How the Big Ten rallied around a CFP plan the rest of college football isn’t sold on

[MisterGopher]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6518162/2025/07/28/big-ten-college-football-playoff-format/

Petitti continued meeting with his football coaches, athletic directors and others to devise a system that would reward the Big Ten for its success but would apply fairly throughout the sport. He targeted a guaranteed number of spots for each conference, which then could choose their own participants (allowing for a few at-large berths) rather than leave their fortunes up to the selection committee. From there, the math led him to this conclusion.

Based on end-of-season CFP rankings over the system’s 11-year history, schools currently playing in the Big Ten would have secured 54 CFP spots if the field consisted of five conference champions and 11 at-large teams (5+11). Fifty-one teams would have qualified from the current SEC, with 27 each from both the ACC and Big 12. Among the other conferences and Notre Dame, 20 teams would have earned CFP spots.

The Big Ten would have sent at least four teams to the CFP each year, with a high of six in three different seasons. The SEC would have sent seven teams to the CFP twice but four times would have sent only three teams. Over that span, the ACC would have topped out with four teams once, with three one-bid seasons. The Big 12 would have sent five teams twice and one team four times.

In a 5+11 format, the Big Ten would have averaged 4.9 spots, with the SEC close behind (4.6) and the Big 12 and ACC tied at 2.5 spots apiece from 2014 to ’24. To ensure the system could accommodate additional teams plus Notre Dame, Petitti targeted four berths each for the Big Ten and SEC and two apiece for the ACC and Big 12, plus the highest-ranked champion outside of those four leagues and three at-large choices available for the selection committee.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Is this using teams in the current B1G and SEC?

 

[Some guy]

It’s crazy stupid how the media that keeps writing the same article hasn’t figured out the reason the big ten wants 4 auto bids isn’t because they feel 8-4 Illinois should be in the playoff game with the current format. It’s because the big ten wants more money by going to a 10 or 11 game conference schedule with no FCS games to increase the TV payout and the don’t want to do it if it’s going to screw their playoff chances


Haven’t seen any media write that article but it’s clearly the reason

 

[GopherGrit]

"Based on end-of-season CFP rankings over the system’s 11-year history,"

These types of analysis are folly, because surely the committees would have voted differently than they did. Both because the Big Ten and SEC have more teams, and because they would know the number of teams and format was completely different.

 

[GopherGrit]

It’s crazy stupid how the media that keeps writing the same article hasn’t figured out the reason the big ten wants 4 auto bids isn’t because they feel 8-4 Illinois should be in the playoff game with the current format. It’s because the big ten wants more money by going to a 10 or 11 game conference schedule with no FCS games to increase the TV payout and the don’t want to do it if it’s going to screw their playoff chances


Haven’t seen any media write that article but it’s clearly the reason

Probably because, behind closed doors in meetings between TV partners and Big Ten leadership you're exactly correct, but they can't come out and say that.

So instead, the public narrative will be trying to shame/drive the SEC into playing an equal number of conference games.

 

[gophernut1]

With the automatic bids in place it allows a few things to happen:

1.) Conferences championship week could include their own playoff system - assuming conferences would get to determine how one qualifies for the auto-bid.

2.) With more automatic bids - conference games take on more weight. The goal is not to win over some committee but simply to prep a team for the conference. This changes how one prepares for the conference season and the matches one is willing to take on.

3.) Because of #2 - one is willing to take a loss to a challenging non-conference foe to make sure they stress test their team and get them ready for the rigor of the conference season. While cupcakes will still be scheduled - the idea of playing a tough opponent is actually more encouraged than discouraged, if you know a loss in non-conference play will not destroy your chances of making the playoffs.

With a potential playoff for bids and with the chance of a non-conference loss not destroying ones opportunity for a bid. I believe what the B1G is going for in not more conference games, but better non-conference games and more play-in games/playoff games. The are trying to raise the bar for themselves financially but also all of college football.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

Probably because, behind closed doors in meetings between TV partners and Big Ten leadership you're exactly correct, but they can't come out and say that.

Not trying to sound argumentative, just curious why you think that. Wouldn't saying something like, "We want to avoid lop-sided games against FCS teams and instead play more conference games, which will be more competitive in nature and better for fans, and also allow us to get a better gauge on who our best teams are" be a good thing to say?

I've been an SEC homer for a long time, but I'd totally respect the B1G for saying that.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

With a potential playoff for bids and with the chance of a non-conference loss not destroying ones opportunity for a bid.

Not similar in every aspect, but kinda like pre-season NFL games? Go out there, test yourself, but the loss doesn't affect your playoff chances.

That being said, currently the difference is that the college kids will still try and win - for now. But what if coaches do start to use it like a preseason? For example, roll the 5* QB out there and if he's not ready, put in the more experienced QB to start conference play.

Just a thought. I'd hate to see it go like that, but it could.