Analyzing Alternative Formats
When the 4-team playoff was first introduced in 2014 and was expanded to a 12-team field in 2024, there were those who suggested other formats. Some say an 8-team playoff would have satisfied the modernization of college football, while others think 12 teams is satisfactory. However, we already see that the 12-team field is flawed. The SEC and Big Ten proposed different solutions. The SEC and Big Ten both agreed a 16-team format would be reasonable, but with different approaches. The SEC and Big Ten intially both agreed with mutliple automatic qualifiers before the SEC pivoted to a majority at-large bid with a 5+11 format. The Big Ten continued with multiple automatic qualifiers for the 16-team and 24-team playoff fields, but have also recently introduced an at-large model for the 24-team field with a 23+1 format. You'll likely ask: Why do I not favor the alternative smaller playoff fields? Let me explain why I do not favor these alternative formats.
8-Team Playoff
The 8-team solution is most of the fans' favorable solution. They feel that 8 teams is a good number because they see that no more than 6-8 teams are in contention for a National Championship.
Why an 8-Team Field Falls Short
There is a reason why the CFP expanded from 4 to 12 teams in 2024. Lower divisions have already tried an 8-team playoff in the past. Here is why 8 teams is still not enough:
- History proves it's unstable. Division I FCS tried it for exactly ONE season (1981) before expanding
- Too exclusive with 10 FBS conferences; multiple conference champions (including power conferences) would be excluded
- Would provide only 5.8% playoff access (8/138 = 5.8%), even worse than the current 8.7%
- No NCAA division has found 8 teams sustainable long-term
12-Team Playoff
The CFP officially expanded to 12 teams in 2024. However, each of the two seasons provided flaws to why the 12-team playoff didn't work. Both seasons have the following in common:
- Conference championships become redundant when both conference championship game participants can potentially become playoff-bound (2024 and 2025 saw both the SEC and Big Ten Champion and runner-up in regardless)
- Bye teams struggle with long layoffs (1-7 record in quarterfinals)
- Teams 13-16 have legitimate exclusion grievances
- Only 5 conferences get autobids out of 10—arbitrary selection
- Access is shrinking as FBS grows (9.0% in 2024 → 8.8% in 2025 → 8.7% in 2026)
Controveries in the 2024 and 2025 Seasons
The 12-team playoff also provided controversies as well. In the 2024-25 playoff field, the top four conference championships earn a bye to the quarterfinals. This means that even if the 3rd of 4th highest ranked conference champions are not in the top four, they would still earn a first round bye. Mountain West Champion Boise State and Big 12 Champion Arizona State earned the top four seeds despite both ranking outside of the top five.
The 2025-26 playoff fixed it with straight-seeding. However, it didn't come without controversy. While the top eight teams were settled, the final two at-large spots came down to three teams. Notre Dame was ranked ahead of Alabama and Miami (FL) for the majority of the regular season. However, after the regular season finale, the committee decided to rank Alabama ahead of Notre Dame, ranking Alabama at #9 and Notre Dame at #10, while Miami (FL) was still slighty behind at #12 and BYU was ranked #11. Concluding the conference championship games, the committee decided to give Alabama the penultimate at-large bid despite Alabama and BYU losing their conference championship game in blowout fashion. Basically, the committee did not penalize Alabama, but decided to penalize BYU by dropping them down one spot, leaving the final at-large bid to Notre Dame or Miami (FL). The committee gave Miami (FL) the final at-large spot, and along with BYU, Notre Dame was completely left out of the playoff field. Notre Dame decided to opt out of the bowl game after being snubbed from a playoff spot.
Notre Dame deciding to not participate in a bowl game made major impact in the college football landscape. Basically, if the team does not make the playoffs, they can decide to decline bowl invitations. For conferences, they can issue out fines to teams deciding to not participate. In 2024, the Sun Belt fined Marshall $100k for opting out of a bowl game. The Big 12 fined Kansas State and Iowa State $500k for opting out of bowl games in 2025. Because Notre Dame football was an Independent, they are free to opt out of the bowl game without reprucussions even though most of their other sports are in the ACC (except for Men's Ice Hockey, which is in the Big Ten).
12-Team Field Stays, but With Costs
The 12-team field stays for the 2026 season. However, the rules that went into effect for the 2026-27 CFP provided more exclusivity that favors the power conferences. For the 2026-27 field, the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, and SEC Champions automatically get in, while the highest ranked non-power FBS conference champion would get the final automatic bid. In addition, Notre Dame would earn an automatic bid if it ranks within the Top 12 of the final regular season rankings. Guaranteeing them access while capping non-power conferences at one bid is indefensible. The new CFP rules essentially say: "We'll give one non-power conference a pity bid, guarantee Notre Dame access regardless of merit, and reserve the other 10 spots for power conferences." This is all about protecting power conference revenue.
