24-team CFP winners, losers: Big Ten hits jackpot, regular season takes hit
The Big Ten, the regular season and the SEC lead the biggest winners and losers from a 24-team playoff model: 24 team CFP expansion winners The Big Ten The conference got its way in this debate.
- 1 in US LBM Coaches Poll Top 25 after Week 10 While the 12-team format has allowed for at-large teams to make the playoff with two or three losses, the regular season has remained competitive and a vital part of what makes college football unique.
- The Big Ten has been the loudest and most-powerful voice pushing for the shift to 24 teams, pounding the drum even as the SEC pushed back and offered a 16-team plan.
- Postseason parity Eighty different teams would have made at least one playoff appearance if the 24-team model had gone into effect in 2014, according to the Big Ten.
24 team CFP losers The regular season There’s always the chance that the 24-team format doesn’t do as much damage to the regular season as expected.
- Nonconference games As part of expansion, the Big Ten is expected require each team play another Power Four opponent during non-conference play.
- While the broadened field will help the Big Ten place more teams in the playoff, the SEC is likely to see an immediate boost in participation given the perception that it is deeper and more competitive overall.
- But the Big Ten’s requirement will still improve the overall quality of play in non-conference action and potentially influence all Power Four teams to schedule up in September to secure the type of win that could mean the difference when comparing a slew of teams with identical records.
- Scheduled to begin next season, the format will feature 23 at-large teams, requiring at least one spot for every Power Four conference, and at minimum one team from the Group of Six.
- At a minimum, however, the 24-team format will drastically reshape virtually every aspect of an individual season from the opening weekend through the national championship game.
How this summary was made: extractive summary — built from the sources' own reporting. It is drawn only from the reporting of the sources listed below — read the originals for full detail. How we summarize →