(BCSNN) -- The College Football Playoff was created to bring clarity to a sport long shaped by subjective polls and confusing bowls that often left out legitimate contenders and even - in some cases - resulted in more than one school claiming a national championship in the same season. And while the system has succeeded in producing an undisputed national champion, the past several years have shown that little else in modern college football is certain.
After expanding from four to 12 teams, the sport is now consumed by debate over the next phase of growth. Some fans prefer keeping the field at 12. The SEC, one of the sport’s most influential leagues, wants a 16‑team format with a focus on maximizing at‑large bids — a structure that, in its view, would reward strength of schedule and open more spots for its members.
Other major stakeholders have different ideas. The Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and independent Notre Dame have aligned behind a 24‑team playoff, a number that has drawn skepticism from many fans but has gained traction among conference leaders.
Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark told On3 that 24 teams are the league’s preferred model.
“We like 24, we want 24,” he said. “There are too many teams getting left out and 24 teams provides the type of access that is warranted. That being said, we need to do the work around the economics around a 24‑team format and make sure we address any unintended consequences.”
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips echoed that position at his league’s media days.
“Our desire with the coaches and the ADs is 24,” Phillips said. “When you’re leaving national championship‑contending teams out of the playoff, you don’t have the right number. We lived through it, we suffered through it with Florida State, when the field was four.
“I know other schools have suffered for it. Notre Dame was a CFP worthy team last year and you saw what happened to the last team that got invited with Miami.”
That stance aligns with what the Big Ten and Commissioner Tony Petitti proposed in early discussions following the 2025–26 season. With the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and Notre Dame all supporting 24 teams, the question becomes why expansion hasn’t already moved forward.
According to Phillips, the primary obstacle is ESPN.
“ESPN’s made it clear, they want it to stay at 12 or 14, but no more than 16,” Phillips said.
The network owns the rights up to a 14‑team field, meaning any expansion beyond that would require opening additional games to outside bidders. Ironically, the level of influence fans often criticize ESPN for having could be the same force preventing a widely unpopular 24‑team model.
The SEC also remains a significant voice. Commissioner Greg Sankey reiterated this week that the league prefers a 16‑team playoff.
“That focus hasn’t changed,” Sankey said. “We’re open to the conversation, but there are a lot of ideas out there that have to be supported with analysis and information, not speculation.”
The motivations are clear. The ACC and Big 12 believe a larger field would give them more access in a landscape increasingly dominated by the Big Ten and SEC. The Big Ten sees revenue potential and the chance to host more home playoff games. Notre Dame recognizes the challenge of competing for top‑12 spots as schedules become optimized for playoff access rather than marquee non‑conference matchups.
The SEC, meanwhile, wants a 16‑team format with minimal automatic bids, hoping to place as many teams as possible in the field — potentially half the conference. If the SEC loves anything, it's stacking the odds in its favor. The league doesn't want to get knocked out by a Sun Belt or Pac-12 team, missing out on all the CFP money. The more teams the SEC gets in, the more chances it'll have to say how good it is (even if most of its representatives get bounced early).
Where the process ultimately lands remains uncertain, but with multiple power conferences aligned on expansion, it may be difficult for ESPN’s position to hold long‑term. Only time will tell if Mickey Mouse and company have the influence to keep expansion from happening.
