​ESPN’s Dan Wetzel believes expanding to 24 teams will ultimately incentivize the biggest brands to abandon conference affiliation in favor of independence, arguing that the expanded postseason removes the competitive necessity of winning a conference title, placing programs like Notre Dame in an advantageous position with guaranteed playoff access, complete media rights control, and maximum scheduling flexibility. Consequently, top-tier schools within bloated 18-team leagues like the Big Ten—specifically Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State—stand to double or triple their media revenues by breaking away to form independent scheduling agreements rather than sharing broadcast payouts with mid-tier member institutions. Wetzel: "Staying in the Big Ten now makes little and perhaps no economic sense. And yes, I do understand the league-wide research grants and so on, but there is always a way around everything. In terms of athletics, for those schools (and maybe a few more) it's lost revenue for the sake of loyalty and we know how that usually gets settled. All these middle and lower schools – even in the P2 – that supported this because they'll get in the 'participation playoff' with an 8-4 record are facing significant risk in the future." (link)

Nobody is better positioned to cash in on an expanded 24-team CFP than the SEC and Big Ten, writes The Athletic’s Manny Navarro, who notes that utilizing the final rankings and proposed entry rules, the SEC would have sent seven teams in both 2024 and 2025, while the Big Ten would have sent five and six, respectively. “That’s 25 of 48 invitations. The richest conferences already have the money and the power to shape the Playoff format. Apparently, what they’re missing is enough postseason spots for teams that disappoint in the regular season. The Athletic’s look back at the Playoff era showed that 80 different schools would have qualified under a 24-team model over the last 12 years. That’s a real selling point for fans of teams that rarely get invited. But Alabama and Ohio State would have made it every year. For the biggest brands, making the Playoff starts looking less like an accomplishment and more like renewing a membership. … Spend big, lose four times, keep talking about the national championship.” (link)

Dawgs Central publisher Graham Coffey asserts that Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti successfully outmaneuvered SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey by pushing for a 24-team College Football Playoff, a move that he explains will ultimately neutralize the SEC's regular-season television ratings advantage. Here’s the take…

​ESPN's Bill Connelly argues the expansion represents an unnecessary move that undermines the sport's regular season. Connelly emphasizes that the shift directly devalues traditional high-stakes matchups, eliminates lucrative conference championship games, and removes margin-of-error pressure, while offering virtually no benefit to lower-tier conferences. Furthermore, the accompanying 10-game power-conference scheduling mandate will effectively lock out Group of 6 programs from scheduling top-tier non-conference opponents, leaving up to five mid-major champions omitted from the field each year. Connelly cautions that by accelerating inequality and disrupting traditional rivalries, the sport is overplaying its leverage with its core fanbase: "The entire college football industry is built around the TV ratings pulled by huge games (most of them in the regular season) played in front of huge crowds. Voluntarily making those games less important, while also rapidly raising ticket prices and pressure on donors to donate, is playing with fire. All the complaints from playoff skeptics in the past – about the damaged integrity of the regular season, not to mention the harm to bowls, would ring dramatically true in a way it didn't with a four- or 12-team CFP." Lots more from Connelly. (link)

Sports Illustrated's Pat Forde also contends the format change caters to unchecked spending while cheapening the regular season. Specifically, Forde argues the expansion allows athletic departments to justify runaway NIL and coaching expenses to donors by artificially increasing postseason appearances. While the larger bracket technically provides more spots, Forde points out the structure is designed to consolidate power among the Power Four conferences rather than genuinely expand access for the Group of 6. Forde: "Meanwhile, schools will continually want the fans to pay more for those less meaningful games. More for tickets, more for seat donations, more for parking, more for concessions—and of course, more for NIL. ... This is the increasingly cynical relationship between those offering the product and those being asked to consume it. The people in charge will keep pushing fans to accept more indignities, because college football consumers have shown a remarkable tolerance for being taken advantage of." (link)

Huddle Up Founder Joe Pompliano posits the decision wasn’t about making more money this time, but rather about return on investment, with schools that are now routinely spending $40M or more on each year’s football roster and another $15M on their coaching staff searching for an easier path to the playoffs. “Think about it this way: Under the old format, if a school spent $40M on its roster but lost 2-3 games and missed out on the playoffs by just one or two spots, fans likely considered it a failed season relative to expectations. But under the new format, that same school would suddenly be hosting a first-round playoff game on campus. It doesn’t take a genius to realize how valuable that would be. Not only can the school pitch the season as a success to its fanbase, but shifting a fan’s mindset from failure to success is worth real money when you consider coaching buyouts, roster overhauls, booster donations, and facility upgrades.” (link) 

ESPN's David Hale is in line with Pompliano’s thesis, and breaks down on his Substack how the move serves as a mechanism to satisfy financial donors rather than television networks, players, or overall competitive balance. Hale highlights that while proponents argue a 24-team field will reduce selection committee pressure, historical polling data suggests the bottom of the rankings will ignite intense controversy. Specifically, 29 Group of Six programs finished in the committee's bottom tier (ranked 19-25) between 2014 and 2025—an average of more than two per year beyond the single guaranteed mid-major slot—setting up an inevitable shift in committee evaluation standards to favor four-loss Power Four teams over mid-majors. Furthermore, committee trends demonstrate that four-loss SEC teams are far more likely to land in the final rankings than four-loss ACC or Big 12 programs, positioning the SEC and Big Ten as the primary beneficiaries of the new structure. Hale: "It’s entirely to appease the people donating the money that keeps a financially irresponsible business model afloat. It’s discounting success so schools can say 'look what your donation bought.' It’s an industry hellbent on treating investors and bosses as the customer, and customers as an infinite resource that will keep coming back no matter what." (link)

Josh Pate’s College Football Show’s eponymous host makes the case that fans’ considerations don’t matter, noting the public is generally in favor of a 12-team format; therefore, “some of the most unsuccessful and untalented people in the room had to walk in and say we’ve got to blow that up. Not because anyone actually wants this … but we’ve got to build a mechanism to bail out our bad decision-making because we’ve got a bad business model and so what you want to do with a failed business model is keep making bad decisions to prop it up. … It’s an embarrassment for the sport because it continues this failed model of not having leadership.” (link)