Recently, the College Football Playoff’s Board of Managers voted unanimously to expand the College Football Playoff from the current four teams to a 12-team playoff. This vote was held on Aug 31 in response to criticisms that the playoff has become repetitive and has excluded deserving teams. This criticism has been echoed throughout the football world since the beginning of the BCS area. The Board of Managers determined that this should be implemented by 2026 at the latest, but are working towards implementing it as early as 2024. Overall, the announcement has been met with excitement. However, there are some criticisms that have been put forward about this new decision.  

   The format of a 12-team model would not simply take the top 12 teams from the FBS rankings. The qualifications of getting into this new model are now much stricter, but would still offer some lenience to “dark horses” and underdogs. The sixth highest conference champions will automatically have the top six seeds in order of their previous FBS rankings.  The next six in the playoff will be “at-large” teams, who are competitive teams who did not win their conference or won their conference but were ranked lower than six other conference champions. The top four teams will have a first-round bye, giving an advantage to the top teams that other teams might not get. This would preserve the advantage that conference winners have historically had, while allowing for more mobility for teams that would otherwise be unlikely to make the playoffs.  

   Most in the football world have been supportive of this new change. Both conferences that have been successful and unsuccessful in the playoffs have voiced their support for this change. Five out of eight (about 63%) of the winners of the playoff era’s national championship (which began in 2014) were from the SEC. However, SEC commissioner, Greg Sankey, still believes that an expansion would benefit the sport as a whole. “This is an exciting day for the future of college football,” said Sankey. Less successful conferences were some of the most influential forces in getting the playoff lengthened. The Pac-12, who has only had one participant in a playoff-era championship game, Oregon (who lost), was very vocal about their support for a playoff extension even before the announcement was made. “The Pac-12 is strongly in favor of CFP expansion and welcomes the decision of the CFP Board,” said Pac-12 commissioner, George Kliavkoff, said in a press conference after the announcement was made.  

   However, there have been some objections over the feasibility of the new playoff. Historically competitive teams that are not tied to a conference, such as Brigham Young University and Notre Dame, will never be able to make it into the top six no matter how many teams they beat. Also, the location of the games is chosen by the school with the higher seed, which introduces another disadvantage to non-conference teams. This dilemma could lead these teams to finally join a conference, or it could be a nuisance that creates an unfair disadvantage to teams not part of a conference. Another objection to the change is that the cost of the expansion will be enormous.  

   Another complaint is the cost. The cost to rent venues and provide equipment, housing and amenities for guests will skyrocket with eight more teams entering the fray. However, cost is less of an issue than inclusion, as the revenue that is expected to be generated vastly outweighs the cost. According to the New York Times, the new playoff structure is expected to generate $2 billion in television revenue alone. March Madness, a 67-game playoff bracket for college basketball, generates only about half of that at $1.1 billion in television revenue.  

   The final concern is the health of the athletes. Almost every game in college football results in an injury of some type. Under the new model, teams will play up to four games, rather than the two games that were previously required. This may not seem like much, but each game is a chance for athletes to hurt themselves. Despite these concerns, the majority of the college football world supports the Board of Manager’s decision.  

   The biggest benefit of the college football playoff expansion, according to FBS commissioner Mark Keenum, is the inclusion of more teams, and the possibility of more unique games and matchups. Alabama and Clemson vied for the championship three separate times (about 40% of all championship games), and Alabama or Clemson was in the championship game every year except one (Ohio State vs. Oregon in 2014). The expansion to a 12-team playoff offers much more diversity in what teams participate. Many teams that have never been close to a championship will now have the opportunity to compete. For example, if the 12-team model had been implemented at the beginning of the CFP era (beginning in 2014), unlikely teams such as Coastal Carolina, Memphis, UCF and Western Michigan, as well as local favorites Florida and Florida State could be college football champions according to CBS sports.  

   Despite the complaints, it seems that the CFP expansion is supported by a majority of the college football landscape. This new model is supported by both big and small conferences. This new model will provide more teams with the opportunity to vie for the championship. This monumental decision is sure to send ripples throughout the college football world. “while work remains, we are proud of what has been accomplished,” said Big 10 commissioner, Kevin Warren.