The momentum is building for the expansion of the college football playoff to 24 teams. A lot of people are really excited about this. But then there's the argument we've all been hearing: "Don't expand the college football playoff. It makes the regular season less meaningful." The basis of this argument seems to be that if there's a pie that represents the importance of all the college football games, the more playoff games there are taking slices of that pie, the smaller the slices will be for the regular season games.
Before I say anything else, I want to say that I respect people who think this. Meaningfulness depends on your perspective. If you find that college football is more meaningful to you when the playoff is smaller than when it's bigger, that's totally valid. It is not up to me to tell you how to feel, and logical arguments don't always necessarily change how you feel.
That being said, just because some people feel this way doesn't mean everyone else has to, and the data shows that most people don't. Using the data from d1ticker.com, I found that the average attendance at regular-season games actually went up by about 44 fans per game between 2023, the last year of the four-team playoff, and 2024, the first year of the 12-team playoff. That's not very much, but there have been a lot of seasons in the past 20 years where the average attendance has gone down (and I don't just mean 2020), so the fact that it didn't go down when the playoff expanded demonstrates that it did not cause people to lose interest in the regular season.
The other part of the argument is that expanding the playoff will make certain games matter less. For example, if two top 5 teams are facing off in the last week of the regular season, that game may indeed be more important if there's a 4-team playoff than if there's a 12 or 24 team playoff. But what about other games involving teams ranked lower? Those games would obviously be more important. Is it worth the tradeoff? Let's find out.
Let's go through all of the games in the last week of the 2025 regular season involving ranked teams and decide whether they would've mattered more if the playoff had 4 teams, 12 teams or 24 teams:
2 Indiana vs. Purdue: If Indiana had lost this game, they may have fallen out of the top 4, but definitely not the top 12 or top 24, so to those of you who don't want to have the playoff expanded, congratulations. A game involving the worst team in the Big 10 would've been more important if the playoff was 4 teams. (4 teams: 1, 12 teams: 0, 24 teams: 0)
3 Texas A&M vs. 16 Texas: For Texas A&M, this game would've been more important if the playoff was 4 teams for the same reason it would've been for Indiana. However, for Texas, it's a completely different story. Even though winning this game wasn't enough to get the Longhorns into the 12 team playoff, it easily could've gotten them in if the other games had gone differently. Plus, it's not like this game was meaningless for Texas A&M because losing this game did cost them their SEC title hopes and their first round bye. (There is the argument that a first round bye is a disadvantage because only one of the eight teams who have gotten first round byes have won their quarterfinal game, but automatically making it to the quarterfinals is definitely better than having to beat a ranked team to make it to the quarterfinals.) I will take a game that has playoff implications for both teams over one that only has playoff implications for one of the teams any day. They obviously both would've been safe in a 24 team field, so I'll go with the 12-team playoff for this one. (1-1-0)
4 Georgia vs. 23 Georgia Tech: This time, we've got a team playing for the top 4 against a team playing for the top 24. Again, it's more exciting when the game has playoff implications for both teams, so I'll go with the 24-team field. (1-1-1)
7 Ole Miss vs. Mississippi St: A lot would've had to go right for Ole Miss to make it to the top 4. They would've needed to make the SEC title game, which would've required multiple teams at the top of the standings to lose, and then they would most likely have been the underdogs in that game. Meanwhile, losing to Mississippi St would've most likely knocked them out of the 12-team playoff, so I'm going 12 teams for this one. (1-2-1)
13 Utah vs. Kansas: Utah's odds of making the 12 team playoff at this point were pretty slim, but I don't think losing to Kansas would've knocked them out of the top 24, so I'll go with the 12-team playoff again. (1-3-1)
25 Arizona vs. 20 Arizona St: This is a perfect example of a game that would've been a lot more exciting if the playoff was 24 teams. (1-3-2)
1 Ohio St vs. 16 Michigan: Ohio St may have been safe in the playoff no matter how small it was. Meanwhile, if Michigan had won this game, there's a very good chance they would've gotten into the 12 team playoff, so I'll go 12 again. (1-4-2)
5 Texas Tech vs. West Virginia: The Red Raiders did climb into the top 4 as a result of winning this game and beating BYU in the Big 12 title game, and while they could've fallen out of the top 12 with a loss to West Virginia and a loss to BYU, that wasn't very likely, so I will give this one to team anti-expansion. Congratulations. Another game involving one of the worst teams in a conference. (2-4-2)
