Conference Titles Gone? More Home Playoff Games? Klatt’s Pros, Cons Of 24-Team CFP

What does the expanded 24-team College Football Playoff do for the future of college football? On the latest episode of “The Joel Klatt Show,” FOX Sports’ Joel Klatt argues the new format that kicks off in 2027 has both pros and cons worth considering. The current 12-team format – introduced in 2024 – added new locations for playoff games and rewards for top-seeded teams that will stay intact in the new system, including home playoff games and first-round byes. However, doubling the teams in the postseason raises concerns about competition level, who gets in with what records and how the regular season has to play out. Here are Klatt’s pros and cons of the 24-team CFP. Klatt kicked off his list of pros by arguing that the regular season would bring in more valuable competition. Especially as some top-tier teams enter conference play with perfect records against uneven opponents, ranked matchups add a competitive element to the selection process and would not harm teams who play those games. “I think there’s an expansion of the value of the regular season, a great Ohio State, Michigan matchup of two undefeated teams, the loser is not kept out of this version of the college football postseason.” Klatt said on Tuesday’s episode of “The Joel Klatt Show”. “So there is some toothpaste already out of the tube as it relates to the very top-end games in our sport and what they used to mean in the old model and what they currently mean in this model.” On top of Klatt’s argument, teams with undefeated records and heavier non-conference slates, compared to teams that played top-25 teams earlier in the season, could be heavily rewarded, even if their records are identical. Sticking with that idea: the first few weeks of the college football season are filled with non-conference games that let teams get a headstart on their CFP campaign. For example, if No. 6 Ohio State makes the CFP with one loss, they have a strong case: their loss was to a top-25 non-conference opponent in Texas, not an unranked Group of Six team scheduled before conference play. For Klatt, teams would have to shift to a more competitive non-conference slate, forcing more top-ranked, non-conference opponents to truly build stronger playoff résumés. “There will be agreements in place between the major conferences to play games that matter in the non-conference, and I think that that is a great thing. We don’t want to play all the directional schools. We don’t want to do that in college football,” Klatt said. “What we want to see is Texas vs. Ohio State. We’d love to see Georgia vs. Oregon. We’d love to see Michigan, Alabama. We want to see these games. And I believe that the way that things are going and the structures that will be in place, those games will not only happen, but they will be mandated.” The final pro Klatt listed was the increase in home playoff games. While the 12-team format allowed four home playoff games, the 24-team format would allow eight. For Klatt, adding more home games rewards top-seeded teams with a home environment in front of its own fanbase, rather than a neutral site, first-round bye weeks before a game. “I think a huge pro is more playoff games on campus. If you’re a great team, you should get home games in the postseason. Right now, that is not currently the model. If you’re a top-four seed, you have a long layoff until basically New Year’s, and then you have to play on a neutral site. I believe that that’s totally unfair,” Klatt said. Especially when the top-seeded teams get both a first-round bye and a neutral-site game, Klatt argued that the neutral site has been a disadvantage on paper. Beyond rewarding the teams, a home environment creates a home atmosphere for college football fans. “In fact, in the two seasons that we’ve seen the 12-team format, we’ve only had one team get a bye and win, and that was Indiana last year against Alabama in the Rose Bowl. So more home games, more on-campus games in the playoffs, I think, is a good thing,” Klatt said. “You, as a fan, have a greater influence over the outcome of these games, and you don’t have to pay exorbitant travel costs to go and do it.” The new expanded format ends another regular-season staple. The 24-team format will likely take away conference championship games. Although conference championships gave teams a near-guaranteed playoff spot, losing the title game meant tacking on another loss. Klatt argues conference championships are a disadvantage for coaches aiming for a CFP bid, especially if a loss is seen as a tax on a team’s playoff résumé. “Another con is conference championship games going away. That will happen. The championship games will go away. And here’s the deal: the coaches don’t want to play the conference championship games anymore,” Klatt said. “What is the conference championship game actually right now? It’s a tax on the best teams in the sport because they’ve got to go and play an extra heavyweight matchup that is not really going to impact them all that much.” Although the 12-team format paves the way for more teams to earn a bid, it became clear that some teams rightfully earned that expanded playoff spot. Last season, the Sun Belt’s James Madison finished the season 12-1 in the regular season and scored 34 points against then-No. 5 Oregon in its first-round CFP game, the most points the Ducks had allowed up to that point. Even if the 12-team format has shown that the playing field can be spread out without diluting quality, Klatt argues that the 24-team format might be too big, and not every contender can win a national championship. “‘Hey, Joel, are there 24 teams that can actually win a national championship?’ The answer is no. The answer is no … There are not 24 teams that can win a national championship,” Klatt said. “In the old system, there weren’t many that had the opportunity at a national championship, and a lot of people loved that. And there were fewer of these games, which meant everything for the national championship run.” The current model gives teams as few as three losses a chance, even if one comes from a conference game or against a top-ranked opponent. However, the 24-team model is big enough to give teams with four losses a fighting chance to compete in the CFP. For Klatt, the expanded format almost guarantees that consistent top-10 teams like Georgia and Notre Dame get a spot. But he also argues it gives unnecessary space to teams that can still be rewarded despite four losses. “Let’s face it: if 8-4 is going to get into the College Football Playoff, is there ever going to be a year when Ohio State and Georgia and maybe even Notre Dame are not in the CFP? And the answer is no. And that’s the best argument against expansion. We shouldn’t be rewarding 8-4,” Klatt said. Last season, Alabama was the only team to earn a playoff bid with three losses, including a third loss in the SEC title game to Georgia. When a team like Notre Dame, which finished with two losses, was left out of the CFP, Alabama’s selection became controversial because of its three defeats. Klatt also emphasized the shift toward expansion, given the sport’s changing landscape. “I would agree with you in this sentiment that 8-4 doesn’t deserve a spot in the College Football Playoff, but the sport is changing. If we actually look at the way that the sport has evolved, if you go back, and you look over the last few years, what you’ll see is that the number of 8-4 teams that are even making it into the top 25 is actually dwindling,” Klatt said. “So why is that? Well, that’s the case because I think that we have tamped down the quality of the top of the sport.”