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 4 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.

[FaxMachine]

4 hours ago, GoHorns1 said:

16 teams undoubtedly happened the question is when.

I believe it will happen in January for the 2027 season. Believe this current format is for this year and next. 

[FaxMachine]

11 minutes ago, Steamboat Willie said:

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.

The best way to do it is get rid of the committee so you don’t have a guy flip flopping what he says every week. Use BCS formula and if you have to use committee then use it as a replacement for  either the AP or coaches poll that was part of BCS. Take the top 16 according to that

[Alex Butler]

No floor, the best 16 teams get in. It’s very possible that in the SEC with a 9 game conference schedule and a required p4 non-conference game that a team could lose early in the season against good competition and build throughout the season. We don’t want to have record limits set. That’s how we get auto qualifiers for the G5 teams because Duke at 8-5 was ranked below JMU and Tulane. I’d rather see Duke get smoked by Ole Miss than Tulane twice in the same season. 

[Steamboat Willie]

5 minutes ago, Alex Butler said:

No floor, the best 16 teams get in. It’s very possible that in the SEC with a 9 game conference schedule and a required p4 non-conference game that a team could lose early in the season against good competition and build throughout the season. We don’t want to have record limits set. That’s how we get auto qualifiers for the G5 teams because Duke at 8-5 was ranked below JMU and Tulane. I’d rather see Duke get smoked by Ole Miss than Tulane twice in the same season. 

The real solution is boring, logical, and therefore extremely unlikely:

Expand to 16.
Use actual data (BCS-style blends, efficiency metrics, SOS) instead of vibes.
Keep the committee—but handcuff it. Seed the field, don’t decide who’s worthy of oxygen.

Let the best teams in. If Duke gets smoked by Ole Miss, so be it. At least we’re arguing about football results instead of moral philosophy and “deservingness.” Blowouts happen in every playoff. That’s not a flaw—that’s evidence.

And let’s not kid ourselves: no matter how clean the system is, ESPN will still stretch it into seven hours of panels, graphics, and manufactured outrage. Chaos isn’t a bug in the system. It’s the business model.

[ArizonaLonghorn]

5 hours ago, GoHorns1 said:

16 teams undoubtedly happened the question is when.

But what version of it?

Big Ten version of 4-4-2-2-1 (auto-bids for B10, SEC, ACC, B12, G5) + 3 at large?

SEC version with fewer guarantees (not sure what the current proposal is) ?

That seems to be the holdup, deciding on how many auto-bids are doled out.

[GoHorns1]

Also delete the automated  ND crap, tell ND to join a P4 conference immediately or be left out. Everyone plays by the same rules!

[FaxMachine]

45 minutes ago, ArizonaLonghorn said:

But what version of it?

Big Ten version of 4-4-2-2-1 (auto-bids for B10, SEC, ACC, B12, G5) + 3 at large?

SEC version with fewer guarantees (not sure what the current proposal is) ?

That seems to be the holdup, deciding on how many auto-bids are doled out.

Nothing. Get rid of automatic bids, seed by ranking - the auto bids is why a mess gets created. 

Edited 22 minutes ago by FaxMachine

[CHorn427]

1 hour ago, Alex Butler said:

No floor, the best 16 teams get in. It’s very possible that in the SEC with a 9 game conference schedule and a required p4 non-conference game that a team could lose early in the season against good competition and build throughout the season. We don’t want to have record limits set. That’s how we get auto qualifiers for the G5 teams because Duke at 8-5 was ranked below JMU and Tulane. I’d rather see Duke get smoked by Ole Miss than Tulane twice in the same season. 

No, no, no and no. A team that loses 1/3 of their games does not deserve an end of season shot, period. 

[CHorn427]

53 minutes ago, ArizonaLonghorn said:

But what version of it?

Big Ten version of 4-4-2-2-1 (auto-bids for B10, SEC, ACC, B12, G5) + 3 at large?

SEC version with fewer guarantees (not sure what the current proposal is) ?

That seems to be the holdup, deciding on how many auto-bids are doled out.

I say one autobid per p4. It can either be their conference champ, or their highest rated team. Their choice. The team must have 3 losses or less.