The SEC and Big Ten provided solutions to resolve issues present in the 12-team CFP. However, the solutions provide completely different directions for solving the problem. Let's look at why the 16-team and the 24-team solutions come up short.
16-Team Playoff
The SEC and Big Ten both proposed a 16-team playoff. However, they had different visions. Initially, both were open to utilizing multiple automatic qualifiers.
The Initial Proposal
Initially, the SEC and Big Ten proposed 14 teams, where the multiple automatic qualifier would have looked like the following:
| Conference | Number of Bids |
|---|---|
| ACC | 2 Automatic Bids |
| Big Ten | 3 Automatic Bids |
| Big 12 | 2 Automatic Bids |
| SEC | 3 Automatic Bids |
| Non-Power FBS | 1 Automatic Bid |
| At-Large | 3 At-Large Bids |
Big Ten's Solution
The Big Ten pushed it a bit further with multiple automatic bids. The new automatic bid composition would be the following:
| Conference | Number of Bids |
|---|---|
| ACC | 2 Automatic Bids |
| Big Ten | 4 Automatic Bids |
| Big 12 | 2 Automatic Bids |
| SEC | 4 Automatic Bids |
| Non-Power FBS | 1 Automatic Bid |
| At-Large | 3 At-Large Bids |
SEC's Pivot
In the 2025 SEC Spring Meetings, the SEC coaches were not in favor of the multiple automatic qualifiers. The SEC then proposed a different 16-team format. The 16-team playoff would utilize the 5+11 format. When the other conferences have heard of the format, they were all in favor of the 5+11 format. Overall, this is the better 16-team solution.
A 16-Team Field is Still Not the Best Solution
I am still not in favor of a 16-team playoff regardless. Here is why I'm not in favor:
- Impossible math with 10 conferences
- Big Ten's Proposal: Multiple auto-bids for power conferences, but still only leaving one automatic bid for the non-power FBS conferences
- SEC's proposal: 5 power autobids + 1 non-power FBS autobid + 11 at-large (which non-power FBS conference feasibly gets the autobid? Creates arbitrary selection)
- If all 10 conferences got autobids: only 6 at-large spots remaining, which is insufficient for power conference depth
- Either excludes conferences (two-tier system) or squeezes at-large opportunities (insufficient merit-based selection)
24-Team Playoff
The 24-team format is the Big Ten's solution. However, the Big Ten continued to double on multiple automatic bids, but also provided a 23+1 solution.
Big Ten's Multiple Automatic Bid Proposal
The automatic bid composition for the 24-team field would be the following:
| Conference | Number of Bids |
|---|---|
| ACC | 4 Automatic Bids |
| Big Ten | 4 Automatic Bids |
| Big 12 | 4 Automatic Bids |
| SEC | 4 Automatic Bids |
| Non-Power FBS | 2 Automatic Bids |
| At-Large | 6 At-Large Bids |
Big Ten's 23 + 1 Proposal
In February 2026, the Big Ten also was considering a 23+1 proposal. The composition of the 23+1 system would look like the following:
| Conference | Number of Bids |
|---|---|
| Non-Power FBS | 1 Automatic Bid |
| At-Large | 23 At-Large Bids |
The 23+1 proposal is considered the better one. However, both still devalue conference championships as well continue to still undermine the non-power FBS teams as they would only have one guaranteed bid.
The Bye Week Layoff Problem
If we still want to keep the Army-Navy game as the stand-alone regular season finale, a 24-team playoff with the top 8 teams receiving first-round byes still creates massive and unequal layoffs:
If conference championship games are kept:
- Teams with byes that played in championship games: 3-week layoff (championship game → bye → second round)
- Teams with byes that didn't play in championship games: 4-week layoff (regular season finale → bye → second round)
- First-round teams that played in championship games: 2-week gap (championship game → first round)
- First-round teams that didn't play in championship games: 3-week layoff (regular season finale → first round)
Even if all conference championship games are eliminated:
- Teams with first-round byes: 3-week layoff (regular season finale → bye → second round)
- Teams playing in first round: 2-week gap (regular season finale → first round)
The rust problem: Extended layoffs cause rhythm and timing issues. In the current 12-team playoff, teams with first-round byes have gone 1-7 in quarterfinals (excluding Indiana). A 3-4 week layoff is even worse than the current 2-3 week gap.
