Why a 24-Team College Football Playoff Would Destroy the Sport’s Soul

The College Football Playoff is on the verge of a seismic shift—and if the latest proposal to expand to 24 teams becomes reality, the sport may never be the same. Critics have long warned that bigger doesn’t mean better, and the Ohio State Buckeyes have become the poster child for why more playoff spots would actually cheapen the entire enterprise. As industry insiders and former players sound the alarm, the debate over expansion has never been more urgent.

The Case Against a 24-Team Playoff

Expanding the College Football Playoff from its current 12-team structure to a 24-team behemoth is, in the words of many analysts, a disastrous overcorrection. The current format already struggles with lopsided first-round matchups—games that are decided before the opening kickoff. Think back to Penn State’s rout of SMU two years ago, Oregon’s demolition of James Madison last year, or Ole Miss cruising past Tulane. Three games, three blowouts. Adding 12 more teams would only amplify the problem, flooding the bracket with three- and four-loss squads that have no business playing for a national title.

Critics argue that the move is driven by television revenue and conference politics, not by what’s best for the game. The College Football Playoff committee has already expanded once—from four teams to 12—and the growing pains are still fresh. Now, a 24-team format threatens to turn the postseason into a bloated lottery where regular-season excellence is all but erased.

Ohio State’s Dominance Exposes the Flaw

No program better illustrates the danger than Ohio State. Former Buckeye legend Bobby Carpenter recently hosted Sporting News Senior Writer Bill Bender on the BIGPLAY network to dissect the proposed 24-team format. Bender noted that Ohio State would have qualified for every single College Football Playoff since its inception in 2014—even with two losses on the resume. “It should be hard to make the playoffs,” Bender said on the show. “It has to be special.”

Under a 24-team system, the Buckeyes would never face a true elimination game in November. That’s not a compliment to Ohio State’s consistency—it’s a indictment of a format that removes any margin for error from the regular season. If a powerhouse like Ohio State can coast into the postseason with two losses, what incentive does any team have to treat each Saturday as a must-win? The answer: very little.

The March Madness Misconception

Proponents of expansion often point to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament—March Madness—as a model. But the comparison is fundamentally flawed. College basketball’s regular season is famously forgiving; teams can drop four or five games and still secure an at-large bid. That chaos is a feature, not a bug, because the sport has been built around that reality for decades. College football, by contrast, is defined by its scarcity. Every game carries immense weight. A single loss can derail a championship bid. That tension is what makes Saturdays in the fall so electric.

“We love March Madness because it’s all we know,” one industry analyst observed. “But applying that logic to football ignores the fundamental difference: football has half as many games. Every play matters more. Expanding the playoff would turn the regular season into a glorified preseason, and that joy of the unpredictable Saturday would vanish.”

The numbers back that up. Since 2014, only 28% of College Football Playoff participants have had two or more losses. Under a 24-team bracket, that percentage would skyrocket, welcoming teams with three or even four losses into the national conversation. That’s not parity—it’s mediocrity.

What’s at Stake for the Regular Season

The most compelling argument against expansion is the impact on the sport’s weekly product. College football’s identity is built on the ritual of fall Saturdays—rivalry games, conference clashes, and the knowledge that every snap has postseason implications. Expanding the playoff to 24 teams would dilute that drama. Why tune in for a mid-October matchup between two ranked teams if both are virtually guaranteed a spot in the field? The stakes evaporate.

Bobby Carpenter’s show captured the sentiment perfectly: “The regular season is the heartbeat of college football. Adding more playoff spots doesn’t just change the postseason; it changes the way we watch every single game.”

To be clear, a measured expansion—say, to 14 or 16 teams—might preserve some of that tension. But the leap to 24 represents a wholesale philosophical change. It’s an all-in bet on quantity over quality, and the potential fallout is devastating: lower television ratings for regular-season games, diminished bowl traditions, and an increasingly fragmented college football landscape.

The Future of College Football

The 24-team format is, by all accounts, “well on the way to becoming a reality,” according to multiple reports. Conference commissioners and network executives see dollar signs in a larger playoff, but the cost may be the soul of the sport. As Bill Bender put it, “It has to be special.” And nothing about a 24-team free-for-all feels special.

If the sport’s leaders proceed down this path, they risk turning college football into a watered-down entertainment product—one where the regular season is merely a dress rehearsal for an endless postseason. The Buckeyes, and programs like them, will always find a way into the bracket. But the millions of fans who love college football for its imperfect, high-stakes Saturdays may find themselves looking elsewhere for the drama that once defined the game.

Disclaimer - All celebrity-related content, information, and images on this website are based on publicly available online sources and AI-generated insights/data. Information such as biography, age, career, personal details, and images may change without notice over time. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or timeliness of any information or imagery displayed on this website. This content is provided for general informational purposes only.