The conference still supports a playoff format that'd give four automatic bids to the Big Ten and SEC. “It has to make the regular season better. If it doesn't do that, why are we doing it?”
LAS VEGAS — A month ago, as he tuned into a College Football Playoff meeting through Zoom, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti felt a wave of sudden enlightenment wash over him.
As he watched CFP staff members share potential changes to the criteria and data used by the selection committee, as he witnessed mathematicians deliver ideas on adjustments, Petitti pulled away from the Zoom and had a thought.
What the heck are we doing?
“I found myself sitting there thinking that play-in games seem so rational as we look at folks talk about points and subtracting numbers and adding numbers. I’m thinking, ‘This is the rational system and the one where we play games is radical?’
“I admire the work they’re putting into it and all the stuff they’re talking about and adding and subtracting and listening to mathematicians and scheduling experts. But all of that is more valuable than two teams playing on the field? OK.”
In an interview on Monday with Yahoo Sports from the site of this week’s Big Ten football media days, Petitti emphasized that his league’s position on a future playoff format remains unchanged — a position, he says, that is unlikely to change until the power conferences agree to play the same amount of conference games (nine) and until the selection process is rectified.
The conference continues to support a playoff structure with more automatic access spots as opposed to the so-called “5+11” format that features more at-large selections. The Big Ten’s long-discussed playoff format — a “4-4-2-2-1” model — would grant four automatic qualifiers to the SEC and Big Ten, two each to the ACC and Big 12, one to the highest-ranked Group of Six champion and three at-large selections. The model, vehemently opposed by the ACC and Big 12, would reduce the subjectivity of the selection committee, incentivize more perennial non-conference matchups and, Petitti says, provide an avenue for inner-conference play-in style games pitting, for instance, the third-place Big Ten team against the sixth-place finisher and the fourth vs. the fifth for spots in the playoff.
Any format with a bigger at-large pool such as the 5+11 — it grants qualifiers to the top five conference champions and 11 at-large spots — relies too heavily on a subjective selection committee, he says.
Petitti believes proposed alterations to the data used by selection committee members to seed teams and determine at-large selections remains “incredibly incomplete” and, he suggested, may never reach the point of satisfying his membership.
“I’ve heard my colleagues around other leagues say that a lot of work has to be done to the selection committee and that’s where I have a hard time on what that actually means,” Petitti said. “In talking to some of the folks in our room, our ADs that have been on that (selection) committee, I’ve yet to hear someone say they need more data or stuff to look at. You can come up and make metrics, but ultimately it’s just people evaluating what’s put in front of them.”
While acknowledging that his league must agree with the SEC on a playoff format in order for it to advance forward — the two conferences control the matter — Petitti says he’s OK with the playoff remaining at 12 teams next season instead of the proposed 16-team expanded model.
“Earlier on, we felt expansion would be a good thing, but we’re not going to expand unless we really feel like the format and access makes sense,” Petitti said. “It has to make the regular season better. If it doesn't do that, why are we doing it?”
Such a possibility — remaining as a 12-team playoff in 2026 — is growing more likely by the day as the two conferences remain at an impasse, both with one another over the number of conference games they play (SEC eight and the Big Ten nine) and with the CFP’s selection process.
The SEC is yet to decide on whether it is moving from eight conference games to nine in 2026, though signs point to the conference remaining at eight games at least for next year, especially if the selection committee process is unsatisfactory. Even SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said last week during his media days there’s “not a lot of warmth” from the football coaches in adding an extra conference game.
The head coaches hold sway in the conference. In fact, their pushback to the Big Ten’s 4-4-2-2-1 model in May shifted the league’s consideration of that format.
Meanwhile, neither league seems necessarily agreeable to proposed alterations to data changes in the selection process.
The CFP staff proposed to commissioners an adjustment to the committee’s strength-of-schedule ranking that gives more weight to games played, for instance, against the top 30-40 programs in the country. Secondly, a new data point, “strength of record,” has been created that grants more weight to good wins and doesn’t penalize as much a program for losses against ranked or top teams.
Petitti is unmoved. He is against widening the at-large pool from seven to 11 teams as it gives the 12-member selection committee — a rotation of mostly athletic directors and former coaches — more authority.
“It’s not that we think the selection committee does a poor job. I’m just not sure how you make it better. The more teams you add, the more tough decisions you create,” he said. “We’re going to give the committee more to do? What’s the reason to do that? Giving them more work to do and more discretion?”
Despite the disagreement with the SEC, both commissioners say that they continue to speak regularly and the two leagues remain close. Petitti hopes the conferences can hold a third joint athletic director meeting soon.
“Anybody who is writing that the fact we might not be on the same page today on format changes means we don’t have a great working relationship is in the wrong place,” Petitti said Monday.
Said Sankey last week: “There is no rift between the SEC and Big Ten commissioners. We have different views. That’s OK.”
They disagree on something else too: the timing of the transfer portal.
A committee of power conference football administrators and athletic directors is expected to make a formal recommendation on the portal soon. The expectation is for a single portal in January. The Big Ten remains the only FBS conference that is against such a move. Big Ten coaches and administrators are pushing for an April portal.
“That’s not where the other three (power) leagues are,” Petitti said. “At the end of the day, when you govern with others, there are going to be issues where you know you’re going to have to agree that your position wasn’t the one adopted. But having player movement occur during the postseason seems something that is not ideal. It puts players in tough spots. It’s not good for the game.”
In an interview with Yahoo Sports last week, Sankey said he was seeking a portal date that is “the right thing for the educational enterprise,” and both leaders believe there should be a single portal as opposed to the two currently existing.
“We have to get back as a collegiate enterprise to say we have a responsibility and expectation that you pursue your education in a consistent way,” Sankey said. “Transferring every semester or five schools in five years is not consistent with those objectives.”
Category: General Sports