Other Problems with 24 Teams
- The gap between seed 8 (bye) and seed 9 (no bye): This becomes the new controversy, just shifted from "who gets in" to "who gets the bye"
- Conference championship games and play-in games become completely redundant: With the conference champion and conference runner up both making the playoffs for at least most power conferences, the confercence championship game and conference play-in games are meaningless for playoff qualification
This is why eliminating conference championship games is recommended—to create consistent scheduling and avoid these layoff disparities. However, even with championship games eliminated, the 3-week bye period in a 24-team format still creates significant competitive imbalance.
Summary: The 24-team format attempts to solve the Big Ten's access concerns but creates worse problems: unequal layoffs, bye-induced rust, undermined conference championships (whether with multiple automatic bids with conference play-in games making the solution worse or the 23+1 format), and massive competitive imbalance. The elixir is worse than the disease.
The Multiple Automatic Bid Problem
Why Multiple Autobids Don't Work
The Big Ten's intent to double down on multiple automatic bids is an extremely bad idea. Not all teams who finish in the top two, three, or four in each power conference are the top 16 teams. In addition, implementing play-in games for the playoffs would make the problem much worse. What if at least one of the top three or four teams in the Big Ten or SEC finished with four losses or worse or there was a three-way tie for third in the SEC or Big Ten (regardless of play-in games)? The play-in games should be a complete non-starter.
I understand that the playoff field would be more appealing if only power conferences are the only teams to have access to automatic bids. However, it would be completely unfair to leave out the non-power FBS teams for automatic bids. The SEC did redeem themselves by doing a better job of proposing a better format. They proposed a 5+11 format, which would still reward the best teams into the field and has gained support from nearly all the FBS conferences. The Big Ten, however, remained stubborn and still wanted multiple automatic bids.
The Unpredictability Problem
Automatic bids are basically the way of saying, “Regardless of how good or bad your regular season goes, you’re in if you meet this one said criterion.” If you try to do multiple automatic bids for at least one conference, what if at least one of those top four teams in a said conference had at least four losses? Take a look at the Big East in 2010. The top three teams in the Big East all went 8-4 by the end of the regular season. UConn went on to win the conference’s automatic bid for a BCS bowl game despite being unranked in the final BCS standings. Power conferences also had history of at least one of the top three teams finishing with more than two losses. There is no guarantee that every season would play out the way you wanted it to.
The Big Ten’s continued push for the multiple automatic bid proposal does not cover unexpected surprises. It can cover seasons where the power conferences do well, but not when at least one of the power conferences have a run of at least one surprising down season. At the same time, it does not cover seasons where non-power FBS conferences can potentially have a run where they have at least one surprising elite season. In general, power conferences can be like non-power FBS conferences where they can have a run where they have at least one down season. Once again, there is no guarantee that every season would play out the way you wanted it to.
The Big Ten's 24-team proposal includes 4 automatic bids per power conference (Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12), which creates fundamental problems:
- Undermines conference championships: If 4 teams per conference automatically qualify, winning your conference provides minimal advantage over finishing 4th
- Removes meritocracy: A 9-3 team finishing 4th in the Big Ten gets an autobid while an 11-1 team from another conference competes for at-large spots
- Creates massive inequity: 16 power conference autobids vs. 2 non-power autobids = formal two-tier system
- Only 6 at-large spots total: With 16 power autobids + 2 non-power autobids = 18 autobids, leaving only 6 at-large spots for the entire rest of FBS
In an ideal scenario, every conference champion should have a chance to make the playoffs (yes, even non-power FBS conferences). If they make it, they should also have a chance for a National Championship. Power conferences having multiple automatic bids is a terrible idea. It doesn’t matter how much someone claims that their conference is the best and/or toughest. If a team in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, or ACC finishes 4th in the conference standings despite going 7-5, 6-6, or even 7-6, that 7-5, 7-6, and/or 6-6 team would automatically get in over a more deserving team that is 9-3 or 10-2.
The Equity and Funding Problem
College football is definitely the biggest money maker out of all the collegiate sports. However, non-power FBS conference teams need money to be able to fund their athletic departments as well as getting media exposure. What would happen if you decide to take more postseason opportunities (to play for a national championship) away from those schools by only providing one or two automatic bids to the entire non-power FBS conference pool? Especially if power conferences could go to a conference only regular season schedule, the non-power FBS teams are going to eventually have to give up on fielding a football team (or in the absolute worst-case scenario, permanently shut down their universities) because of the lack of funding and media exposure. You may think, “too bad for them”, but that mindset will only add insult to injury.
