The conversation about expanding the College Football Playoff to 24 teams has gained momentum, echoing the bold move made by FIFA when it increased the World Cup from 32 to 48 participants in 2022. Proponents point to the surge in competitive matches, surprise upsets and the chance for smaller football nations to shine on the world stage.
The World Cup’s Expansion Model
The enlarged World Cup produced a record number of games, many of which featured dramatic turnarounds and a higher stakes environment for traditionally under‑represented teams. At the same time, critics noted that some group‑stage fixtures lost intensity once qualification was secured, creating matches that seemed detached from the tournament’s prestige.
College football finds itself at a similar crossroads. The playoff’s current four‑team format has been praised for its exclusivity, yet the rapid rise of the NIL era has narrowed the gap between powerhouses and the next tier of programs, leading to more unpredictable outcomes and a growing appetite for additional postseason slots.
The Big Ten, led by commissioner Greg Sankey, is among the most vocal advocates for a 24‑team field, arguing that a larger bracket would reward conference champions and give more schools a realistic path to the national stage. The SEC, while holding a decisive vote, has expressed reservations, fearing that expansion could dilute the significance of earning a playoff spot through performance rather than participation.
A key distinction lies in how teams qualify. The World Cup employs regional automatic slots that guarantee representation from every continent, whereas the playoff’s selection is rooted in rankings and conference affiliations, primarily favoring the Power Five conferences. This difference raises questions about fairness, competitive balance and the sport’s evolving identity.
If the playoff were to adopt a 24‑team structure, the implications would ripple through scheduling, television contracts and the everyday narrative of the regular season. Teams with multiple losses might still find a route into the bracket, potentially reshaping fan expectations and the strategic calculus of coaches throughout the year.
Ultimately, the debate hinges on what the sport values most: the exclusivity and drama of a tightly contested championship game, or the inclusive, expansive journey that mirrors the global appeal of the World Cup. As Chris Vannini, a senior analyst at The Athletic, has observed, the answer may lie less in the numbers and more in the story the sport chooses to tell.