Published October 16, 2026 10:41 AM
The best way for any business to balance the budget is to: (1) decrease costs; and (2) increase revenue.
For college football, the effort to cut expenses includes declaring CHAOS! due to the long-belated arrival of free-market forces to the business model and to beg Congress for a license to cheat, through an antitrust exemption. And the strategy for making more money comes from increasing the inventory.
It’s no surprise, then, that the powers-that-be want to expand the size of the College Football Playoff from 12 teams to 24. More games played means more games on TV means more money from the TV network that televises the games. And so, via the TV network that will benefit from turning some of the meaningless bowl games into meaningful playoff games, a deal to double the playoff field is coming. And the 24-team playoff would happen as soon as 2027.
Already, the early rounds of the CFP include more than a few lopsided games. And for good reason. Unlike the NFL, where “Any Given Sunday” (or, more accurately, “Any Given Day Except Tuesday And Most Fridays And Saturdays”) makes every game a potential upset, the quality of the respective rosters at the college level makes blowouts more likely when the best of the best face the good-not-great teams.
Through two years of the current format, there has been only one one-score game in the opening round. And while the first-round winners have done well against higher-seeded teams that emerge from an extended break against a team that struts into the ring with a full sweat, that unintended boost for the round-two underdogs will disappear when the process necessarily compresses.
Under the new format, eight teams would have a one-week bye while the other 16 play, cutting the total field to 16. What’s going to happen when the No. 1 team faces the winner of the game between No. 16 and No. 17? Or when the No. 2 team plays the winner of No. 15 vs. No. 18? Or when the No. 3 team takes on the winner of the No. 14-19 game?
More games won’t mean better games. It’ll mean more frogs to be kissed in the slim hopes that the game will possibly turn into a prince.
The other practical impact will be exposing the best players on the playoff teams to up to five more games before the hay is in the barn as to their entry to the NFL. That increases their chances of getting injured, while also making it much harder to justify the now-common decision to skip a postseason bowl game that doesn’t carry with it the chance to chase a championship.
Why would the players want this? Yes, they’d all like to win a championship, in theory. But they’d also like to be fairly compensated for their efforts while also preserving their ability to be fairly compensated at the next level.
The end result for the players, thanks to the “Protect College Sports Act” and the expanded playoff, will be less money, more work, and enhanced risk of having their draft stock undermined by an injury that happens in one of the extra games.
But that’s where the puck is moving, especially when the players have no meaningful representation in any aspect of this process. Much of that can be traced to the four-letter network that is quietly pushing for the antitrust exemption while more conspicuously pressing for more games that carry a prize more significant than being covered in mayonnaise or grazing on a giant Pop-Tart.