College Football's 24-Team Playoff: Are We Rewarding Winners or Making Excuses for Losers?
College Football's 24-Team Playoff: Are We Rewarding Winners or Making Excuses for Losers?
By Ovi Muniz | All 4 Downs Podcast | The Real Talk Playbook
November 9, 2026
More Teams, More Opportunities, but More Questions
College football is entering another historic chapter. Beginning with the 2027 season, the College Football Playoff (CFP) will expand from 12 to 24 teams. This change promises more postseason football, more opportunities for programs to compete for a national championship, and potentially some of the most exciting playoff matchups we have ever witnessed.
At first glance, I welcome the expansion. College football has grown beyond the days when only a handful of programs were considered legitimate national championship contenders. More teams deserve opportunities to prove themselves on the field.
However, after reviewing ESPN's article about the new playoff format, I have serious concerns about the direction college football is heading.
My biggest concern is simple: Are we expanding the playoffs to reward successful football teams, or are we expanding them to protect Power Four programs from the consequences of losing?
An athletic director's recent comments raised that very question.
When Did a Quality Loss Become a Good Thing?
In ESPN's discussion of the new playoff format, a Power Four athletic director suggested that programs should feel more comfortable scheduling difficult nonconference opponents because a loss against a powerhouse should not necessarily prevent them from reaching the playoffs.
The athletic director stated:
"If you win a game like that, it's an unbelievably valuable win, and if you lose a game like that, it's quite a good loss that shouldn't penalize you."
That statement caught my attention.
I understand the philosophy behind scheduling difficult opponents. College football needs more matchups between powerhouse programs. Games featuring Ohio State against Texas, Georgia against Notre Dame, or Alabama against Miami create excitement and give fans a better understanding of which teams can compete against elite competition.
But I strongly disagree with the idea that a loss should not penalize a team.
A loss is a loss.
Yes, losing to the nation's top-ranked team is different from losing to an unranked opponent. The quality of competition should be considered when evaluating a team's overall résumé.
However, strength of schedule should provide context for a loss, not turn that loss into an accomplishment.
If a team schedules three elite opponents and loses all three games, should it receive more recognition than a program that schedules two elite opponents and defeats both?
Absolutely not.
Playing difficult competition demonstrates a willingness to challenge yourself. Defeating difficult competition demonstrates that you belong among the best.
There is a significant difference.
We cannot allow college football to develop a system in which teams receive more credit for losing to recognizable programs than other teams receive for winning football games.
Strength of Schedule vs. Strength of Record
One of the biggest problems with the College Football Playoff selection process has been the inconsistent application of strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and overall team performance.
Strength of schedule is important. I have argued that repeatedly on the All 4 Downs Podcast.
However, strength of schedule should never become more important than the actual results of those games.
Consider a hypothetical example.
Ohio State finishes the season 9–3, losing to three nationally ranked opponents.
Boise State finishes 12–1, wins its conference championship, and defeats two ranked opponents.
Which team deserves the higher playoff ranking?
The answer requires examining the entire résumé. But Ohio State should not automatically receive the advantage simply because its conference schedule included more recognizable opponents.
The committee must evaluate who each team defeated, who defeated them, how they performed, and what they accomplished throughout the season.
Head-to-head competition must also matter.
If Texas defeats Ohio State and both teams finish with comparable records, Texas should receive a significant advantage in the selection process.
Otherwise, what was the purpose of playing the game?
College football cannot claim that every Saturday matters while allowing committee members to overlook the actual results of those Saturdays.
Strength of schedule tells us how difficult the road was. Strength of record tells us how successfully a team traveled that road.
Both matter, but victories must remain the foundation of a championship résumé.
The Power Four Problem: Who Really Benefits From Expansion?
The new 24-team playoff format creates additional opportunities, but the qualification structure raises another major concern.
Under the announced format, automatic qualification is provided to the champions of the four major conferences: the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and Big 12.
