College football fans have spent years arguing about how many teams should make the College Football Playoff. First, four teams weren’t enough, then the field expanded to 12, and now the possibility of a 24-team playoff has people fired up all over again.
I’m going to take a side that might not be popular with everyone. I believe a 24-team College Football Playoff will be a massive success, and it could end up being one of the best changes college football has ever made.
Sure, there are legitimate concerns about expanding the postseason, and I understand why some traditionalists aren’t thrilled. But when you look at the bigger picture, there are several reasons to believe this format could make college football more exciting than ever.
More Teams Will Have Something Meaningful to Play For
The biggest reason I support a 24-team playoff is simple: More teams will have something meaningful to play for deeper into the season. That is an enormous positive for a sport where one or two early losses can currently make a team’s championship hopes feel practically nonexistent.
Think about a team sitting at 6-2 heading into November. Under a smaller playoff format, that team might already be looking ahead to a bowl game that very few people outside its fan base will care about.
With 24 playoff spots available, however, that same team could still have a legitimate opportunity to make the postseason. Suddenly, every remaining game matters, and fans have a reason to remain invested in their team’s season.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti has advocated for a 24-team playoff format, with one of the central arguments being that more programs would remain involved in the national championship conversation. That makes perfect sense, especially in a conference like the Big Ten, where teams face difficult schedules and even strong programs can accumulate multiple losses.
College football is better when more fan bases have a reason to believe their team is playing for something significant. A 24-team playoff would accomplish exactly that.
The Regular Season Will Still Matter
One of the loudest arguments against expanding the playoff is that it will somehow make the regular season meaningless. I couldn’t disagree more, because there would still be enormous advantages to finishing among the highest-ranked teams.
Under the 24-team proposal, the top eight seeds would receive first-round byes, while teams seeded ninth through 16th would host opening-round playoff games. Those incentives would make the difference between finishing near the top of the rankings and barely making the field extremely significant.
Consider the difference between finishing No. 7 and No. 17 in the country. One team could earn a bye and a home playoff game, while the other would face a much more difficult road just to remain alive.
That makes regular-season victories incredibly valuable, particularly in November when teams are fighting for favorable postseason positioning. It also means those late-season rivalry games could have major implications for playoff seeding.
Does anybody seriously believe Michigan and Ohio State fans would suddenly care less about The Game simply because both teams might qualify for the playoff? I certainly don’t, and I have a feeling those rivalry games would become even more intense when postseason positioning is added to the equation.
As we previously examined, potential changes to conference championship games could also alter the stakes of traditional rivalries. That creates another interesting dimension to an already compelling regular season.
Imagine the Upsets We Could See
If you want to understand why a 24-team playoff could become wildly popular, just look at March Madness. The NCAA basketball tournament has become one of the most exciting sporting events in the country because fans love watching unexpected teams make improbable runs.
Nobody expects every team in the basketball tournament to win a national championship. What makes the event so entertaining is knowing that a lower-seeded team can pull off a stunning upset and completely change the bracket.
Now imagine bringing more of that excitement to college football. A No. 20 seed could travel into a hostile stadium, knock off a higher-ranked opponent, and suddenly become one of the biggest stories in the country.
Would those upsets happen every year? Probably not, but the possibility alone would make those games must-watch television.
The best part is that many of these games could take place on college campuses rather than neutral fields. Imagine a December playoff game at Michigan Stadium with snow falling, more than 100,000 fans going crazy, and a national championship opportunity hanging in the balance.
That is the kind of atmosphere that makes college football special. Giving fans more opportunities to experience those moments is something I will support every single time.
Michigan and Michigan State Could Both Benefit
For Michigan football fans, the potential benefits of an expanded playoff are obvious. The Wolverines regularly play demanding Big Ten schedules, and a larger field would give them more opportunities to overcome an early-season setback.
As we previously discussed, Michigan’s playoff outlook took a significant hit following its early-season loss to Iowa. In a 24-team format, that type of defeat would not necessarily eliminate a talented team from the national championship conversation.
That doesn’t mean Michigan should automatically make the playoff with three or four losses. It means the Wolverines would have a greater opportunity to prove they belong by playing well down the stretch.
Michigan State could also benefit tremendously from expansion, particularly if the Spartans can eventually return to consistently winning eight or nine games. Instead of needing a near-perfect season to even dream about the playoff, Michigan State could realistically compete for a postseason berth.
That would create additional excitement for programs attempting to build themselves back into national relevance. For Michigan State and other schools in similar situations, making the playoff could become an achievable goal rather than a distant dream.
More Playoff Games Mean More Must-Watch Television
There is another reason I believe a 24-team playoff will be an enormous success, and it has everything to do with television. More postseason games with legitimate championship implications would give college football fans additional high-stakes matchups during December and January.
Ask yourself a simple question: Would you rather watch a relatively meaningless bowl game where several players have opted out, or a playoff game where the winner advances and the loser goes home? I know which one I would choose, and I suspect the overwhelming majority of college football fans would agree.
The expanded playoff would also create major opportunities for television networks, advertisers, and the conferences themselves. Although the financial side of college sports has become increasingly complicated, there is no denying that additional meaningful games could generate enormous interest and revenue.
Of course, money should not be the only factor driving postseason decisions. But if expansion creates a better experience for fans while also generating additional financial resources for college athletics, I don’t see why that should automatically be considered a negative.
Yes, There Will Be Blowouts — So What?
One criticism I keep hearing is that expanding to 24 teams would produce too many mismatches. There would undoubtedly be some lopsided games, but that is hardly a reason to abandon the idea.
We already see blowouts in college football’s biggest regular-season games, conference championships, and playoff matchups. Even the national championship game has occasionally been completely one-sided, yet nobody argues that we should stop playing it.
The reality is that not every playoff participant will be capable of winning a national championship. That has always been true in postseason sports, and it doesn’t make the competition any less entertaining.
Sometimes the favorite will dominate, and sometimes an underdog will make things much more interesting than anyone expected. That uncertainty is precisely why fans watch sports in the first place.
Player Safety and Scheduling Must Be Priorities
I do believe there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed before a 24-team playoff becomes reality. Adding more postseason games could place additional physical demands on players, particularly those making deep playoff runs.
College football officials would need to be thoughtful about scheduling, recovery time, and the overall length of the season. They would also need to consider how an expanded playoff affects conference championship games, academic calendars, and the postseason structure.
Those are important issues, but none of them are necessarily reasons to reject expansion altogether. With proper planning, college football can create a larger and more exciting playoff while still making player welfare a priority.
The 24-Team Playoff Could Take College Football to Another Level
When I look at the potential 24-team College Football Playoff, I don’t see a format that will ruin the sport. I see an opportunity to make more regular-season games meaningful, give more programs a realistic shot at postseason success, and create unforgettable moments in December and January.
Will everybody be happy with the final rankings? Absolutely not, but fans already argue about which teams deserve to make the playoff, and that debate isn’t going anywhere regardless of how many spots are available.
What matters is the opportunity to create more meaningful football games with championship implications. And with the possibility of underdog stories, incredible campus atmospheres, and even more postseason drama, I believe the expanded playoff could become one of the most entertaining events in all of sports.
A 24-team College Football Playoff won’t be perfect, but I believe it’s going to be a massive success. And I have a feeling many of the fans criticizing the idea today will be glued to their televisions when those first-round games finally kick off.