6 Oregon vs. Washington: Regardless of how this game went, Oregon was probably out of the 4 team playoff and in the 12 team playoff. Meanwhile, Washington could've jumped into the top 24 with a win, so this one's going to team yes-expansion. (2-4-3)
LSU vs. 8 Oklahoma: Oklahoma definitely needed to win this one to make the 12-team playoff. The question is whether or not LSU could've gotten into the 24 team playoff with a win. I think they would have considering all four of their losses were to ranked teams. Plus, a first round bye would've been on the line for Oklahoma, so I'm going to say 24 for this one. (2-4-4)
9 Notre Dame vs Stanford: In my opinion, based on Notre Dame's resume, they should've been closer to the bubble for the 24-team field than for the 12-team field. Their strength of schedule was way too weak for them to have 2 losses and still be ranked as high as they were. But since this committee saw things so much differently than me, they were on the 12-team bubble, so the 12-team playoff prevails for this one. (2-5-4)
10 Alabama vs Auburn: Alabama might have made it into the top 4 with a win in this game and in the SEC championship game, but with 2 losses, it wouldn't have been a sure thing. Meanwhile, a loss in this game definitely would've kicked them out of the 12 team playoff, so that's our winner for this one. (2-6-4)
UCF vs. 11 BYU: While there's a legitimate case to be made that BYU deserved to be in the top 4 if they won this game and beat Texas Tech in the Big 12 championship, I don't think it would've happened. This game was much more likely to make a difference for the 12 team playoff. (2-7-4)
12 Miami vs. 22 Pittsburgh: Similar to Notre Dame, I think Miami should've been closer to the bubble for the 24-team playoff based on their record and strength of schedule. (In my mind, the fact that they made it all the way to the championship is irrelevant because it should be about your record and strength of schedule, not how far people think you can make it in the playoff.) But again, I have to do this based on where they were ranked, not where I think they should've been ranked. However, Pittsburgh was on the 24-team bubble, and their hopes of making it to the 24-team playoff almost certainly hinged on this game, and again, I prefer games that have playoff implications for both teams, so we're going 24. (2-7-5)
14 Vanderbilt vs. 19 Tennessee: Regardless of the outcome of this game, both teams would most likely have been in the 24 team field but not in the 12 team field. I'll take two teams playing for seeding in the playoff over two teams unlikely to make the playoff any day, so 24 wins this one as well. (2-7-6)
UCLA vs. 17 USC: USC had no chance of making the 12 team field, and losing to UCLA may or may not have knocked them out of the 24 team field, so team 24 wins hands down. (2-7-7)
Virginia Tech vs. 18 Virginia: The only reason this game had any implications for the 12 team field was because Virginia had the opportunity to win the ACC and get an automatic bid. Losing this game may or may not have knocked them out of the 24 team field. I could go either 12 or 24 for this one, so for the sake of argument, I'll go with 12. (2-8-7)
21 SMU vs. California: Just like Virginia, if SMU had won this game, they would've made it to the ACC championship. However, what makes this one different from the Virginia Tech-Virgiia game is that based on where the Mustangs were ranked, it's a lot more clear that they needed to win this game to make the 24-team field, so we'll go with 24 for this one. (2-8-8)
Charlotte vs. 24 Tulane: Regardless of whether the playoff was 12 teams or 24, Tulane, probably needed to win this game and win the AAC title game to make it. Since Tulane would've been one game closer to winning a national title by making the 12 team playoff than by making the 24 team playoff, we'll go with 12 for this one. (2-9-8)
That is all the ranked games, and it looks like team 12 is our winner. However, we also have to consider games involving teams just outside the bubble for the 24 team playoff, and most of those would be unranked teams. Navy vs. Memphis and Temple vs. North Texas probably go into the 12-team category for the same reasons as Charlotte vs. Tulane, but then there's Iowa vs. Nebraska, Houston vs. Baylor, Iowa St vs Oklahoma St, Missouri vs. Arkansas, Wisconsin vs. Minnesota, and Wake Forest vs. Duke, which are all games that could've gotten someone into the top 24. So here's the final tally:
4 teams: 2
12 teams: 11
24 teams: 14
So the moral of the story here is that while expanding the playoff might make a few games less important, there are a lot more games that it makes more important. There are still downsides to expanding the playoff, like the potential for the Power 4 conferences to get multiple automatic bids, or the other bowl games getting lower quality teams, but if the concern is that it makes the regular season less meaningful, there's really no reason to think that. Expanding the playoff will make it so the national championship is more about what happens on the field and less about what happens in a room with committee members, so let's embrace it.
Add us as a preferred source on Google