1 minute ago, hrcarrier said:

I'm not a fan of this, I had no problem with 16 and thought that 16 was good, even ideal. 24 is just too many in my opinion and I didn't think it should extend past 16.

Like you I like 16, 24 is okay and will probably move to 32 at some point. Hopefully that is the absolute ceiling.

2 hours ago, theguru said:

Like you I like 16, 24 is okay and will probably move to 32 at some point. Hopefully that is the absolute ceiling.

I made a joke one or two seasons ago that maybe it will become like an NCAA tournament, which will be closer for sure. Even though I don't like going above 16 teams, one benefit is that it will eliminate more unnecessary bowl games, which I haven't watched for a long time now. I thought that they were on the verge of making their way out anyway, even without this.

Just now, hrcarrier said:

I made a joke one or two seasons ago that maybe it will become like an NCAA tournament, which will be closer for sure. Even though I don't like going above 16 teams, one benefit is that it will eliminate more unnecessary bowl games, which I haven't watched for a long time now. I thought that they were on the verge of making their way out anyway, even without this.

Right. We prefer 16 teams but 24 is fine, no 25th team in the nation is winning it all, so it should be one heck of an event each year. Wish it was this year.

On 10/1/2026 at 2:31 PM, TheDeuce said:

Good, IMO.

Those lower tier bowl games are just participation trophies.

What, no Pop-Tarts Bowl???

From ESPN:

While final details have yet to be announced, discussions about the 24-team field have included 19 at-large bids, the Power 4 conference champions as determined by each league and the highest-ranked Group of 6 team.

Under the proposed plan, teams seeded Nos. 1 through 8 would earn a first-round bye followed by a home game. (The No. 1 seed would face the winner of No. 16 vs. No. 17, the No. 2 seed would face the winner of No. 15 vs. No. 18 and so on). Teams hovering around No. 17 and No. 18 would want to move up so they can host a first-round home game (awarded to teams seeded Nos. 9-16), while teams at the bottom are constantly trying to stay in the field or protect their spot.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/50190410/sources-college-football-playoff-nearing-deal-24-team-format

Sounds like a plan and I wish it was this year.

I would rather the 24 teams be decided by power ratings only (fair and objective) but I doubt any 25 through 30 teams could win more than one game as the 24 seed so I suppose it doesn't matter much.

I've always been in favor of a 16-team playoff but I would rather go to 24 than stay at 12. Will put pressure on coaches because if can't make 24 team playoff will probably get fired.

I think 16 teams would probably be the right number, but I’m perfectly fine with 24. The whole bowl game system, for all its history, has been a joke IMO. I know people will argue that expanding the playoffs devalues the regular season, and maybe it does a little bit. However, it also gives us more opportunities for big-time matchups during the regular season because teams don’t have to worry about one loss potentially keeping them out of the playoffs.

I’ve always said college football was the one sport where a true champion wasn’t necessarily crowned on the field. Instead, it was largely decided by people’s opinions. It has gotten better over the last 12 years when they first introduced the 4 team playoffs. However, How do we really know which team is better when two teams have the same record, but one gets in over the other? Or when one team plays a much tougher schedule, loses a game, and gets left out, while another team gets in despite potentially losing even more games if they had played that same schedule?

A 24-team playoff would pretty much ensure that the best teams actually get an opportunity to prove themselves on the field. Even last year, with a 12-team playoff, Notre Dame was a team that quite possibly could have won the whole thing had they gotten in. Yet human opinion kept them out, and they never got the opportunity to prove it. The reality is, nobody truly knows what would happen until those teams actually play each other.

That’s why I’m all for expanding the playoffs. With 24 teams, you’re giving just about every team that has a legitimate argument a chance to prove it on the field. At that point, we can finally say the national champion was truly decided by what happened on the field, rather than by a group of people deciding who deserves the opportunity to compete for it.

Which to add I would take the human element completely out and use the old BCS system to rank the teams and 19 at large teams, etc.

It is now breaking news on ESPN that there is now a handshake deal ESPN for the 24-team playoff in 2027.

I look at it this way, we have a 16 team playoff (which most everyone favors) and then throw in the next 8 schools that would have been whining the loudest if they didn't get in. Everyone after 16 just needs to be happy they are in and whomever the 25th school is needs to just zip it.

They probably needed 24 to make the money work. Especially since they are eliminating conference championships, which are big money makers for the conferences.

I didn't read the link above but heard part of the deal is all teams must play 10 P4 teams (Notre Dame counts as a P4 game also).

On 10/1/2026 at 6:50 PM, Jumper_Dad said:

They may be that, but those early lower tier bowls often give us some fun and exciting games to watch. I'd hate to have LESS football to watch in December. If teams are willing to play, then I'm not going to be a hater if a 6-6 team plays a 7-5 team in late December.

You wouldn't have less football with a 24-team playoff, and the games would (generally) be better.