The first wave has already started. Georgia coach Kirby Smart has signaled openness to a 24-team College Football Playoff field. Tennessee coach Josh Heupel has done the same. Don’t be surprised if more SEC coaches advocate for the number over the next year. With the nine-game conference schedule beginning in 2026, the math inside the SEC is about to change — and so is the margin for error.
For years, the SEC has sold itself as the toughest league in college football. When its teams were left out of the playoff, the rebuttal was predictable: the strength of schedule and the weekly grind is tougher than any other conference. The argument wasn’t necessarily wrong. It just didn’t always matter when stacked against cleaner records elsewhere.
Now the league is joining the rest of the Power Four in playing nine conference games — a format the Big Ten and Big 12 have long used and one the ACC is also switching to. For years, critics knocked the SEC for playing fewer league games. That talking point disappears in 2026.
Way-too-early college football bowl projections: Picks for every postseason game, including CFP field
Brad Crawford
But another effect comes along with it. A nine-game SEC schedule means a nine-game SEC schedule has to land somewhere — potentially on a few of the league’s stronger teams.
And here’s the issue coaches likely see coming: the playoff selection committee still leans heavily on the loss column. It can be dressed up with résumé talk and whatever advanced metrics those in the room want to use, but at the end of the day, 10-2 looks safer than 9-3. In a 12-team field, that can be the difference between making the playoff or not.
From a coach’s perspective, a 24-team playoff is insurance against that new reality.
Take a hypothetical 9-3 SEC team. If those losses come against ranked opponents and the wins include a few ranked victories, is that one of the 20-25 best teams in the country? Almost certainly. But is it safely in a 12- or 16-team field? Not always. After all, even 10-2 Vanderbilt was left out this past season.
In a 24-team model, those three-loss résumés almost certainly get a seat at the table.
Why SEC coaches advocating publicly matters
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has been one of the most influential figures in playoff negotiations. During the most recent round of expansion discussions, the SEC favored a 16-team field, while the Big Ten and commissioner Tony Petitti showed strong interest in going as large as 24. No agreement was reached, and the playoff remains at 12 teams for now.
It’s fair to ask: why didn’t the SEC push for 24 right away, knowing the nine-game schedule was coming? At the time, 16 probably felt like a safe middle ground — bigger than 12, but not so big that it diluted the value or complicated automatic bids.
Now that the nine-game slate is real, coaches are looking at the numbers differently. When SEC coaches publicly advocate for the 24-team format — not just to protect their teams, but also as a financial and fan-engagement play — it changes the conversation inside the conference office. This isn’t just about playoff access. It’s about revenue stability, recruiting leverage and meeting what Kirby Smart described as “playoff-or-bust” fan expectations.
If the SEC eventually backs a larger field, it won’t look like it’s giving in to the Big Ten. It can present the move as a response to its own new schedule and tougher margin for error. In other words, the SEC would be expanding because its own math changed, not because someone else pushed it.
Expansion doesn’t eliminate the cut line
There’s a reality that doesn’t change, no matter how big the bracket gets: someone is always going to be left out. Just look at the 68-team March Madness brackets. Every year in the build-up to Selection Sunday, the conversation is about the “Last Four In” and the “First Four Out.” Expanding the field doesn’t stop the debate — it just moves it.
The same applies to college football.
Instead of arguing about Nos. 10 through 14, the debate shifts to Nos. 20 through 30. A 24-team field probably absorbs most three-loss Power Four teams each season. But once that happens, the debate shifts to whether a four-loss team with a more difficult schedule deserves a spot over a three-loss team that didn’t play as many heavyweights.
A bigger playoff might reduce the number of strong teams left out. It won’t eliminate the argument.
Add Comment