations — including a Clemson-Georgia series a few weeks ago.
What would be lost?
The most significant change being discussed would be the elimination of the conference championship games, at least from the Power Four conferences. The top two teams from the top conferences would be all but assured a spot in the playoff with or without the title games, and with an extra 12 games added to the calendar, these seem headed for the chopping block. The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC title games generate an estimated $200 million combined in annual rights fees, according to Dinich, a figure the SEC in particular wants to ensure will be replaced by an expanded playoff. Removing the title games allows the first two rounds to be played on the first two weekends of December (Saturdays that are protected from the NFL by the Sports Broadcasting Act), and then proceed with the quarterfinals around New Years Day as in the 12-team playoff.
There would be a noticeable downstream effect on the remaining bowl games, the vast majority of which are already televised by ESPN. After the expanded CFP field is selected, the bowl games would be left with even lower-quality teams. Instead of last year’s thriller between Texas and Michigan, the Citrus Bowl would be left with a less appealing matchup between Illinois and Missouri. The 12 additional teams in the playoff would take away teams from the bowl-eligible pool for the 35 non-CFP bowls, resulting in either the elimination of some lower-tier bowls or the inclusion of even more poor-quality teams at the bottom end.
And finally, the increased stakes to the postseason would come at the expense of dramatically weakened stakes in the regular season. The “every game matters” feeling that has defined college football for a century would be replaced in favor of a bracketed tournament in December and January. An undefeated meeting between Ohio State and Michigan in late November would likely not affect the playoff race at all, as both teams would have firmly staked their claim several weeks earlier. Consider the final weeks of the college basketball season, in which the top teams have functionally sealed their bids while the focus is on a handful of mediocre teams on the “bubble”.
The proposed 24-team playoff was the brainchild of the Big Ten, which has since recruited the public support of the Big 12, ACC, and Notre Dame. Now it is only the SEC standing in the way, seeking assurances that the gains in media value from an expanded field would outweigh the costs.
It is no coincidence that the hesitation comes from the conference that regularly dominates television viewership in the regular season, and the rush forward comes from the conference lagging behind in the ratings despite winning the last three CFP titles. Perhaps the fears are overblown, but college football leadership is taking a very real risk discarding the value of the traditional season of September, October, and November in search of financial gain in December and January.
