Lebanon, TN – In this proposal, 48 teams, not 24, compete for two separate championships. Why not? Right now, 137 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs compete for one national championship.  How many NFL teams compete for the Super Bowl? Only 32. And can or do all 137 college football teams compete at the same high level with equally, talented, motivated and well-coached players at the same high level?  Evidently, no!

Consider this: do the top 137 professional baseball teams in North America compromised of players from all over the world compete at the same level? Of course not. Do the New York Yankees and Los Angelas Dodgers compete for the same national championship against the Biloxi Shuckers of Double A or the Lansing Lugnuts of High A Minor League baseball? They don’t. However, if you total all the professional baseball teams from the top of the majors to the depths of their farm systems, you see how talent is dispersed from top teams down to the bottom. In this, don’t consider the experience factor. Just realize all are qualified to be paid to play the game professionally.

College Football Talent Disbursement

So why should fans accept the standards of Alabama and Ohio State to compete against perennial strugglers like UMASS and UL Monroe for a common national championship? Annually, teams like Georgia, Penn State and Iowa have the Minutemen to visit. UMASS goes for a big check. The hosts anticipate a highly attainable win.  The past few years, ULM visited Alabama (twice), Texas (twice) and Ole Miss. You know who won. Who do you think would win 99 (or more) out of one hundred meetings if this continues into the next century?  

The point? Why bother? That’s not what athletic competition is supposed to be about. No doubt about it now, it’s only about money. Buy a victory to make more money. One more win looks good on paper than does one more loss. Instead of paying relatively big bucks (from programs with millions) to invite a willing lamb to a slaughter, they should be required instead to compete with teams that have more comparable budgets with a better chance to pull an upset.

With the most money attaining top talent, the best play the best

Compete for better wins to recruit the best players to generate even more income. From this college fan who’s attended 740 college football games since 1979, I find the most entertaining games, in person or on the big screen, come between two equally “competitive” teams, not meaning only the “best of the best.”  Teams playing among others in the lower echelon of the existing 137 FBS programs offer entertaining games as well.

Rather than schedule an expected, non-competitive anticlimactic blow-out, why can’t we demand games between teams with comparable talent as the standard? If anyone’s best reason is to help fund the lesser teams’ budgets, donate money. Are these truly donations with best intentions? Instead, designate it from a contest that raises more revenue by playing a more competitive opponent. Read on!

Not only can this and should this be done, but the 24-team College Football Playoff (CFP) option improves to become a more competitive and profitable football festival. On top of that, for college football fans, this proposal will double football pleasure with two separate and potentially equal college football championships. Why not?

Begin with the Money, Like it or Not: for a Successful 24-Team CFP Format

Every Head Coach, Athletic Director, and University President insists their program needs more money to support its football program. If monetary demands for Name, Image and Likeness (NILs), already out of control, remain as they are, they become a growing focus. Also consider top coaching salaries, potential coaching buyouts, football facility infrastructure, growing rosters, health care costs and other financial needs to support a successful FBS program. So, how can 137 existing FBS college football programs rake in the necessary amount of money to fund their programs? Will they share equally?  They don’t now…

Let me start this controversy to make the 24-team CFP Format Work

Not only with pleasure, but going forward I’ll propose plans to make college football better than ever. I’ll break this down with changes that football fans and its leadership might not like at first glance. However, consider ALL the positive results in the end if implemented. 

I consider myself at traditionalist when it comes to college football. Entering my 47th season of attending a full slate of games, I’ve struggled with many of the recent changes. However, for my love of the competition displayed on the playing field, I’ve rolled with the punches. I want to see this game thrive and not fail. I hope my changes will improve the game. I’m even more intent to bring the sport more in line with what traditionalists like me would like to resurrect.

Two FBS Divisions – Two Championships

Of 137 FBS college football teams, only one wins a championship. In the NFL, one wins among 32 teams. In major League Baseball, one among 30 wins The World Series. Thus far among 137 functioning college football programs, in reality only four, twelve, now possibly 16 or possibly 24 get to compete for a national championship. All depends on pending changes to the current format of 12.  Using a budgetary cut-off, I propose to take 64 FBS programs with the highest football budgets (revenues) in the NCAA and separate them from the other 73 programs (subject to change). Call the high budgets group for comparative purposes, “FBS-I”. The remaining teams form “FBS-II.”

