The 24-team playoff format was supposed to bring in better opportunities for the team and take them into the playoffs. But reality is far from that. The idea of taking so many teams in is stressing analysts over rivalry games like Ohio State vs. Michigan, losing the real value of their games. That is the concern Paul Finebaum and Mike Greenberg raised on their latest podcast episode.

Ohio State and Michigan do not feel big only because of the trophy. They matter because one loss can change a season. In a much bigger playoff, that fear fades, and the game starts feeling less like a season-maker.

“I will say this, I don’t know what ESPN does or doesn’t want, but what I can tell you with certainty is that the idea that good teams, championship-worthy teams, get left out of the playoffs is a good thing, not a bad thing. If you put every single team that might win the championship into the playoff, then, to Paul’s point, you might just as well not play the regular season to begin with,” Mike Greenberg said on ESPN’s “Get Up.”

“If we live in a world where Ohio State and Michigan rest their starters for that game at the end of the season, because they’ve got the potential of five playoff games still sitting in front of them, then college football, as we have known it, ceases to exist,” he added.

That is the heart of the debate. College football has always lived on pressure, and one bad Saturday could ruin everything. If too many teams stay alive too long, the regular season stops feeling like a fight and starts feeling like a waiting room.

That’s a straight fact with a 24-team format, so many teams will stay in the competition till the end. It would also create more playoff games, and with more playoff spots available, regular-season games may become less important. Even teams with a few losses could still qualify for the playoffs. Because of this, big rivalry games like Ohio State vs. Michigan may not feel as “do-or-die” as before.

Let’s take the 2023 season example, where Ohio State lost to Michigan and missed the playoffs even after finishing 11-1 in the regular season. That’s the kind of importance rivalry games hold. But with so many teams entering the playoffs in a 24-team playoff system, that might not be the case. Teams will now focus more on players’ health than on fighting for the win.

Even the championship games will take a major hit, as Paul Finebaum pointed out.

“The conference championship games are over,” Finebaum said. “I don’t think that’s really a debate any longer. It’s just a matter of unwinding them because the SEC has a very profitable deal worth about a hundred million dollars, and they have contracts.”

He explained that conference championship games bring in a lot of money for conferences. But he also warned that a 24-team playoff could make the schedule tighter and reduce the value of these games. If the playoffs took more time, conferences might struggle to fit championship games into the season.

The current idea for a 24-team playoff would include a ranking system from the selection committee, plus one automatic spot for a Group of Six team. The top eight teams would get a bye, while teams ranked 9 to 24 would play in the first round at campus sites. Then games like the Gator Bowl, Pop-Tarts Bowl, Alamo Bowl, and Houston Bowl could lose importance or change their role in the system.

Finally, there are scheduling problems too. The current calendar is already tight, and the Army–Navy game has a fixed TV window. In a 24-team playoff system, even that historic game might need to be moved earlier.

Now, it’s not just about games losing their value. It’s also about how the whole college football world is split into two camps.

CFB community divided over 24-team playoff format

Right now, most major conferences like the ACC and Big 12 support the 24-team idea. But the SEC is still not fully agreeing. Nothing can change unless the SEC and the Big Ten both agree.

The reason for the change is simple. Conferences and schools are spending a lot more money on football teams now, sometimes over $30 million per roster. So many leaders want more playoff spots, so more teams can get a chance to compete for a national title. Just take last year’s G5 teams example, where two of them entered the playoffs, Tulane and JMU. So, if teams are spending more, they will demand a format where some losses don’t matter.

But that just lowers other teams’ efforts, too. Then there are CFP media partners, who are also involved. ESPN, which pays about $1.3 billion a year for playoff rights, does not want the playoff to go beyond 16 teams. On the other hand, Fox supports the 24-team idea. This creates disagreement between the media companies, too.

Now, all this comes to one stance, and that’s so many teams can give entry to teams with losses also, and it will lower the league’s value. Paul Finebaum and Mike Greenberg are arguing along the same lines, but it is yet to be seen if their arguments matter much to stop this from happening.