The College Football Playoff (CFP) expansion debate is intensifying following decisive victories by Tulane and James Madison over higher-ranked opponents this past weekend. Coaches and analysts are increasingly vocal about the need for a larger playoff field, arguing that the current four-team format fails to adequately recognize deserving teams and creates predictable outcomes.

Tulane’s dominant win over UTSA and James Madison’s upset victory over Virginia Tech highlighted the disparity between the perceived strength of teams and the actual results on the field. These blowouts have fueled the narrative that the current selection process undervalues teams from smaller conferences or those with unconventional schedules.

The CFP has been a source of ongoing discussion since its inception in 2014. While the current system has provided exciting playoff games, criticisms persist regarding its limited participation and potential for excluding worthy teams. The existing format awards spots to the five highest-ranked conference champions and three at-large selections, determined by the selection committee.

The recent weekend's results are expected to accelerate conversations among conference commissioners and university leaders regarding potential expansion models. Proposals have ranged from an eight-team playoff to a 12-team or even larger format. Each model presents its own challenges, including scheduling complexities, media rights negotiations, and the potential impact on the regular season.

The current CFP contract with ESPN runs through the 2025 season. Any significant changes to the playoff structure would likely require renegotiation of that agreement. The growing pressure from coaches and analysts, coupled with the public perception of unfairness following this weekend’s games, suggests that a significant shift in the CFP format is becoming increasingly likely in the near future.