New Coke and a 24-Team Playoff Share the Same Approval Rating
Published 11:37 am Thursday, October 15, 2026
In 1985, the Coca-Cola company made a decision to alter the recipe for its signature beverage, which had remained unchanged for 99 years, to a sweeter profile. Executives conducted two years of blind taste tests, which led them to conclude that the new product should replace the old formula entirely.
New Coke was released to retailers on April 23 of that year. The consumer backlash was intense. Company leaders were flooded with thousands of angry phone calls and letters. In early July, a survey revealed that only 30 percent of customers preferred the new version, prompting the company to withdraw the product. To this day, New Coke remains the definitive case study for misreading one's consumers.
Last week, Bruce Feldman, Ralph Russo, and I asked listeners of our podcast, The Audible, to share their thoughts about a 24-team College Football Playoff. Love it? Hate it? Somewhere in between?
The outcome showed 70 percent oppose it, while 30 percent support it. That is correct: the 24-team College Football Playoff had the same approval rating as New Coke.
However, as Ralph has reported, and as SEC commissioner Greg Sankey indicated Wednesday, the CFP is closing in on a deal with ESPN for a 24-team format.
The viewpoint on this matter is already well known. The concern is that it will drain the vitality from the most compelling regular season in major sports and transform college football into an NFL clone but with less talented players and no fantasy leagues. The most significant games down the stretch will not be No. 5 versus No. 9, but rather No. 21 versus others receiving votes.
A long, long list of other college football media figures share this indignation: Paul Finebaum, Rece Davis, Chris Fallica, Josh Pate, Lucy Rhoden, Jessica Smetana, and Ryen Russillo among them. Plus the vast majority of the college football staff at The Athletic (we have written in favor of it, too).
The most perplexing aspect is how the sports leaders are plowing ahead with something that 70 percent of their own paying customers are pleading for them not to do.
The Coca-Cola executives at least ran taste tests before the launch that convinced them customers might like New Coke. In this case, the individuals who spend thousands of dollars a year on tickets, travel, merchandise, and donations are holding up a big, giant sign that reads: WE DON'T WANT THIS!
In the past, I've cited mine and others unscientific X polls to demonstrate the unpopularity of 24. (It was more like 15 percent support in those.) But there's no way to be certain the people responding were actually college football fans. (Or even human beings.)
In the case of this survey, I think we can agree that anyone who spends an hour of their day, three times a week, listening to a college football podcast is certifiably a die-hard college football fan.
Let's first hear from the 30 percent who support 24 teams. (Edited for clarity and length.)
Washington supporters and other fans are pushing back against national media skepticism regarding a potential 24-team playoff expansion. One fan, a supporter of the Huskies, argued that while they previously accepted mid-tier bowl appearances, the current ecosystem has effectively diminished the value of those games. Since the championship is the primary focus, this fan believes more than 12 teams should have a pathway to a successful season outcome.
Dan Malouff, an advocate for the expansion, noted that the current landscape has already seen traditional powerhouses qualify for the postseason with three losses, thereby devaluing historic rivalries. He characterized the shift to 24 teams as a necessary corrective measure to re-engage fanbases that have become disaffected by these trends.
Christopher Haines supported the expansion based on the commercial realities of modern college football. He pointed out that college sports currently feature the smallest postseason field compared to other major professional leagues. Furthermore, he argued that programs spending between $20 million and $40 million annually require meaningful late-season games to justify their expenditures. Haines also highlighted the disappearance of cross-conference matchups, suggesting that a larger playoff could incentivize more early-season games among major conference teams.
Derek De Vries, a fan of the Iowa program, emphasized the need for a tangible goal for the lower-ranked schools within the Power 4 conferences heading into November. He observed that fanbases outside the top 15 teams often feel ignored by major sports media outlets during the critical fall months, with coverage heavily concentrated on the elite programs.
Analysts suggest these arguments align with the rationale previously stated by conference commissioners. The expansion is viewed as a strategy to support athletic directors and coaches at the 45 non-flagship Power 4 institutions. These schools are facing financial pressure to deliver a return on significant donor investments.
However, significant opposition remains. James Booker called the 24-team format a poor idea, arguing it would fundamentally alter the relationship between fans and the regular season. He valued the current system because a single loss can carry devastating consequences for a team’s postseason hopes. With 24 teams, he predicted that eight to ten squads would qualify despite lacking the caliber to win the national title, thereby diluting the overall stakes of the competition.
Allen Myers, a Georgia fan, expressed strong dislike for the expansion. While he guaranteed continued support for his home team and the SEC, he expected his attention to other conferences to drop significantly. He estimated that his consumption of football podcasts would decrease by approximately 80 percent, as the need to monitor the broader landscape would diminish until the final month of the year.
The expansion of the college football postseason to include 24 teams has drawn sharp criticism from fans who argue the change undermines the integrity of the regular season. One observer from the Pacific Northwest noted that the conference title games, traditionally a highlight of the December sports schedule, will lose their significance. This individual suggested that the initial round of the expanded bracket offers little entertainment value unless a viewer has a specific team in contention. The proposal was described as a defensive measure for general managers, athletic directors, coaches, and school administrators to shield themselves from criticism regarding mid-tier seasons that fail to meet higher expectations.
Another commentator emphasized the structural differences between college football and basketball. While basketball regularly features underdog teams advancing through multiple rounds, football history suggests that teams ranked between 18th and 24th place rarely defeat opponents ranked in the top 12, let alone sustain a streak of four consecutive victories against higher-seeded opponents. A fan from the Mountain West region expressed a conflicted view, acknowledging that the new format benefits teams that consistently finish between 11th and 24th place. However, this supporter remained opposed to the expansion, arguing that it dilutes the importance of regular-season play, an aspect of the sport they have long valued.
Critics argue that the conference commissioners have overlooked the negative consequences of the decision. While the goals of providing more schools a chance at a championship and replacing bowl games with more competitive postseason matches are generally viewed positively, opponents question whether these benefits justify the reduction in the stakes of the first three months of competition. The expansion is seen as reducing fan motivation to follow games outside their own conference and creating numerous early-round matchups between teams separated by significant ranking gaps.
A significant portion of dedicated fans reportedly opposes the change, leading some to believe the decision-makers are misjudging consumer behavior. The situation has been compared to the 1985 introduction of New Coke, where executives assumed customers would quickly adapt to the new formula. At the time, a senior vice president at Coca-Cola stated that consumers would eventually forget their preference for the original product, but the public retained a strong attachment to the traditional taste. Similarly, tens of millions of college football fans hold a deep affection for the current format, and the expansion risks alienating this core audience.