More seats at the same table? How CFP expansion could lift and limit mid-majors

HONOLULU, HAWAII - AUGUST 23: Micah Alejado #12 of the Hawaii Rainbow Warriors throws a pass during the second half against the Stanford Cardinal at the Clarence T.C. Ching Athletics Complex on August 23, 2025 in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Photo by Darryl Oumi/Getty Images) | Getty Images

The next College Football Playoff expansion may finally answer a question that mid-majors have been asking for decades.

Are they truly invited to college football’s championship table or just allowed to “peek” through the window?

For schools in the Mountain West, AAC, Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA, expansion from 12 toward 16 or even 24 teams looks like progress on paper. More slots should mean more access. More access should mean more hope.

But as college football has repeatedly shown, it’s the fine print that matters more than the headline.

The current 12-team structure at least cracked the door open for the highest-ranked Group of Five champion.

Recent seasons proved that schools like Boise State, Tulane and James Madison can force their way into relevance when given a lane.

MWC Connection’s own analysis noted that mid-majors have consistently adapted, even as “goalposts” keep shifting around them.

Expansion can help increase a 16-team or 24-team model opportunity, theoretically, especially if guaranteed access for at least one Group of Six champion remains intact.

More bids could also boost recruiting, national visibility, donor engagement and television value for programs often treated as regional curiosities.

A deeper playoff could also create more of those lovable Cinderella pathways, similar to March Madness, where one breakthrough season can change an institution’s trajectory.

But the catch? Power rarely expands without protecting itself.

Big Ten and SEC leaders are currently driving much of the CFP redesign conversation, but many formats still heavily favor at-large bids or disproportionate automatic qualifiers for power leagues, of course.

Yahoo Sports and Reuters both report that larger formats could simply create more inventory for television while preserving structural dominance for the sport’s wealthiest brands.

In other words, expansion could become less about inclusion and more about monetizing exclusivity.

For mid-majors, the long-term danger is dilution.

If playoff growth leads to “23+1” style systems, where one token Group of Six slot exists in a sea of SEC and Big Ten teams, then the access may technically survive while practical championship equity disappears. So mid-majors could become permanent undercards: invited, but rarely empowered.

The likely final outcome?

A larger playoff is coming, because television money almost always wins. But unless governance protections preserve meaningful auto-bids and ranking fairness, expansion may help mid-majors financially while hurting them competitively.

They may earn more seats in the stadium, but fewer legitimate shots at the trophy.

For schools like Fresno State, Boise State or San Diego State, the future isn’t simply about getting in, it’s about whether “in” actually means equal.

That has always been the real battle and history suggests mid-majors will keep fighting, even if college football’s power brokers keep moving the chains.