A 24-Team Playoff Could Change What Makes College Football Special

The dust from the College Football Playoff’s last expansion hasn’t even fully settled and yet the sport is already arguing about the next overhaul.

That’s where things stand as the SEC gathers this week, and the noise around expansion is only getting louder.

The newest idea floating around is a jump to 24 teams. On paper, it sounds like a simple math problem. In reality, it’s a reminder that nobody in college football agrees on what the playoff is supposed to be.

Coaches love the idea. More spots mean more security, more chances to point to a postseason appearance, and fewer seasons that get labeled disappointments (i.e., better job security).

Broadcasters aren’t nearly as excited. ESPN has spent years trying to keep the bowl system relevant, and doubling the playoff field would push bowls even further into the background.

The SEC, though, is taking its time. Commissioner Greg Sankey didn’t sound rattled by the push for 24 when he spoke Monday, and he didn’t sound in a hurry to commit to anything either.

“Doesn’t bother me,” Sankey said. “People tell me that, but I don’t know if you pay attention in college sports. Positions seem to change a lot.”

That’s about as close as you’ll get to a shrug from the league office. Sankey made it clear the SEC isn’t locked into a number.

“I’m not an opponent of 24 or 28,” he said. “We have to have informed decision-making. I think we did a good job informing our position last year on 16. We’ll consider other ideas, certainly, this week and moving forward.”

The real hesitation comes from what happens to the regular season.

College football already made a massive leap from four to 12. That was a decade‑long argument settled in one swing.

Expanding again, and doubling the field this quickly, risks turning Saturdays into something they’ve never been in this sport: optional.

Sankey pointed out that every major pro league expanded slowly. One team here, one round there. College football skipped the baby steps.

“You want to be careful about how far you go,” he said. “A game that may not have that same type of leverage, if you will, or that same type of value because both teams could be in the playoff.”

That’s the concern. If half the country knows it’s getting in, the urgency that makes the sport special fades.

And even if you expand, the same arguments stay in place. The last team out will always complain. The first team in will always insist it could win the whole thing.

We’ve already seen what happens when teams that aren’t built for that stage get thrown into it. Tulane and James Madison were great stories last year, but their first‑round games showed the difference between being good enough to qualify and good enough to compete.

More teams won’t fix that. It’ll just create more mismatches.

So, the sport has a choice to make. Is the playoff supposed to reward the elite? Is it supposed to be a wide‑open tournament? Is it a television product first and a competition second?

Right now, the answer depends on who you ask.

But if the goal is to protect the regular season while still giving more teams a path, doubling the field overnight probably isn’t the answer.

The SEC seems to understand that.

The rest of the sport might want to slow down and think about it too.