College Football Playoff expansion: Is a 24-team field right for the Group of Six? There are benefits to the status quo

College Football Playoff executives will meet Monday (remotely) for the latest round of expansion discussions that seemingly began decades ago but have a definitive endpoint.

The Big Ten and SEC, which control the event’s future format, must reach an agreement by Dec. 1 in order to expand the playoff for the 2027 season.

The Big Ten has proposed a 24-team field.

The SEC favors 16 but could support 24 if the TV revenue is right, the competition calendar makes sense and concerns about undercutting the regular season are allayed.

The Big 12 and ACC want 24, as well. So does Notre Dame and every conference in the Group of Six.

But is that strategy a mistake for the sport’s third tier?

Would the Pac-12, Mountain West, American, Sun Belt, Conference USA and Mid-American be better served by an indefinite continuation of the 12-team format that began two years ago?

To this point, Group of Six support for expansion is based on the increased access that a 24-team field would provide.

We aren’t sure expectations are fully in line with reality.

Under the current format, one of the 12 spots is reserved for the top team in the Group of Six. Doubling the field size should, in theory, result in two automatic spots for those leagues — and they are pushing for that very allocation.

To date, the Big Ten and SEC have not agreed. And given the voracious appetite for bids exhibited by the two most powerful conferences throughout the expansion process, the likelihood of the Group of Six receiving two automatics is just this side of zero. Instead, they would have to earn the second berth through the at-large selection process.

If we presume the Big Ten and SEC split 16 bids — they have averaged eight (combined) under the 12-team format —  then assign six to the ACC and Big 12 and one to Notre Dame, that leaves exactly zero at-large spots for the Group of Six.

But if the prospect of greater access is merely a tease, the impact of expansion on revenue would be all too real.

The SEC and Big Ten won’t agree to expand without confirmation that the additional TV inventory (12 games) will produce a cash windfall that increases the existing financial gap.

Under the terms of the CFP’s contract with ESPN, which runs through the 2031 season, each school in the SEC and Big Ten receives $22 million (approximately), with the ACC schools taking home $14 million and the Big 12 schools $12 million.

Washington State and Oregon State are allotted $3.6 million (each) based on negotiations in the aftermath of the Pac-12’s implosion, but all remaining schools in the Group of Six receive just $1.8 million.

If expansion produces a 25 percent boost in total CFP media revenue, for example, the vast majority will be funneled to the SEC and Big Ten, thereby creating a greater disparity in annual revenue that can, in turn, be spent on player acquisition — all of which accelerates the existing talent gap.

The sport is flattening at the top, with more teams in the Power Four capable of competing for the national championship. But down below, between the Power Four and the Group of Six, a chasm is forming.

Whatever new revenue enters the pipeline as a result of playoff expansion will only make the competitive landscape more untenable for the bottom tier.

Another reason the Pac-12 and Co. should be wary of playoff expansion: The impact on regular-season scheduling opportunities against Power Four opponents — both home-and-home series and the so-called buy games that help support budgets across the Group of Six and FCS.

Now, to be clear: With the SEC and ACC shifting to nine conference games (from eight), windows are closing for the Big 12, as well. Recently, Alabama canceled home-and-home series with West Virginia and Oklahoma State — technically, the schools mutually agreed to end the contracts — while LSU, Florida and Texas backed out of dates with Arizona State.

But the Group of Six seems particularly vulnerable to losing the precious dates with power conference opponents.

If the CFP expands, SEC and Big Ten teams could begin adding games against each other — ESPN and Fox would be delighted — because they won’t fear the consequences of a non-conference defeat. (Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti has made numerous references to supercharged schedules within his pitch for 24.)

What’s more, playoff expansion could lead to the Big 12 adding a 10th conference game, further reducing the slots available for dates with Group of Six teams.

Ultimately, it’s a math problem.

Last year, there were 234 non-conference slots available across the Power Four.

With the SEC and ACC going to nine conference games — and if the Big 12 adds a 10th — there would be 185.

Any change to the postseason that diminishes supply and incentivizes the Big Ten and SEC to create crossover matchups could ripple through Group of Six schedules. And budgets.

Admittedly, the second-order effects of an expanded playoff are difficult to predict.

There are plausible scenarios in which the Group of Six places more than one team in the field, on average, and scenarios in which the supply of premier non-conference opportunities does not erode.

But regardless of your vantage point, the sport’s broad trajectory is indisputable: The most influential conferences are getting more powerful, and richer, while the schools at the other end of the pipeline — including many in the ACC and Big 12 — are falling further behind.

Playoff expansion won’t reverse those dynamics for the Group of Six, and it just might make things worse.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline