The College Football Playoff is at a crossroads, and the stakes have never been higher. While some argue the current format is perfect, others believe a massive expansion is necessary to keep the sport thriving. And this is where it gets controversial: should we double down on the playoff field, potentially diluting the competition, or stick with what’s worked so far? Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork finds himself in a unique position. Despite acknowledging that a 24-team playoff might not directly benefit his Buckeyes, he’s a vocal advocate for expansion, believing it’s “good for the game.”
Here’s the thing: Ohio State has consistently been a top contender since the CFP’s inception in 2014, finishing in the top seven every year. The recent expansion to 12 teams even allowed the 2024 Buckeyes to clinch a national championship, despite entering as the No. 8 seed. But here’s the part most people miss: Ohio State actually fared better under the four-team format, making five out of ten playoffs. So, why is Bjork pushing for more?
Bjork argues that expansion isn’t about Ohio State’s self-interest—it’s about the bigger picture. He highlights the financial windfall an expanded playoff would bring, with more games generating more revenue that could be reinvested into the sport and its players. “The games have never been more popular,” Bjork told Eleven Warriors. “Live sporting content is incredibly valuable in today’s on-demand world, and producing more of it drives revenue.”
But it’s not just about money. Bjork believes a larger playoff field would keep the regular season more competitive, with more teams staying in the hunt until the very end. Imagine the intensity of late-season matchups when even more teams have a shot at the title! However, this is where opinions start to diverge. Critics argue that a 24-team playoff would devalue the regular season, allowing mediocre teams—like an 8-4 Iowa last season—to sneak into the postseason. It would also mean even the best teams would need to win four or more playoff games to claim the championship, potentially favoring underdogs over consistent powerhouses like Ohio State.
The Big Ten is leading the charge for a 24-team playoff, with an internal document outlining a bold vision: no conference championship games, early rounds played on campus, and only one guaranteed berth for a non-Power 4 team. But the SEC prefers a more modest 16-team expansion, creating a stalemate between the two powerhouse conferences. Bjork, however, remains flexible. “I can live with 16, 20, or 24 teams,” he said. “What matters is that we expand sooner rather than later. The product is too valuable to ignore this opportunity.”
And this is the part that sparks debate: Is a larger playoff field truly better for college football, or does it risk watering down the competition? Bjork believes Ohio State will remain a championship contender regardless, but what about the smaller programs? Could this be their chance to shine, or will it only widen the gap between the haves and have-nots?
As the CFP debates continue, one thing is clear: the future of college football hangs in the balance. What do you think? Is a 24-team playoff the way forward, or should we stick with a smaller, more exclusive format? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments!
