Weekly Column: Who Profits From a 24-Team College Football Playoff?

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines who could profit from a 24-team College Football Playoff (CFP) and what expansion could mean for competition, revenue, school control, athletes, and fans.

A 24-team playoff could be good for college football if it improves competition, preserves school control, makes financial sense, and remains easy to watch.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

Having attended the “Red River Rivalry” game over the weekend at the Cotton Bowl during the State Fair of Texas in Dallas, the author found it abundantly clear that football is a big deal in the Lone Star State and among the power conferences. It is also fundamentally true that college football is a big business. What is unclear is how college athletics will change with expansion, realignment, NIL, and future television contracts.

It is fitting that prior to attending the Red River Rivalry game, the author moderated a panel on “NIL at Five” during the American Bar Association’s Forum on the Entertainment and Sports Industries conference in Atlanta, Georgia. NIL is also big business, and it adds to a growing sports business landscape that goes beyond endorsement deals to include revenue sharing incorporated into athletic department budgets, payments to players, scholarships, and benefits. One idea to accommodate the changing college sports landscape would be to create a larger playoff, growing from twelve to twenty-four teams. It could increase competition, revenue, and viewership opportunities for college football.

The College Football Playoff (CFP) is considering a move from 12 to 24 teams. Its exclusive negotiating window with ESPN ended October 9, but discussions continue, and no expansion decision has been announced. There are some good reasons why that expansion should or should not take place.

For one, opportunities to compete for a championship increase with more teams. NIL deals and player movement through the transfer portal give college athletic programs more ways to improve their rosters with talent, while changes to the NCAA’s age-based, five-year eligibility framework also affect roster planning. Analysts and executives must consider whether a larger field would better reflect teams that become competitive over the course of a season (as opposed to an early-season ranking), while giving more schools a meaningful path to the playoff.

Second, with more games added to the playoff, consideration should be given to reducing the regular season by one game (see 12-game FBS regular season), while simultaneously limiting FBS teams to just one FCS game per season as a proposed scheduling restriction. This last point also goes back to increased competition for teams and adding to the strength of schedule. FCS schools could lose guarantee payments from FBS schools under such a restriction, but those schools should not want to get paid to lose 77-0, etc.

Third, revenue could increase with more playoff games. More playoff games could attract additional media rights revenue, advertising, sponsorship, fan experiences, and ticket revenue. Any gains would need to be weighed against added costs and revenue lost from a shorter regular season. Under this proposed approach, conference championships would also be played, but the schedule could include one fewer game at the beginning of the season or potentially two bye weeks to account for the added travel from conference realignment. The best players and, of course, the fans want to see the matchups between teams that rarely, if ever, play each other.

Fourth, as private equity enters college football, control must remain a top priority for programs. Regardless of revenue, schools must maintain institutional control. The Jeanie Buss–Lakers arrangement shows that ownership and decision-making authority are separate deal points. We need to apply that lesson to college athletic departments considering private capital: who controls budgets, commercial rights, and decisions affecting the school after an investor provides funding? Utah’s private equity deal, involving a separate entity that manages commercial operations, offers a college example.

Fifth, television and streaming distribution is changing, and college sports and live sports in general need to meet the consumer where the changes are occurring. For example, the Emmys are moving from broadcast television to Prime Video beginning in 2027, following a decline in this year’s audience. Their move raises a question for the playoff: does the greatest rights payment also bring the greatest reach? The Emmys will be free to watch on Prime Video, even without a subscription. There is something to be said about wider reach and less exclusivity when it comes to live sports and content in general. The dilemma is that exclusivity can mean more money, but potentially fewer viewers, depending on pricing and access.

Sports can offer a different path. DAZN is expanding its local streaming rights, while some team arrangements retain traditional television: the Magic have over-the-air partners, and the Spurs plan 22 over-the-air games. An expanded CFP should similarly seek both broad television exposure and streaming coverage.

Sixth and finally, there will need to be policies around how new revenue would be divided among conferences and schools, whether athletes would share in the value of additional games, and whether fans would face more costs or difficulty finding them. A 24-team playoff could be good for college football if it improves competition, preserves school control, makes financial sense, and remains easy to watch. A larger bracket alone does not guarantee those results.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.