College Football Playoff Expansion Is A Solution Searching For A Problem

As the echoes of last season’s College Football Playoff (CFP) still ring through locker rooms and fan bars, a storm brews at the top. Power-hungry college sports executives are barreling ahead with a 16-team playoff plan — but few can explain why.

The 12-team CFP model, implemented just last season, was met with praise. It diversified the bracket, introduced on-campus playoff games, and gave deserving programs from across the country a shot at glory. Yet, even before fans could settle into the new format, SEC and Big Ten leaders started lobbying for another expansion — this time to 16 teams.

Their reasoning? That’s where things get blurry.

Unlike the NFL or NBA, which expanded their playoffs for tangible benefits like increased revenue and competitive balance, the NCAA’s logic seems rooted in self-interest and vague complaints. From SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey to NCAA President Charlie Baker, the rhetoric sounds like a boardroom echo chamber: We need change… because we need change.

At the heart of the madness is March Madness itself. Baker floated the idea of expanding the 68-team NCAA basketball tournament, citing snubs like Indiana State in 2024. But these snubs have always been part of the game — a reality accepted by all but those on the losing side of the bubble. The truth is, any expansion would likely favor large power conferences, not the overlooked mid-majors the expansion is supposedly designed to protect.

And the payoff? Hardly worth the noise. TV networks aren’t offering massive new deals for a few extra games between .500 teams. The revenue per team per round ($2 million) could even drop if diluted across more bids — potentially hurting the very schools expansion aims to uplift.

The CFP situation is even more puzzling. The 12-team format already delivers: access for all power conference champions, representation for Group of Five programs, and eye-popping matchups. But still, the SEC, bruised by only placing three teams in last year’s field, is pushing a narrative of injustice — even though their own schools underperformed in key matchups.

One anonymous administrator even mused about the SEC and Big Ten creating their own playoff, an idea that sounds more like an empty threat than a logistical plan. Such a split would invite political, legal, and operational chaos — far more than the current structure, which already hands these conferences the lion’s share of playoff revenue.

As college sports barrels toward unnecessary expansion, the actual problems remain unsolved: skyrocketing costs, NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) regulation uncertainty, and a student-athlete welfare structure still catching up to professional-level demands. But instead of addressing these, leaders are laser-focused on imaginary slights and the illusion of progress.

In essence, they are, as Francis Fukuyama might put it, “struggling for the sake of struggle.” Without a just cause, they invent one — and college football is about to pay the price.

Let’s be clear: A 16-team playoff might bring more games, but not better football. It risks watering down the regular season, devaluing bowl games, and stretching athlete schedules even thinner. All while failing to provide the financial or competitive uplift that would justify such disruption.

Expansion should be strategic, not reactionary. If last season’s 12-team playoff worked — and by most measures, it did — why not let it breathe? Why not fix what’s broken instead of tampering with what’s not?

Because in the corridors of college sports power, doing something often feels more important than doing the right thing.