Of the wealthiest 64, create eight conferences of eight teams each. Arrange these conferences based on geographic and historic familiarity. During the regular season, currently Weeks 0-13, each team will play all seven conference members and five teams from among their other seven respective FBS conferences.  Schedules can be slated on a rotating basis annually. Doesn’t have to be, but just a suggestion.  No more picking weakest options perennially to gain an advantage in the final win column. On the other hand, rivalries can be contracted long-term. For instance, Army-Navy-Air Force games for the Commander-in-Chief Trophy; revitalizing Notre Dame vs. USC; Washington vs. Washington State; or any other traditional rivalries lost on the recent conference realignments.    All game results will count in the final standings of each conference.

Play Games with Somebody Your Own Size!

No more scheduling “Group of Six” foes nor Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams.  Only FBS-I teams line up on all FBS-I schedules. Only FBS-II teams play on all FBS-II schedules.  From Week 0-13 as set up now, every team plays 12 games and gets two bye weeks. On Week 14, instead of Week 15, Army and Navy play in their traditional regular season finale. All 135 remaining teams have a bye to prep for potential post-season contests. 

Week 15: The New and Exciting Tie-Breaker Week

Instead of Conference Championships, Week 15 determines the final top three teams from each conference of both FBS-I and FBS-II to determine their 24-team playoff entrants. Remember, 73 other programs (at least for now) compete in FBS-II.  Same schedule format. Same weekly 0-13 schedule, two byes and same goal – 24 teams in the FBS-II playoff. When the regular season ends, among all 16 conferences, there will be ties for first, second and third place. Tie-breaker Week pits all teams in games playing for the three top positions, only if and when necessary. If any or all of these standings have clearly been determined in the final regular season standings, these teams get byes on Week 15.

Among 16 different conferences, play-in games offer excitement all weekend. TV networks will gladly feature critical games for college football fandom. Think of the first Thursday of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Multiple networks can broadcast games at different kick-off times so fans can catch the best finishes throughout the day.

2025: A Timing example

These games, if slated for the previous 2025 calendar would have been played on the weekend of December 11-12 when ArmyNavy weekend was played.  Now, that gets moved up a week to December 5. After Tie-breaker Week, the First Round opens on Week 16.  Like the current FCS play-off schedule featuring 24 teams, the top eight in this model, all eight conference winners in both the FBS-I and in FBS-II, each receive a bye.  The eight first round games will be played among the second and third place finishers of all eight conferences. Pairings can be based on records, head-to-head results from regular season competition, teams not yet played from other conferences, “official polls” if any still exist, computer rankings which can generally be ignored, either a human or robotic selection committee, or whatever combination or criteria the NCAA decides on.

Much controversy regarding bracketing gets nullified because the choices for the top three seeds have already been established. The conference selections end up with a clear-cut number one, two and three for each after Tie-breaker Week to determine the 24 playoff teams. The media can still stir controversy to figure or debate who gets paired with whom.  It wouldn’t be a college sport without pundits providing their “expertise” for lively televised discussions.

Competitive Games Weekly right up into Two Grand Finales!

Week 17 (last season – December 25-26) welcomes the Second Round. Week 18 (three days including New Year’s Eve) brings Quarterfinal games between the eight surviving teams from the original 24. Traditional Holiday Bowl traditions continue with best teams each year vying for national championships.  Week 19 offers the two Semi-final games for FBS-I and FBS-II. On Week 20 (January 17 a year ago), the 24-team CFP format comes to a head with two national championship games. 

Play-off between those two? No. It’s already been established that the Big Money FBS-I programs retain a significant advantage over FBS-II.  Would the FCS champ play the winner of that? Of course not.   Or possibly D-2 play against D-3? No. Never have, never should. From the beginning, these are all distinct levels of college football talent that are differentiated primarily by monetary budgets.

Side Benefits from the 24-team CFP Format

The timing of the final games played in mid-January fall in line before the two-week window opening the transfer portal, like it or not.  Just so happens to be the way it is right now. That’s an article to address in a totally different and more difficult discussion.

