The SEC is holding its annual meetings in Destin this week, and one of the biggest topics is the idea of a 24-team College Football Playoff. The Big Ten was the first league to propose it, and over time the concept has won converts left and right.
The only league not to have endorsed it is the SEC, which is now the only league that could realistically stop it. Greg Sankey has said he’s good with sticking with the current 12-team format or going as large as 16. He’s been cracking the door open for 24 more recently, but he’s not ready to sign off on anything yet.
What’s the push for a 24-team playoff all about? It’s a few different things.
There are some in the broadcast industry who want it to happen. Namely, anyone who’s not ESPN. The current CFP contract is such that if the bracket contains no more than 14 teams, then ESPN gets to continue being the exclusive broadcaster of the playoff. If the format goes beyond 14, then the additional games go to the open market.
Disney, ESPN’s parent, probably does not have either the money or the willingness (or both) to pay what it would take to maintain exclusivity. It’s already sub-licensing playoff games to TNT Sports as it is.
Fox Sports certainly wants to get in on the playoff. Turner has already bought its way in, and CBS and NBC likely would at least look at bidding for some of the contests. I wouldn’t bet on any pure streamers getting in on it, as none of them have been willing to pay what it would take for this premium of fare, but you never know.
So that’s one force for expansion. Another is that coaches want it to happen. Within the SEC, Kirby Smart and Josh Heupel have already spoken out in favor of a 24-team shindig.
Smart’s argument was that it would be good for the fans, but don’t be fooled. The coaches are all good enough politicians to try to phrase their support in magnanimous terms, but they want an expanded field because they think it’ll be good for their job security.
Take Shane Beamer at South Carolina. He’s feeling some heat after a disappointing 4-8 finish in 2025. But the year before, he had a nice 9-3 regular season that culminated in a Citrus Bowl loss. That’s still a good campaign for the Gamecocks despite the postseason result.
However, think about how it sounds rephrased as, “but the year before, he made the playoff”. Sounds a lot better, right? And his team would indeed have been in the bracket as the 15-seed had a 24-team format been in play with strict poll-based seeding.
It’s not only coaches. Among conference commissioners and athletic directors stumping for 24, the term you hear over and over is “access“. A bigger field means more access to the postseason.
College football programs are putting more money into their operations than ever. Revenue sharing with athletes means there is fundraising to be done to fill in that hole, and NIL is still very much a thing to get teams over the rev share cap that the House settlement created. Some of that NIL is legit stuff like big national brands signing up well known athletes, but a lot of it is still the same sorts of more local establishments that donated in the past putting their money up for the team.
There are real concerns that the money faucets may begin to falter or run dry if there aren’t any premier results to point at. Because again, while there are some real NIL deals being done to promote businesses via celebrity endorsements, a lot of it is just pay-for-play. And if the play isn’t turning into playoff appearances, how much and how long will someone pay for it?
It’s become obligatory for programs to talk about how they’re stepping up their monetary suport for their coaches. Places that were previously laggards on the player compensation front have gotten religion on it, whether to save a sinking regime (Luke Fickell at Wisconsin) or to boost a splashy hire (James Franklin at Virginia Tech). Going to 24 would double the number of programs that can point to a playoff appearance as proof of ROI.
While the coaches and admins aren’t wrong, it only works to a point. The Orlando Magic just fired head coach Jamahl Mosley after a disastrous ending to the team’s playoff series. Merely getting into a larger playoff isn’t a guarantee of job security. I mean, if Ryan Day makes the 24-team field three years in a row but as a seed in the 20s, then his employment might not survive that.
That factor goes to programs too. Think of it this way: the number 24 is notably close to the number 25. Plenty of programs don’t care that much about merely finishing in the final poll if that poll slot is in the bottom five or ten in the rankings. They’re exactly the sort of programs that are all-in, pouring north of $30 million to $40 million into rosters alone. Exactly the ones where showing ROI is critical. Again, do you think all the oil barons in Texas will be happy with their squads being the 19-seed instead of a New Year’s Day bowl participant? Does the word “playoff” alone move that needle?
What you do in the playoff matters, as Mosley could tell you. A surprise run from a seed in the late teens into the quarterfinals would give a coach and a program a real boost, and they might tell you they’re only asking for a chance at that. Which, fair enough. But that’s not going to happen regularly unless free transfers and player compensation flatten the talent level around the sport even more. They might, but they haven’t yet.
A playoff expanded to 24 would also mean the end of conference championship games, which is another reason the SEC is reluctant here. The original is still the best, and it hasn’t been a stumbling block for real national title contenders in the way that some others have been.
Losing conference championship games would be a continuation of the trend of the sport going from regional to national, along with the playoff itself and coast-to-coast conferences. It could, and probably will, result in shared titles among teams that didn’t play, but that funnily enough would be something of a throwback. Before the advent of the SEC Championship Game, there used to be shared conference titles once or twice a decade. Usually, though not always, the co-champions didn’t play each other.
The SEC has the deciding vote on the issue. Even with every other conference lined up against it, because FBS governance is largely a two-entity vote between the Big Ten and SEC, Sankey can still stop the expansion from happening.
I think the 12-team playoff has largely been a success, and I don’t think anyone left out of it would’ve been capable of winning a title. I would rather let the current format get some run for a while before leaping to 24.
Any boost to a coach or ROI claim that comes from someone making it in a 24-team format where they wouldn’t in a 12-team format is a temporary sugar high. Fans and big money boosters aren’t dumb; they’ll see right through someone trying to take a victory lap for “making the playoff” if it’s as a 21-seed that loses to the 12-seed in the first round. To programs where such a thing would matter, like Vandy last year, winning ten games or simply finishing in the top 15 of the polls can deliver the same benefit.
That’s what I think, but no one asked me. I’m in the same boat as you are, waiting to see where Sankey will finally land.