Key Points
Bullet point summary by AI
- Mike Elko claims coaches push for College Football Playoff expansion to secure their jobs. However, a larger field will not actually prevent firings.
- College football remains strictly results-based. Just making the playoff is not enough. Humiliating playoff losses can actually accelerate firings.
- Expectations at elite programs won't change. Expansion offers no true safety net, so intense fan scrutiny and sudden coaching firings will continue.
For those in college football who don't want to see College Football Playoff expansion, Mike Elko just became the golden child. Bama Hammer called him the "new conscience for college football" for his criticism of coaches who support expansion. "Mike Elko is a real one," Josh Pate proclaimed. "This is the right freaking attitude. Perfect answer. Love it," Ari Wasserman gushed.
Sorry, not sorry to be the wet blanket here, but are we serious? Here's exactly what Elko said when asked about expansion talk:
"What does Mike Elko want? 40. Then I won’t get fired."
The Texas A&M head coach also said, "It's ok to make it hard to get to the playoff," while accusing coaches of being selfish by wanting expansion for their own job security.
College Football Playoff expansion won't save any coach's job
You know what else is ok? Taking two seconds to think about how much job security would actually be gained by the average head coach in an expanded playoff. I call into question the sanity or intelligence of any head coach who supports a 24-team playoff because they think it will improve their job security any more than just winning games. Because guess what? It won't save any jobs. In fact, it'll probably cost more jobs than it saves.
College football is a results-based business. Wins are results, not bids to bowls or the CFP. A bid is your ticket in. What you do once you're there will always matter above all else. Right now there are a bunch of coaches who didn't make the playoff who are better off for it because a painful CFP loss would've been gasoline on their seat.
Would Lincoln Riley's seat be cooler if USC got into the playoff as the No. 16 seed? Not really. Hell, it'd be hotter than hell if he got into the playoff and then lost a first-round home game to former Pac-12 rival Arizona.
Was Kalen DeBoer sitting pretty just because Alabama made the CFP field this past season? Were Crimson Tide fans content with their team being on the fringes? No, they were calling for the head coach's head. What saved DeBoer more than anything was winning a playoff game. And even then, he's not the most popular figure in Tuscaloosa. Bama doesn't play for consolation prizes.
Winning a playoff game or two would still be the key to job security, not just getting a bid. And for programs like Alabama, USC and Texas A&M, it's not enough to be in the field. You have to be able to win it all. Ryan Day was regularly making the playoff, and his job approval was abysmal before he won a championship. James Franklin's playoff wins weren't enough to spare his job in 2025.
So I hate to break it to Elko, but the playoff could expand to 64, and he'd still very much get fired if he didn't produce acceptable results.
There are good reasons to be against an expanded playoff. There are also good reasons to be in favor of it. The idea that coaches will have better job security isn't among the reasons on either side of the argument.
More college football news and analysis:
Add us as a preferred source on Google