Tuscaloosa, Ala. — Since its inception in 2014, the college football playoff has struggled to find a format that avoids speculation about which teams truly deserve a spot.
When the College Football Playoff format changed from four to 12 teams, it was thought to have solved the problem of controversial selections-especially in the 2023 season, when 13-0 FSU was snubbed following an injury to quarterback Jordan Travis.
Even with the new format, the selection committee has faced backlash from teams and fans on their decisions in the past two seasons. Mainly, whether a multi-loss SEC team deserves to be in compared to another Power Four Program. Last year, after missing out on the playoff, Notre Dame opted out of the Pop-Tarts Bowl against BYU in protest of the committee's decision.
With name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals and the transfer portal altering how rosters are built, there has been a change in the depth of quality teams. The days of the perennial powerhouses dominating the sport are fading. NIL has given unlikely teams the chance to compete for a national championship, with Indiana serving as the poster child for a historically struggling program using its resources to chase a title in the NIL era.
This newfound depth of quality teams has sparked conversation regarding further expansion, particularly concerning the potential for increased revenue and broadcasting rights through additional playoff games.
Fans and analysts have voiced frustration with expansion, arguing that it strips the regular season and conference championships of their importance. Teams would no longer have to remain near perfect to have a shot at competing for a championship; instead, they could coast through the regular season with two to three losses and still have a bid in the CFP.
However, an expansion would not happen until 2032 due to the current contract agreement with ESPN. This timeline prolongs the debate over whether expansion is truly beneficial for the sport or just another cash grab.
Another main concern is that an expansion would diminish the stakes of rivalry games. More importantly, rivalry games at the end of the season, like "The Game" or the Iron Bowl. Historically, these games usually decided which teams would reach their respective conference championships and consequently the playoffs.
On the other hand, a 24-team format would allow for top programs to schedule more competitive nonconference games. There would not be the risk of an early-season loss that could eliminate a team from the playoffs-a shift already seen with Texas and Ohio State over the past two seasons. This could incentivize teams to not schedule early-season "cakewalk" matchups.
Expansion would also bring more campus host games for students to enjoy, even if those matchups usually end up being blowouts by halftime.
With no immediate changes to the format coming soon, the CFP Board of Managers has time to develop the best solution for this era of college football-one that provides stability and continuity to the sport.