The College Football Playoff appears poised to unnecessarily expand — again. The final number of teams that will participate is going to be arbitrary, as the powers that be feel the sport's postseason tournament can be marketed in a way similar to March Madness. But it's nowhere near that simple.
On Monday, the CFP management committee met to discuss multiple possible solutions to the expansion issue. Should the Playoff grow to 16 teams? What about 24 teams? The debate over both options has raged for months after the relative success of the 12-team format's debut last season. Traditional powerhouses like Ohio State and Georgia were not insulated by their conference affiliation and fell to opponents that got hot at the right moment.
That justifies calling for a happy medium, right? A proposal for a 20-team format that solidifies a 16-team bracket with four play-in games is under consideration as a billed compromise. In reality, though, it'll only confuse fans and butcher the intent of crowning an undisputed champion.
A 20-team CFP won't solve expansion issue and will only worsen current problems
CBS Sports host Josh Pate boiled the intent of the proposed 20-team compromise down to a very digestible (and brutal) truth on his show Monday. He argued that college football's traditional powers are trying to convince fans expansion is the solution to conferences like the SEC being apprehensive to adopting a longer intraconference schedule. Like Pate, fans shouldn't buy that gaslighting.
CFP expansion being the only way to fix scheduling is pure gaslighting
— Josh Pate (@JoshPateCFB) August 10, 2026
Overhaul your CFP rankings process and punish teams who still schedule soft pic.twitter.com/40KoynnB8M
"This is really unpopular with the public," Pate said. "The way you get [less fear of stronger scheduling] is by making sure [the CFP] rankings process properly takes strength of schedule and strength of record into account."
Fans have constantly complained about schools with lesser records being admitted to the CFP over those with more wins. For example, a 10-3 Alabama was admitted over 10-2 Notre Dame in last year's edition, the argument being that, despite the extra loss, the Crimson Tide had a better strength of schedule and record over the Irish. Whichever side of that debate you landed on, the 20-team proposal isn't going to solve another conundrum like that in the future.
Sure, play-in games would give bubble teams an opportunity to earn their way into the bracket, but conferences are only going to agree to that if a regular-season game is chopped off the schedule or conference championship weekend is eliminated completely. Neither option is acceptable in the grand scheme of things.
It's unfortunate nobody wants to stop and let the 12-team format breath — and thrive. No matter how many teams are included, there will always be complaints about those left out. The current March Madness format of 68 teams dealt with those same problems for years, and it panicked this year into adding six more berths for future editions, further devaluing the coveted bubble spots. College football cannot follow the same path into participation trophy territory.
Add us as a preferred source on Google