College Football Playoff Expansion: What You Need To Know About The 24-Team Model

All that matters is whether the SEC and Big Ten agree. Momentum around a potential 24-team College Football Playoff has accelerated in recent weeks, with the ACC, Big 12 and Notre Dame now joining the Big Ten in support of an expanded format. But during a recent episode of “The Joel Klatt Show,” FOX Sports lead college football analyst Joel Klatt explained why what feels inevitable to many around the sport may still be far from finalized. For all the public momentum behind expansion, Klatt explained that the future of the CFP still hinges on the two conferences with the most power — the SEC and Big Ten — and whether the former is beginning to soften its resistance to a larger field. Here’s everything to know about where the current 24-team CFP model sits: The ACC, Big 12, Notre Dame and the AFCA were all against a 24-team College Football Playoff. Then, over the last 10 days, everyone changed course except the SEC. Why? Klatt: First and foremost, it’s important to understand why the ACC and Big 12 opposed previous expansion models, particularly the one initially put forth by the Big Ten. Those formats relied heavily on automatic qualifying spots, in some cases granting four bids each to the SEC and Big Ten while offering fewer guaranteed spots to the ACC and Big 12. The ACC and Big 12 were never going to support a model that effectively asked them to acknowledge they were lesser conferences. Their objection was never really about expansion itself. It was about unequal access. What those conferences opposed was a system that locked in preferential treatment for the SEC and Big Ten through automatic qualifiers. So when the Big Ten came to the table with a new model — one that eliminated automatic bids in favor of a selection-based format featuring the 23 best teams and one Group of 6 representative — it immediately piqued the interest of the other conferences and was more in line with what they were looking for. Most fans are against College Football Playoff expansion. Why? Klatt: There is a real element of frustration amongst fans when it comes to this proposed 24-team model, and here are some of the main reasons why: • The 12-team model worked The 12-team model absolutely worked, there’s no doubt about it. And while it might seem to some that the 24-team playoff seems inevitable at this point, that’s actually not the case because in reality, it doesn’t really matter what the Big 12, ACC or Notre Dame back. It only matters what the SEC and the Big Ten agree upon. Those two entities actually control the future of the CFP. The others gave them the right to have that power, and they will control this playoff remaining as it is or expanding to 14, 16 or 24. If the SEC and Big Ten had agreed on an automatic-qualifier expanded playoff, it would have happened by now, against the wishes of the other conferences. But they weren’t aligned, and they still aren’t aligned. So, because of that, we are sitting in a very similar spot as we were before where this is not inevitable. If the Big Ten and SEC do not agree on a model, which they don’t right now, then nothing is going to change. • This would ruin college football’s regular season There is an argument being made that college football has the most important regular season in all of sports, and I don’t disagree with that. That sentiment is not wrong. We see this with the NCAA Basketball Tournament, which is now expanding beyond 70 teams, so what would stop college football from expanding beyond 24? If there’s more revenue at 24, isn’t there more revenue at 32? I get this argument, and I don’t think it’s wrong. I think the only answer to that is — format. A lot of the regular season and the importance of the regular season would be determined based on the format. How many byes are there? How many home games are there? If you can get a bye or a home game, you’re going to play hard. • Teams will rest starters late in the season This one is highly debatable. As a former college football player, I will tell you first hand that college football players have a very limited window to go and play, in particular if they want to further their career after college football. So, those games matter. It’s not like the NFL where a guy has a long-term contract, and he’s resting for a couple of weeks, and he knows he’s gonna play for a few more years. College football is unique in its small window for the participants to go and compete. What impact have NIL and the transfer portal had on College Football Playoff expansion? Klatt: If it weren’t for NIL and freedom of movement, the 12-team model probably wouldn’t have been the success it is now. In the four-team era, we would have looked at a 12-team model and thought, “Who cares? The 13th-ranked team would never win a championship.” But with NIL, the transfer portal and the agency players now have to move around, roster parity has increased. Now, there are more than 12 teams capable of competing for and winning a national championship. What role do bowl games have in College Football Playoff expansion? Klatt: Bowls don’t mean anything anymore. It pains me to say that because I loved bowl season. Now, all the upper-to-middle class bowls in college football — it doesn’t matter. All these bowls that were fantastic — the Alamo, Gator and Citrus Bowl — all these bowls that could define a program as successful, that’s no longer available. The collapse of the bowl apparatus is real. Who is driving College Football Playoff expansion? Klatt: Coaches and athletic directors are driving this. The SEC and Big Ten are going to drive this. It’s not just Tony Petitti (Big Ten commissioner) and Greg Sankey (SEC commissioner). It’s the people who they work for. It’s the presidents of those institutions that are ultimately going to have the final say. Coaches and athletic directors are now trying to convince their presidents that they need this expansion because what they fear is that the middle class is going to stop investing. And once they stop investing, then we lose the parity in college football, which we all love. The coaches’ viewpoint is this: They want a wider definition of success, and with that comes a desire to shorten the season. They want conference championship games to go away, and that is a major piece of this conversation. In fact, that’s one of the primary reasons the proposed model expanded beyond 16 teams to 24. Why is a 24-team model being proposed, and not a 16-team model? Klatt: If you get rid of conference championship games — which you would have to do in order to finish the season around Jan. 1 — you then have to recoup the revenue those games generate. So in order to expand the playoff and eliminate conference championship games, you’d need to increase the value of the CFP. You can’t really do that with a 16-team model because it only adds a handful of games, and those games likely wouldn’t command enough value to offset the loss of the conference championship revenue. I don’t think the conferences are looking to break the bank with an expanded playoff. This isn’t about generating another billion dollars. They’re trying to recover the money they’d lose by eliminating conference championship games. I think a lot of these conference commissioners would sign off on a 24-team CFP even if they only broke even financially, because it would broaden the definition of success across the middle tier of their conferences. In their minds, that would create more meaningful regular-season games, particularly late in the year.