CFP to 16 Teams: Outrage Is a Renewable Resource

[Steamboat Willie]

At this point, playoff expansion feels less like a debate and more like the inevitable next episode ESPN is already scripting.

After this season’s mess, nobody with a straight face can argue the system “worked as intended.” When you’re excluding teams that could plausibly win the title, that’s not scarcity—that’s a math problem. Even the commissioners are now saying the quiet part out loud, which tells you how bad it got.

The real tell isn’t the rhetoric, though—it’s the deadline. ESPN quietly sliding the decision date from December to January 23 isn’t about logistics. It’s about protecting the content pipeline. You don’t kill a controversy that drives ratings; you repackage it with more teams, more brackets, and more studio shows pretending this was the plan all along.

And let’s be honest: ESPN isn’t cutting playoff ranking shows. Ever. They’ll expand the field before they reduce a single Tuesday night “who’s in at No. 11?” panel. Expansion doesn’t solve chaos—it monetizes it.

So yeah, 16 teams is coming. Not because the sport suddenly found clarity, but because confusion tests better on television.

[GoHorns1]

16 teams undoubtedly happened the question is when.

[Steamboat Willie]

39 minutes ago, GoHorns1 said:

16 teams undoubtedly happened the question is when.

Short answer: when ESPN finishes counting the ad inventory.

Longer answer: sooner than later. The deadline slip to January 23 tells you everything—this isn’t about competitive balance, it’s about packaging the chaos without losing a single studio show. Nobody’s walking away from the ratings sugar rush.

Translation: 16 teams is inevitable. The only suspense left is whether they roll it out as a “response to feedback” or pretend it was always part of the master plan.

[Bobby Burton]

It's all about the Benjamins.

[John F.]

I’ve been saying this. No matter the number, don’t expect a fair or transparent system. Ambiguity, controversy, and debate mean ratings. 

[charlie990]

Idc if it's 16 teams or 12 team or 2 teams. No participation trophy spots. Just send the top X best teams there and then seed however you want. A 21-point spread should not sniff a first round matchup what are we doing.

I looked up the data and 88% of all FBS-FBS college football games had a more narrow spread than a first round college football playoff game

Edited 2 hours ago by charlie990

[CHorn427]

I say go to 16 and have an explicit clause making 8-4 teams or worse ineligible. 

I truly think a 9-3 team should be eligible for the playoffs. Allows for a high profile loss in non-con, high profile conference loss and one slip up. Anything beyond that should never be considered. 

[Steamboat Willie]

Go to 16 if you want, but let’s not pretend every résumé deserves a backstage pass. Expansion shouldn’t mean charity. An 8–4 team didn’t “just miss,” it just lost too many games.

Set a floor. Nine wins minimum. That still allows a tough non-con loss, a conference punch to the mouth, and one bad Saturday without turning the playoff into a vibes-based participation bracket.

Otherwise we’re not expanding competition—we’re expanding content. And we already know ESPN’s got that part covered.