One of the most pressing questions facing Texas football is whether a 9–3 Longhorns would make the playoffs. In other words, can Texas afford another loss?
Judging by the recent College Football Playoff rankings, it is possible. But if the Longhorns find themselves in a similar situation next year, it is likely we won’t even be having this conversation. Texas would be in without a complete end-of-season meltdown.
Last month, ESPN’s Pete Thamel reported that the CFP is nearing a deal to expand the format to 24 teams after just three seasons of the 12-team format.
While there are certainly positives to another expansion, I have my reservations about what it could mean for the identity of college football.
One of the biggest positives I see is that a playoff expansion will incentivize teams to schedule tougher nonconference opponents. Since multiple teams with multiple losses will get in, there will be more of an emphasis on a team’s schedule strength when the committee is choosing the at-large bids. Teams that lose those tough matchups won’t necessarily be punished for playing them. We want to see those Southeastern Conference versus Big Ten games in the first couple weeks of the season, and that will be assured in the new format.
On paper, another expansion matches the trajectory of college football. Historically, college football has been a sport where only a handful of teams are legitimate contenders. With the implementation of Name, Image and Likeness and the transfer portal, things have evened out a bit for teams. Being a blue blood no longer guarantees championship aspirations. A larger playoff could give more mid-level programs a legitimate opportunity to compete and see that NIL investment come to fruition.
I also love the idea that a larger playoff creates more postseason games on college campuses.
However, even though a 24-team playoff will undoubtedly give teams more access, I am not sure it would create more legitimate championship contenders.
An argument being made in favor of expansion is that it would become a March Madness-style tournament, creating more opportunities for deserving teams. I love March Madness because top seeds can get knocked out early and Cinderella stories emerge.
But college basketball and football are completely different.
In basketball, the talent gap is less impactful because with smaller rosters, it only takes one, maybe two guys to become hot at the right time. In football, winning high-caliber games requires more depth and experience across an entire roster.
As I said, NIL helps distribute the talent, but significant gaps still remain between the top programs and everyone else. Giving more teams the opportunity to compete in the playoffs doesn’t automatically mean more teams will have a realistic chance to win a title.
Those gaps will be glaring, and fans don’t want more playoff games if the outcome is another round of lopsided matchups.
What makes college football so special is that every game — every Saturday — feels like a must-win. Under the four-team format, even one loss could derail a team’s aspirations. Under the 12-team playoff, two or three losses can put a team on the outs.
At the end of the day, teams will always try to win, but an expanded format would take away much of the urgency and the high-stakes feeling that made every Saturday special. Fans are always on the edge of their seats because the margin for error is so small.
For example, Notre Dame must beat Miami this weekend to stay in contention. Next year, a matchup like this wouldn’t carry the same weight.
It fundamentally strips away part of college football’s identity.
I don’t mean to be a staunch college football traditionalist, and there are certainly arguments for both sides, but this expansion feels like another step away from what makes college football so unique. Expansion for the sake of expansion and money are not good enough reasons for me.