One additional guaranteed position goes to the highest-ranked qualifying representative from the remaining six FBS conferences, commonly referred to as the Group of Six.
That leaves 19 at-large positions.
On paper, those positions are available to deserving programs regardless of conference affiliation.
But how many Group of Six teams will realistically receive an invitation?
That is the question college football administrators must answer.
Imagine a playoff field featuring seven SEC teams, seven Big Ten teams, four ACC teams, four Big 12 teams, Notre Dame, and just one Group of Six representative.
That would satisfy the basic 24-team structure, assuming the teams met the selection requirements.
But would that represent the best 24 teams in college football?
Not necessarily.
What happens when a Group of Six program finishes 12–1, wins its conference championship, and defeats multiple quality opponents, only to be passed over for a Power Four program with three or four losses?
Would the committee argue that the Power Four program played a tougher schedule?
Would it point to quality losses?
Would the infamous eye test once again determine which teams receive opportunities?
This is exactly where my concerns begin.
If expansion simply creates additional playoff positions for established powerhouse conferences, then college football is not truly expanding opportunity.
It is expanding access for the programs that already enjoy the greatest advantages.
The Group of Six deserves meaningful consideration, not merely a ceremonial invitation to participate.
Should Three- and Four-Loss Teams Make the Playoffs?
With 24 teams participating, it is reasonable to expect programs with three losses to receive playoff invitations. Depending on the season, a four-loss program could also enter the conversation.
I am not suggesting that every three-loss team should automatically be eliminated.
There are circumstances in which a three-loss team could have a stronger overall résumé than a one-loss team.
For example, a 9–3 SEC program with victories over several nationally ranked opponents might deserve consideration ahead of an 11–1 team that has not defeated a single ranked opponent.
But that argument must be supported by evidence.
The problem begins when conference affiliation becomes the primary justification.
A three-loss team should not receive preferential treatment simply because its losses came against Alabama, Georgia, or Ohio State.
And a one-loss team should not be dismissed simply because it competes in the American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, or another conference outside the Power Four.
The selection committee should be required to explain why a team with three or four defeats deserves a position ahead of a program that consistently won throughout the season.
Winning football games must still mean something.
Otherwise, we risk creating a postseason in which losing becomes increasingly acceptable as long as those losses occur against the right opponents.
Are We Diminishing the Regular Season?
One of the greatest traditions in college football is the importance of the regular season.
For decades, a single loss could dramatically change a team's national championship aspirations.
Every Saturday carried consequences.
An upset in September could influence the championship race in December. A rivalry game in November could determine whether a team remained in contention.
That urgency made college football special.
Now, with a 24-team playoff, programs may enter the season knowing that three or even four losses will not necessarily eliminate them.
Does that reduce the significance of individual games?
Potentially.
The expansion does create another important incentive: finishing among the top eight seeds.
Those teams will receive a first-round bye and host a second-round playoff game. That advantage should encourage elite programs to compete for the highest possible ranking throughout the season.
However, the committee must ensure that those rankings are based on accomplishments rather than reputation.
The regular season should remain a competition in which victories improve a team's championship opportunities and defeats have meaningful consequences.
If losing repeatedly no longer carries significant consequences, then the regular season risks becoming little more than an extended qualification tournament.
That is not the direction I want college football to take.
The Selection Committee Must Be Held Accountable
My criticism is not directed at expansion itself.
I support creating more opportunities for deserving teams.
My concern is the selection process.
The committee has repeatedly faced criticism over the application of strength of schedule, head-to-head results, conference championships, and the eye test.
Expanding from 12 to 24 teams does not eliminate those concerns.
It potentially magnifies them.
Instead of debating which team deserves the final position in a 12-team playoff, we will now debate which teams deserve positions 20 through 24.
The committee must establish and consistently apply a transparent standard.
