Would a 24-Team College Football Playoff Reward Failure? Notre Dame Says Yes

The debate over a 24-team College Football Playoff is not only about access. It is about what college football should reward.

A larger field would give more teams a path to the national championship, keep more fan bases engaged, create additional postseason games, and reduce the chance that one early defeat ends a team’s season. Notre Dame supports that broader opportunity.

Critics see the proposal differently. They argue that a 24-team playoff would reduce the cost of losing, weaken the regular season, and allow mediocre teams to remain in contention. In that view, playoff expansion would reward failure.

Both arguments contain some truth. A wider field would make college football more inclusive, but it would also change the meaning of regular-season games. The outcome would depend less on the number 24 than on selection standards, seeding, home-field advantages, and revenue distribution.

What a 24-Team Playoff Would Change

A 24-team College Football Playoff would create room for more conference champions, at-large selections, and teams with strong but imperfect résumés. The field could include undefeated champions, teams with one or two losses, programs that narrowly missed a conference title, and teams that recovered from an early defeat.

The exact combination of automatic bids, at-large selections, byes, and seeding should not be treated as settled unless confirmed by official rules. Those details would determine how much value the regular season retains.

The basic effect is clear: more teams would remain alive deeper into the season. A major loss might damage a team’s seeding rather than end its championship hopes. A program could even absorb multiple setbacks and still qualify if its schedule and overall résumé remained strong.

That is the foundation of the “reward failure” criticism. Critics are not necessarily arguing that one loss should eliminate every team. They are challenging the idea that repeated failure should coexist with a realistic championship path. If teams advance because of brand recognition, favorable schedules, or television value, expansion could weaken competitive standards.

Supporters respond that a résumé should reflect an entire season. One bad result should not always outweigh strong victories, difficult road games, and consistent performance over several months. The dispute is not simply about whether teams can lose; it is about how much those losses should matter.

The Case Against Expansion

High-Stakes Games Could Lose Value

College football’s regular season has an unusual level of consequence. Rivalry games, conference matchups, and late-season showdowns can determine a program’s entire championship future.

That scarcity creates much of the sport’s appeal. A highly ranked team can lose one major game and fall out of national-title contention, while an underdog can defeat a powerhouse and immediately reshape the playoff race.

Awful Announcing made this point while arguing that college football’s high-stakes regular season remains one of the sport’s defining features Source 7.

A 24-team field would not remove those games from the schedule, but it could change their consequences. A rivalry loss might no longer eliminate a contender. A late defeat could affect seeding without ending qualification hopes. The emotional force of an upset could decline if the defeated favorite remained alive.

More Margin for Error Could Change Team Behavior

Expansion could influence coaching decisions. Coaches might manage players with the postseason in mind, particularly when a team’s résumé already appeared strong enough for qualification.

Programs might accept the risk of losing a difficult road game if the remaining schedule offered enough chances to recover. Teams could prioritize health, depth, and favorable matchups over winning every regular-season contest at maximum intensity.

The regular season would still matter, but the stakes could shift. Instead of asking whether a team would reach the playoff, fans might ask whether it would earn a bye, host a game, or secure a favorable path. Qualification games are generally more urgent than seeding games.

The Field Could Become Too Inclusive

A 24-team field might include teams that are not realistic national-title contenders. More access does not guarantee higher competitive quality.

Early-round games could produce mismatches between elite programs and lower-ranked qualifiers. The championship path could become longer without creating more uncertainty at the top. Critics may see additional games as being driven more by broadcast revenue than sporting merit.

A larger playoff would also increase the burden on players through additional travel, preparation demands, high-pressure games, and injury risks. Programs with greater roster depth would be better positioned to survive that schedule.

The Case for Expansion

The strongest argument for expansion is college football’s unpredictability. One weekend can transform the national picture: ranked teams lose, overlooked programs strengthen their résumés, conference races become less predictable, and several teams suddenly appear capable of competing for the title.

A small playoff field can close the championship race before the season’s best matchups are played. A 24-team field would preserve national interest after major upsets instead of reducing the postseason to a few established brands.

One analysis used Week 7 results as evidence that a broader playoff would better reflect the depth of the competitive landscape Source 5.

The argument is not that every team deserves a national championship opportunity. It is that the sport should allow more teams to prove themselves on the field.

A larger postseason would keep more fan bases engaged and give teams outside the traditional elite a chance to recover from an early loss. It would also showcase emerging programs, potentially supporting recruiting, fundraising, attendance, and long-term investment.

The trade-off is that not every game would become more meaningful. Expansion would change which stakes matter: qualification, seeding, byes, home-field advantage, and matchup quality would become central.

Why Notre Dame Supports the Format

Notre Dame’s support reflects its unusual position in college football. The program operates as an independent rather than competing in a traditional conference championship race. Its postseason résumé is judged through national rankings, schedule strength, victories, losses, and comparisons with teams from major conferences.

That structure creates uncertainty. Notre Dame cannot use a conference championship as a direct qualification route and may face selection debates against teams with similar records but different schedules and conference résumés.

A larger field could reduce the risk that one narrow loss ends Notre Dame’s championship hopes. It could also create a clearer path for an independent program to compete against teams from multiple conferences.

Notre Dame’s support is understandable, but it is not neutral. The program has a direct institutional interest in broader access.

