More seats at the same table? How CFP expansion could lift and limit mid-majors

2 min read
More seats at the same table? How CFP expansion could lift and limit mid-majors

More seats at the same table? How CFP expansion could lift and limit mid-majors

More seats at the same table? How CFP expansion could lift and limit mid-majors

More seats at the same table? How CFP expansion could lift and limit mid-majors

The College Football Playoff is on the verge of another expansion, and for mid-major programs, the big question remains: Are they finally getting a real seat at the table, or just a better view through the window?

For schools in the Mountain West, AAC, Sun Belt, MAC, and CUSA, the proposed jump from 12 teams to 16—or even 24—sounds like a step forward. More slots should mean more access. More access should mean more hope. But as college football has taught us time and again, the devil is in the details.

The current 12-team format at least cracked the door open. It guarantees a spot for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, and recent seasons have shown what can happen when that lane is given. Boise State, Tulane, and James Madison have all forced their way into the national conversation, proving that mid-majors can compete when the path is clear.

Expansion could amplify that momentum. A 16- or 24-team model could offer more opportunities—especially if a guaranteed bid for a Group of Six champion remains intact. More bids could mean more national visibility, stronger recruiting, higher donor engagement, and increased television value for programs often treated as regional afterthoughts. It could also create those magical Cinderella runs we love in March Madness, where one breakthrough season changes everything for a school.

But here's the catch: Power rarely expands without protecting itself.

The Big Ten and SEC are driving much of the CFP redesign conversation, and many proposed formats still heavily favor at-large bids or disproportionate automatic qualifiers for power conferences. Yahoo Sports and Reuters have reported that larger formats could simply create more television inventory while preserving the structural dominance of the sport's wealthiest brands.

In other words, expansion might not be about inclusion. It could be about monetizing exclusivity. If the playoff grows into a "23+1" style system, mid-majors may find themselves with more seats at the table—but still sitting at the same table, in the same seats, with the same limitations.

For now, the hope is real. But so is the history. And as any mid-major fan knows, hope only goes so far when the goalposts keep moving.

Like this article?

Order custom jerseys for your team with free design

Back to All News