Here are five principles I believe should guide the selection process:
Head-to-head results must carry significant weight. When comparable teams have played each other, the winner should receive a meaningful advantage.
Strength of schedule must be evaluated alongside actual victories. Playing elite competition matters, but defeating elite competition matters more.
Conference championships must carry meaningful value. Winning a conference championship should represent an accomplishment, not merely a statistic on a résumé.
Group of Six teams must receive fair consideration. A program's conference affiliation should not automatically determine its postseason ceiling.
The committee must publicly justify controversial selections. If a four-loss team is selected over a one-loss conference champion, fans deserve a detailed explanation supported by consistent criteria.
The committee should not be able to hide behind subjective terminology when making decisions that determine which programs can compete for a national championship.
The eye test alone is not enough.
Results matter.
The Best 24 Teams, Not the Biggest 24 Brands
The College Football Playoff should represent the best teams in the country.
Not the programs with the largest television audiences.
Not the universities with the most financial resources.
Not the conferences with the most political influence.
And certainly not the teams that receive the most sympathy for losing difficult games.
The objective should be to identify the 24 programs with the strongest championship résumés.
That requires examining victories, defeats, head-to-head competition, conference accomplishments, and the overall quality of opponents.
It also requires recognizing that outstanding football programs exist outside the Power Four.
Boise State, Tulane, Memphis, James Madison, and other programs should have a legitimate opportunity to demonstrate that they belong when their results justify consideration.
College football benefits when deserving underdogs receive opportunities to compete against established powers.
Those matchups create unforgettable moments and help demonstrate that championships are earned rather than inherited.
If the new playoff system cannot provide meaningful opportunities beyond the traditional powerhouse programs, then expansion will have failed one of its most important tests.
Fourth Down Takeaway: Expand Opportunity, Not Excuses
The 24-team College Football Playoff represents an exciting opportunity to improve the sport.
More playoff games mean more competition, greater national interest, and additional opportunities for programs to pursue a championship.
But more teams do not automatically create a better championship system.
The quality of the selection process will ultimately determine whether expansion succeeds.
I want to see Ohio State play Texas.
I want to see Georgia challenge Notre Dame.
I want to see Alabama schedule difficult nonconference opponents.
Those games are tremendous for college football.
But I also want the results of those games to matter.
If Ohio State defeats Texas, reward Ohio State for the victory.
If Texas defeats Ohio State, reward Texas.
And if either program loses, that defeat must remain part of its résumé.
We should not transform losses into accomplishments simply because the opponents are nationally recognized programs.
The same standard must apply to every team, regardless of conference affiliation.
A 12–1 Group of Six champion deserves a legitimate evaluation against a 9–3 Power Four program.
A head-to-head victory should not disappear because the losing team has a more recognizable brand.
And a conference championship should not be ignored because another program played a more difficult schedule but failed to win its biggest games.
My final question to the College Football Playoff committee is this: Are you selecting the 24 teams that earned the opportunity to compete for a national championship, or are you selecting the 24 teams you believe television audiences want to watch?
Those are two very different objectives.
College football deserves a system that rewards achievement, respects competition, and gives every deserving program a fair opportunity.
Because the ultimate measure of a football team should never be how impressive its losses look.
It should be what that team accomplished on the field.
Expand the opportunity. Not the excuses.
Reward the victories. Respect the results. Make every team earn its place.
That's my Fourth Down Takeaway.
All 4 Downs Podcast | The Real Talk Playbook
Where the rankings get challenged, the numbers get examined, and the game always comes first.
Join the conversation: Do you support the 24-team College Football Playoff? Should a three- or four-loss Power Four team receive an invitation ahead of a one-loss Group of Six conference champion? And how much weight should the committee place on quality losses?
Visit realtalkplaybook.com for more college football analysis, rankings, predictions, and commentary.
Source
ESPN, College Football Playoff 24-Team Format FAQ, November 2026.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/50433738/cfp-playoff-24-team-format-faq