Notre Dame Could Still Miss the Field

Expansion would not guarantee Notre Dame a playoff place. The program would still need a strong record, credible victories, and a résumé that compared favorably with other at-large candidates.

The New York Times discussed the possibility that Notre Dame could miss the field again under an expanded system Source 1.

That distinction matters. Expansion reduces elimination risk; it does not remove selection risk. Notre Dame would still be judged on schedule strength, quality wins, damaging losses, ranked competition, and late-season performance.

Notre Dame’s endorsement may appear self-interested, but that does not invalidate the broader argument. A national championship system should account for strong teams that do not fit neatly into a conference structure.

Does Expansion Reward Failure?

The answer depends on the selection standard.

A broad field could reward multiple losses, weak schedules, brand recognition, or television value. It could also reward strong schedules, quality wins, conference championships, and sustained performance after an early setback.

Field size alone does not determine fairness. Selection rules and seeding matter just as much. A team with two losses should not automatically be treated the same as an undefeated conference champion. Head-to-head results should matter when teams compete for the same place.

Repeated losses must remain a meaningful disadvantage. Seeding can preserve those consequences through byes, home games, and easier opening paths for higher-ranked teams. Lower-ranked qualifiers could face more difficult opponents and travel challenges.

The regular season would still determine:

• Whether a team qualifies.
• Where it is seeded.
• Whether it receives a bye.
• Whether it hosts an early-round game.
• Which opponent it faces.
• How difficult its championship path becomes.

The Financial and Competitive Divide

Expansion would create commercial value through additional broadcast inventory, ticket sales, and postseason exposure. A playoff appearance could raise national visibility and generate revenue for athletic departments outside the established elite.

But a larger playoff could also deepen inequality. Stephen Tsai argued that expansion could widen the divide between wealthy and less-resourced programs Source 9.

Wealthier programs typically have larger budgets, deeper rosters, stronger recruiting operations, better facilities, and greater access to name, image, and likeness resources. More teams might enter the playoff, but the same small group could continue winning the championship. Access is not the same as parity.

The format should include meaningful support for smaller conferences and less-resourced participants. A one-time playoff appearance is valuable, but sustainable investment matters more.

What an Effective 24-Team Format Would Need

Protect Conference Championships

Conference championships should influence both selection and seeding. Champions with strong records and quality victories should receive clear advantages, including automatic qualification, higher seeds, or byes where appropriate.

Preserve Consequences for Losing

Teams with multiple losses should face lower seeds, road games, more difficult opening matchups, and fewer rest advantages. A team could recover from an early loss, but it would need to earn back the benefits it lost.

Use Transparent Selection Criteria

The selection process should publish clear standards covering:

• Strength of schedule.
• Head-to-head results.
• Conference championships.
• Quality wins.
• Bad losses.
• Performance against ranked opponents.
• Record away from home.

Transparency would reduce accusations that brand power determines the field. Notre Dame and other independent programs should be evaluated through the same published criteria as conference teams.

Share Revenue More Broadly

Expansion will benefit college football broadly only if its financial rewards extend beyond the established elite. Revenue distribution should support smaller conferences, less-resourced participants, and competitive investment across the sport.

Final Verdict

A 24-team College Football Playoff would make the postseason more accessible, preserve championship hopes for more teams, maintain interest after major upsets, and create opportunities for programs that might otherwise be excluded.

It would also reduce the absolute cost of some regular-season losses. That criticism is valid when expansion allows teams with weak résumés to qualify without meaningful penalties. It becomes less persuasive when the format rewards strong schedules, conference success, quality victories, and sustained performance.

Notre Dame’s support reflects the advantages of broader access. As an independent, the program could benefit from a system that gives strong teams more than one route into the postseason. But Notre Dame’s endorsement does not resolve the fairness debate, and the program could still miss the field if its résumé is not strong enough.

The number 24 is not the central issue. The decisive questions concern selection standards, seeding, conference recognition, home-field advantages, and financial distribution.

Expansion can improve college football. It should not make failure consequence-free.

FAQ

Would a 24-team College Football Playoff reward teams for losing?

It could reduce the penalty for individual losses because more teams would remain eligible. It would not necessarily reward poor performance if selection criteria, seeding, and home-field advantages continued to reflect regular-season results.

Why does Notre Dame support a 24-team playoff?

Notre Dame operates as an independent and does not compete for a traditional conference championship. A larger field could provide a more reliable postseason path after a difficult loss or a strong but imperfect season.

Would a larger playoff make the regular season less important?

Some elimination games would lose immediate force because teams could survive defeats. The regular season would still influence qualification, seeding, byes, home games, and opening-round matchups.

Could Notre Dame still miss the playoff?

Yes. Notre Dame would still need a strong record and résumé. A larger field reduces the risk of exclusion but does not eliminate competition from other at-large teams.

Would a 24-team playoff improve competitive balance?

It could improve access by giving more programs a postseason opportunity. It might not improve championship parity if wealthy programs continue to control recruiting, roster depth, facilities, and financial resources.

What would make a 24-team playoff fair?

Transparent selection criteria, meaningful rewards for conference champions, penalties for repeated losses, consistent treatment of independent teams, and broader revenue distribution would make the format more defensible.