The perfect amount of risk accompanies an acceptable amount of access.
Therein lies the beauty of college football’s 12-team playoff.
We can say with a straight face in August that 30 or more teams enjoy hopes of playoff contention.
Could 20th-ranked SMU qualify for the playoff? Yep, it’s plausible.
The same is true of No. 22 Iowa or unranked Boise State or UNLV.
We also can say with a straight face that preseason No. 1 Ohio State might lose one too many games and miss the playoff. Don't believe me? Well, it happened to preseason No. 1 Texas last year.
No. 2 Oregon could fail to live up to the hype, go 9-3, and miss selection. Unlikely, but possible.
Or, No. 4 Texas could fizzle and miss out again.
No. 1 comes with warning
There's a certain chaotic charm to a playoff format where a deep-pocketed, blue-blooded brand like Ohio State or Notre Dame or Texas could miss the bracket.
Nobody’s totally safe, certainly not in August, within this format. That’s part of the intrigue. Expand the playoff too much, and the risk dilutes. The consequence for losing reduces.
Grow the playoff to 20 or more teams, and exclusivity would be traded for more access for also-rans, along with more bids for blue bloods that didn't play up to their preseason ranking.
As much as I might like this format’s yin-yang balance of access and exclusivity, playoff expansion remains a subject that just won’t go away.
Conference leaders convened this week for their umpteenth meeting to debate the right size and shape for expansion.
Never mind that the right-sized playoff sits right in front of their noses.
It's 12.
The dandy dozen works, but try telling that to any of the Power Four commissioners.
ESPN recently reported a 20-team format could be considered, although that number seems nowhere near imminent and perhaps nothing more than a half-inflated trial balloon.
Twenty teams would be smaller than the 24-team bracket the Big Ten supports but bigger than the 16-team bracket SEC commissioner Greg Sankey supports.
Perhaps, 20 will emerge as the compromise number that gets a deal done. More likely, it becomes a short-lived social media talking point. Either way, you won’t convince me 20 (or 24) would be better than 12.
Bigger, sure, but not better.
A super-sized playoff would add access for 9-3 or 8-4 teams — and perhaps create an avenue for play-in games.
By the way, don’t play-in games already exist? They’re called the regular season, which retains high stakes when played in front of the backdrop of a 12-team playoff.
Perfection is not required in this format, but losses can have significant consequences.
Lose once, and you’re probably fine. Lose twice, and you might sweat. Lose three times, and you’re probably (but not definitely) cooked.
Texas, Notre Dame, Alabama can miss 12-team playoff. That's good, right?
The current format ensures Texas’ loss to a bad Florida team came with consequences, while also leaving a path to recovery for a team that drops a game.
If the playoff grows to 24 teams, we might not live long enough to see the day Ohio State or Notre Dame would miss the playoff ever again.
Don’t misunderstand this as a vendetta against blue bloods and gold domes. Instead, it’s an argument against the bracket growing to the point that a handful of brands would become annual shoo-ins, with virtually no risk of ever not earning a bid.
When Alabama played Vanderbilt in 2024, the game carried some level of risk. Risk creates stakes, and stakes separate entertainment from exhibition. The Tide lost to Vanderbilt that year. They lost two other games, too, and they missed the playoff. In a 20- or 24-team bracket, they would’ve glided into the field, warts and all.
Mega-playoff would swap exclusivity for more money, safety for blue bloods
Would 2024 Alabama have won a playoff game? Possibly. The 2025 Longhorns and Irish could’ve won a playoff game, too — and maybe even more than one.
If the goal is to include every team that could possibly win a playoff game, then the playoff must grow to 20 or 24 or even 48 teams.
If the goal is to retain a regular season with high stakes, ample risk-reward, and a healthy balance of access and exclusivity, then the 12-team playoff will be tough to top.
The four-team playoff represented exclusivity but insufficient access, to the point that an undefeated power-conference champion failed to earn selection.
A 20- or 24-team playoff would create an excess of access — welcome to the playoff, three-loss ACC teams! — at the expense of regular-season risks and consequences.
There’s an elephant in the room we cannot ignore: Money will be a primary driver of any playoff expansion.
A 20- or 24-team playoff might indeed print more money and create access for three-loss Virginia to become first-round roadkill. It also would mean certain blue bloods and the richest rosters never again encounter much risk on a September Saturday, as their season morphs into a low-risk exhibition, with the bracket big enough that they’ll never not get an invite.
What’s great about the 12-team playoff?
It’s exclusive enough that Texas or Notre Dame can miss it.
Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's senior national college football columnist. Email him at BToppmeyer@gannett.com and follow him on X @btoppmeyer.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Best thing about 12-team Playoff? Texas, Notre Dame can miss it | Opinion
