Starting in 2027, the College Football Playoff will expand from 12 to 24 teams, a significant change intended to increase access and opportunities for more programs. However, analysis of the proposed format raises questions about whether the expansion truly broadens competitive balance or primarily serves the wealthiest conferences.

Under the new structure, the four Power Five conference champions and one Group of 6 conference champion will be guaranteed spots, while 19 at-large bids will make up the remainder of the field. Projections using current rankings and entry rules suggest the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and Big Ten would dominate the selections, potentially accounting for 25 of the 48 playoff invitations in 2024 and 2025 combined. For instance, the SEC could send as many as seven teams from either season, while the Big Ten might contribute five or six.

While advocates highlight the expansion as a boost for programs outside the traditional powerhouses, historical data shows that dominant teams like Alabama and Ohio State would have qualified every year even under a 24-team setup. This trend implies that reaching the playoff could increasingly resemble a routine expectation for the biggest brands, rather than a mark of exceptional achievement.

Some specific examples illustrate this dynamic. Missouri (No. 19) and Mississippi (No. 14) — both SEC teams with nine losses combined and mixed résumés — would potentially meet in a first-round playoff game, despite neither being considered strong contenders by traditional standards. Similarly, Alabama’s 2024 team, which suffered defeats to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma and struggled offensively in losses, would still have had opportunities to host playoff games under the expanded model. Michigan’s 2025 squad, with multiple losses including significant defeats by top-ranked teams, would likewise remain in contention.

While the expansion promises more games and a greater chance for underrecognized programs to compete on a national stage — as seen by Miami’s run to the championship game as a No. 10 seed in the previous season — critics argue it also provides a safety net for power programs that disappoint during the regular season. The financial and recruiting advantages of the SEC and Big Ten further consolidate their playoff presence, raising concerns about competitive parity.

Officials from the Big Ten have suggested that expansion would include requirements for teams to play a Power 4 nonconference opponent annually alongside nine conference games, aiming to enhance scheduling rigor. However, some question why a tougher schedule should correlate with doubling the number of playoff spots, especially as the cost and complexity of securing a Power Five conference berth continue to rise.

Early games in the 12-team playoff format demonstrated significant score disparities, with average margins nearing 18 points. This suggests the level of competition in the early rounds may not improve substantively with expansion. As more teams qualify, the balance between truly competitive matchups and broader access remains uncertain.

Overall, while the enlarged College Football Playoff offers new opportunities for some programs, much of the gained access appears to reinforce the dominance of already powerful conferences, prompting a reassessment of what the expansion means for college football’s competitive landscape.