Is there anything good about the 24-team CFP expansion? - ESPN

For more than 50 years, we argued about it. Starting around 1960 with Northwestern athletic director Stu Holcomb's proposal for a «World Series» of college football — six conference champions and the top two independents playing a three-round tournament, all finished by Jan. 1 — the din of a playoff debate was never far in the distance. Because a lot of the most influential people in the college football industry (namely, bowl directors) benefited handsomely from the bowl system, we didn't get one until 2014.

College football long made a habit of moving far too slowly, be it toward a fair system for determining a national title or toward fairly compensating players. But now the gas pedal is stuck, and we're flying down the highway at ridiculous speeds. We cannot stop changing things. Conference realignment gave us supersized and geographically nonsensical conferences. We've gone from (legally) paying players $0 per year (plus educational benefits) to amassing over $40 million rosters. And starting in 2027, we'll have a playoff six times bigger than the one we got just 12 years ago. Unlike when that one came around, very few people were clamoring for this one.

On Monday, it was announced that ESPN and the College Football Playoff have signed five-year, nearly $1.7 billion deal that will expand the field to 24 teams in 2027 and eliminate Power 4 conference championship games.

Whether any of us likes it or not, it's coming. Let's talk about why, what this changes and how it will impact the way we watch the game.

Back in May, when the push for 24-team inevitability got rolling, I shared plenty of thoughts on the matter. Some bullet points:

The entire college football industry is built around the TV ratings pulled by huge