Indiana’s Loss to Notre Dame Highlights Flaws in College Football Expansion
Indiana’s recent loss to Notre Dame has reignited debates over the expansion of the College Football Playoff (CFP), with many questioning whether the move to a 12-team playoff format was a mistake. Critics argue that results like Indiana’s defeat show that the expanded system is allowing teams that lack the quality of traditional powerhouses to compete in a setting they’re not prepared for.
Indiana’s 45-14 loss to Notre Dame exposed the significant talent gap between some of the newly expanded playoff contenders and the elite programs. While Notre Dame is a respected program, the Hoosiers, who have had sporadic success in the Big Ten, clearly couldn’t compete at the highest level. This game served as a stark reminder of why the original four-team playoff was seen as a more effective system—by limiting the number of teams, it focused on the very best, ensuring that the highest-quality matchups took place.
Supporters of the expanded playoff argue that it gives more teams an opportunity and rewards conference champions from smaller leagues, but Indiana’s loss raises concerns about whether some of these teams are truly ready for postseason play. As the gap between top-tier programs like Notre Dame and schools on the playoff bubble becomes more evident, it’s clear that the expansion may have opened the door for more blowout games rather than genuine competition.
Many now feel the CFP expansion has diluted the overall quality of the postseason, allowing less-prepared teams to enter the playoff picture. If the trend continues, more lopsided losses like Indiana’s could become the norm, leading to a reassessment of whether the move to 12 teams truly benefits the sport or just increases the chances of mismatches.