Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti Expresses Support For CFP Model Based On Conference Standings

In his press conference to open Big Ten Media Days in Las Vegas, Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti made it clear his conference prefers a playoff model that grants entry to teams based on their conference standing.

“The Big Ten has been consistent in a strong preference for a playoff system that allocates spots based on conference standings and the results of play-in games,” Petitti said on Tuesday. “We want to better connect the regular season and the postseason. A critical goal of any postseason format, regardless of sport, is to keep as many teams alive as deep into the season as possible. We want more conference games to matter in November. Also, the playoff format should not function as a disincentive to schedule tough non-conference games.

The Big Ten’s preferred format is a model that would grant entry into the playoffs to four SEC teams, four Big Ten teams, two ACC teams, two Big 12 teams, a Group of Six representative and three at-large selections. According to Petitti, that isn’t the only model the Big Ten would consider, but others may not be as likely to secure the conference’s approval.

“As we said throughout this process, we are open to considering any format ideas that come from our colleagues or the CFP staff, but to be clear, formats that increase the discretion and role of the CFP selection committee will have a difficult time getting support from the Big Ten,” Petitti said.

The 5+11 format, which would give automatic bids to only the five-highest ranked conference champions and 11 other at-large bids to the next highest-ranked teams, has been supported by some coaches within the SEC.  In that format, the selection committee would be tasked with deciding which non-conference champions teams should make the playoffs, something Petitti believes has never been easy for committees or computers to do.

“You go back to the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) and deciding who the two teams are and then going back to the four-team playoff, it hasn’t been easy,” Petitti said. “I think there’s been a lot of concern about how those decisions are made. I focus on that piece. How are we differentiating from teams that don’t play common schedules across leagues that do different things? I think that’s a tall order. The point I’ll make is that every time you think about expansion, I think there’s some sort of counter idea that it gets easier to make these decisions, actually, it gets harder. More teams look alike. More teams are going to have 9-3 records, more teams are going to struggle in a conference road game, more teams might stumble in a conference home game.”

Still, the 4-4-2-2-1 model has its detractors. Some argue that a model based on conference standing would render non-conference games meaningless, and others have issues with the play-in model that the Big Ten plans to employ if the 4-4-2-2-1 model is approved. In the model, the team that finished third in the Big Ten in the standings would have to face the team that finishes sixth in the Big Ten, while the team that finishes fourth in the standings would have to go against the fifth-place Big Ten team. Both games would be played for a spot in the College Football Playoff.

According to Petitti, who believes regular-season nonconference games would still matter under the 4-4-2-2-1 model because they would affect seeding in the playoffs, a play-in format could help neutralize the effects of some teams playing easier Big Ten schedules than others.

“I commend our coaches because they talk about, ‘Hey, if I’m in position, I could get hurt by losing a game.’” Petitti said. “I think where our coaches and our Athletic Directors came down was that at the end of the day, there are 18 members in the Big Ten. If you have 17 available opponents, you play nine of them, so there are a lot of issues about how you compare teams inside the Big Ten, let alone making comparisons across leagues. Your schedule, just by the way it plays out, might be easier than people thought when it was made up. We obviously try to competitively balance our schedules.

“If you had 16 teams, there’s still a catch-all where there’s potentially three at-larges, so for example, if a 6-seed beats a 3-seed, could the 3-seed then go into a pool to get in? Maybe,” Petitti continued. “At the end of the day, I think our coaches are willing to take that risk, because what they’re thinking about is, it is not a snapshot of any one season. They’re looking at how to get more teams in contention.”