How about opt-outs for post-season play?  The beauty of this offers a tremendous side-benefit. If 48 college football programs each get a shot to enter playoffs for a national championship, how many true teammates are going to say, “No, I’m opting out. I’m not interested in winning a national championship.”  Some teammate! He exposes his true colors for future opportunities.

Media Revenue for Play-off teams and beyond

To be fair to all competitors in my proposed 24-team CFP formats, all games will have to be played only on Friday nights or Saturdays. Winners need a week to prep for their next opponent. Television networks will still be looking to fill weekday prime-time programming voids. Fans will be still scrolling for games all those other evenings when there’s little more among hundreds of other media options to watch something of interest.

Other teams with decent records at least hovering at .500 or better will still be willing to consider playing a game in this age where “everybody gets a trophy.” After the season, each program needs to commit if it wants to participate in an available post-season game. In fact, even if they have no wins. They can announce their interest after their regular season ends outside the top three in their conference.

Next, a designated committee will analyze the records to schedule post-season games. Basically, seven-game winners play seven game winners, six-game winners play six- game winners; five vs. five, etc., etc. Flip a coin to determine home team if there is not a pre-determined site for a televised game. Let the Networks bid for the games they want to fill time slots for pre-contracted sponsors.  “0-12 State plays 0-12 Tech in the “‘Tidy Consolation Game’ sponsored by the Tidy Bowl Man!”

Another proposed, but hopefully non-controversial change

As brought to light in that last sentence, not every post season game should be considered a “bowl game.” Instead, call them “Consolation games.” I abhor hearing TV guys tell us that this team or that “plays nine bowl teams from last year on this year’s schedule.” In this proposal, a CFP bid represents an award to play for a national championship. These other teams get the privilege to practice as do their future opponents to improve and to play another game – in front of whatever loyal fans they still have and on television as a “consolation” prize.  It shouldn’t be considered an award for an outstanding season. Because it’s not among 64 or 73 other teams in the same division!

The final impacts to ponder for the 24-team CFP Format

In my proposal, 48 current FBS programs get to play for one of two national championships. Fans and TV networks can enjoy more competitive games throughout the regular season.  Many competitive post-season games will entertain will be played with purpose than ever before. Two national champions get crowned – FBS-I and FBS-II. Two totally different levels of competition get rewarded. The three best teams from 16 different yet competitive conferences enter the play-offs. Opt-outs should minimize.

December playoff games lead to relatively great bowl line-ups on New Year’s. The Semi-finals and Finals play to the end by mid-January. The transfer portal opens and closes for two weeks after the season. Maybe there will be less movement. Maybe the rules will change, or maybe players will want to stick with their current team for another shot to win it all.  Of course, it depends on whether other programs can entice them with more money.

Consolation, post-season games still get played on weekday nights in December and January for Networks and fans both looking to fill in TV viewing with more college football. More money for more teams?  That depends on distribution between FBS-I and FBS-II teams as two separate entities. In the future, maybe there would be more lucrative opportunities offered to the latter through competitive broadcast rights.

740 Games Attended and Still Counting!

Since this is currently the way college football is going – primarily for the money – again, like it or not. However, this proposal addresses a lot of this. As a fan who’s already attended 740 games in person and counting, I want to see this great pastime survive, and not just for this one particular reason.  

Read our Great History of Games among our First 42 Seasons!

Click on the title about this life-long adventure: Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun, and the Ugly on Amazon.com. Among 740 college games attended to date now, we’ve seen all 136 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams play in person at least once. This tells our story of how we got up to the first 652!

Read the reviews on the book page and get your copy today. If you’re trying to follow NILs and transfer portals, read what we predicted in 2023 and more. Hopefully, you’ll understand how much we love this sport and want we propose these changes for it to survive successfully. In addition, we offered solutions to issues occurring that we anticipated when we wrote this book. Please buy your copy today, enjoy it, and read about the many great memories captured. Maybe these will bring back some of the same memories you encountered when we did!

Edited and written by Stephen J. Koreivo, member of Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) and Author of “Fifty Years of Tailgate Tales: The Good, the Fun and the Ugly.”