The expansion of the college football playoff is bad for the sport and a cash grab.

Question

The College Football Playoff Committee announced that they will be expanding the playoff to 12-teams as late as 2026. Here are my thoughts on that decision.

Answer 1

After processing your claim and reading your source, I can sympathize with some of its points such as scheduling issues, more prevalent player injury/fatigue, and conference balancing. However, I believe that an expanded playoff would give less dominant programs more national exposure. Still, more importantly, it would ensure that one loss in October wouldn't mean these teams have no chance of proving themselves in the national championship in December.  Take the Oregon Ducks' very recent upset over Ohio State for example. Both of these teams were so evenly matched it would be a shame if Ohio State lost its chance to compete for a title because of an incredibly close game that could've gone either way. An expanded playoff would ensure that top teams, such as Ohio State, still had a chance to prove themselves at the highest level. 

<!--?xml version="1.0"?-->

Oregon-Ohio State is a reminder why College Football Playoff expansion is a good thing. (2024, October 13). NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/college-football/oregon-ohio-state-reminder-college-football-playoff-expansion-good-thi-rcna175172

Comments

I appreciate your thorough review of the claim and your ability to dissect the various issues such as scheduling, player fatigue, and conference balancing. You make a great point about expanded playoffs granting less dominant programs national exposure. I agree that one loss shouldn’t define a team’s fate, especially with evenly matched games like Oregon vs. Ohio State, which really highlights the need for an expanded playoff system. Well-argued!

---

How do you rate the claim? True? False? Other?

---

I agree with your stance, and I appreciate the supporting evidence you used to back up each one of your points. Overall, it seems that this claim is more of an opinion that could be debated rather than a factual statement.