The Calendar Problem
Finally, we need to talk about the calendar problem. While the SEC and the Big Ten do agree that the playoff needs to expand, they did not address the late ending to the postseason.
4-Round Playoff Schedule Problem
If a 12-team field continued to happen or the SEC's 16-team solution was implemented, the CFP schedule would look like the following:
| New Year's Falls On | First Round | Quartefinals | Semifinals | Championship |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunday | Dec. 16 and 17 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 2 | Jan. 12 and 13 | Jan. 23 |
| Monday | Dec. 15 and 16 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 11 and 12 | Jan. 22 |
| Tuesday | Dec. 14 and 15 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 10 and 11 | Jan. 21 |
| Wednesday | Dec. 20 and 21 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 9 and 10 | Jan. 20 |
| Thursday | Dec. 19 and 20 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 8 and 9 | Jan. 19 |
| Friday | Dec. 18 and 19 | Dec. 30 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 14 and 15 | Jan. 25 |
| Saturday | Dec. 17 and 18 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 13 and 14 | Jan. 24 |
Big Ten's 5-Round Playoff Schedule
If a 5-round playoff were to happen without adjusting the regular season nor postseason, the CFP schedule would look like the following:
| New Year's Falls On | First Round | Second Round | Quartefinals | Semifinals | Championship |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunday | Dec. 9 and 10 | Dec. 16 and 17 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 2 | Jan. 12 and 13 | Jan. 23 |
| Monday | Dec. 8 and 9 | Dec. 15 and 16 | Dec. 30 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 11 and 12 | Jan. 22 |
| Tuesday | Dec. 7 and 8 | Dec. 14 and 15 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 10 and 11 | Jan. 21 |
| Wednesday | Dec. 13 and 14 | Dec. 20 and 21 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 9 and 10 | Jan. 20 |
| Thursday | Dec. 12 and 13 | Dec. 19 and 20 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 8 and 9 | Jan. 19 |
| Friday | Dec. 11 and 12 | Dec. 18 and 19 | Dec. 30 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 14 and 15 | Jan. 25 |
| Saturday | Dec. 10 and 11 | Dec. 17 and 18 | Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 | Jan. 13 and 14 | Jan. 24 |
The Big Ten's proposed 24-team field for the CFP also did not address the late ending to the postseason despite their positive plan to eliminate conference championship games. As mentioned earlier, with the Army-Navy stand-alone game still in the equation, there would still be layoff disparities for teams that play in the first round vs teams that get a bye to the second round.
Media analysts like Joel Klatt have called the bloated timeline "stupid," as extended layoffs hurt competitive performance and push the championship deep into late January competing with NFL playoffs. With the Big Ten's 24-team field, the bloated timeline would go from 7 weeks to 8 weeks after the selection show.
Why I Strongly Recommend 32 Teams
Overall, each of the alternative proposed formats provide flaws:
| Format | Playoff Access % | Major Flaw(s) | Who It Favors |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 Teams | 5.8% | Too exclusive; excludes conference champions | Top 8 programs only |
| 12 Teams | 8.7% | Bye problems; redundant championships; arbitrary selection | Current compromise (no one) |
| 16 Teams (5+11) | 11.6% | Arbitrary non-power FBS selection; or insufficient at-large if all 10 get autobids | SEC preference |
| 24 Teams (multiple autobids; 23+1) | 17.4% | Massive layoff problems; undermines conference championships; inequitable | Big Ten preference |
| 32 Teams | 23.2% | None—solves all problems | Entire FBS ecosystem |
The 32 team playoff field solves all these problems. It would provide the following:
- 10 autobids for all conference champions (access and equity)
- 22 at-large bids (merit-based selection, sufficient for power conference depth)
- No byes: everyone plays the same number of games (competitive balance)
- Top 16 teams seeded with home-field advantage (rewards regular season)
- 23.2% playoff access (though more generous than Division I FCS, Division II, and Division III Football, it is still in line with NCAA Division I norms of 18-28% in Olympic Sports)
- Playoff lasts no more than 6-7 weeks in five rounds (as long as Division I FCS)
- Playoff ends no later than Friday or Saturday, January 14
-
Follows proven precedent:
- Division II football just expanded to 32 in 2025
- Division III football has done 32 teams from 2005-23 until expanding to 40 teams to make room for at-large bids