Commissioner Tony Petitti has offered a barrage of radical ideas since taking charge of the Big Ten in the spring of 2023, but his latest plan, to double the size of the College Football Playoff, might be the topper.
Much like several of Petitti’s previous proposals, it has encountered public and private pushback.
Fans and industry leaders alike are concerned that a massive expansion of the postseason, as detailed by an ESPN article last week, would adversely impact the sport's precious regular season.
We’ll get to that topic momentarily. First, let’s attempt to address a more fundamental issue: To what extent, if any, is the resistance to Petitti’s plan rooted in the fact that it is Petitti’s plan?
He has been roundly criticized, both by fans of other conferences and media members (guilty!), for proposing the automatic-qualifier (AQ) format in which the Big Ten and SEC would receive four automatic bids to the CFP regardless of on-field performance.
And for supporting a straight-seeding model to an expanded NCAA Tournament that would confer a significant advantage to the Big Ten.
And for proposing an infusion of private capital to Big Ten campuses in exchange for extending the conference's grant-of-rights until 2046.
And for creating a single transfer window in the spring.
To this point, none of Petitti's ideas have received the necessary approval, although we suspect the transfer portal will be moved to April or May in coming years.
Granted, Petitti isn’t plotting these ideas alone, like a mad scientist in the cellar of the conference office. He has the support of Big Ten coaches, athletic directors and university presidents. Otherwise, his best intentions would fizzle long before they entered the public realm.
That's clearly true of the 24-team playoff model. Big Ten coaches and executives believe the idea has enough merit to move forward within the complex negotiations over the CFP's future format.
But because of the plan's radical nature, both the initial concept floated last spring and the leak of details last week were met with immediate resistance.
Had the idea come from the SEC's Greg Sankey, the Big 12's Brett Yormark or the ACC's Jim Phillips, would the reception have been any different? We suspect there is some (understandable) Petitti fatigue baked into the reaction.
Indiana defensive back Jamari Sharpe reacts after Indiana defeated Miami in the College Football Playoff national championship game, Monday, Jan. 19, 2026, in Miami Gardens, Fla.
All four commissioners are attempting to reconfigure the playoff for a new era in which revenue sharing has added a $20 million expense to athletic department budgets.
The sport’s screwy calendar, caused in part by academic enrollment dates, is a complication. So, too, is navigating the competing preferences of Power Four schools with those in the Group of Five. And the future role of conference championships.
The CFP field for the upcoming season is set at 12. Petitti's plan calls for expansion to 16 teams in 2027 and 2028, followed by implementation of the 24-team event by 2029.
It has several intriguing elements:
— The 24-team tournament would feature a full load of on-campus games with eight in the first round and another eight in the second round, followed by the quarterfinals and semifinals at the major bowls. (The top eight seeds would have byes in the opening round.)
— It would eliminate the conference championship games, a long-anticipated move that could be poorly received in the SEC but nowhere else. In theory, the added playoff inventory would generate enough new TV revenue to offset the loss of the conference championships. Without them, Army-Navy (and presumably the Heisman Trophy ceremony) would move up to the first weekend in December, with the playoff starting the second.
— Petitti’s plan would reserve one spot for the Group of Six conferences, with the other 23 filled by the best teams, not automatic qualifiers. And there would be no cap on the number of participants from a given conference. (This is effectively a concession to the SEC, which opposed Petitti's AQ model for a 16-team event.)
— The format would open a path for greater Big 12 participation in the playoff. The conference has yet to produce either an at-large qualifier or a victory in the 12-team field. (The ACC could benefit, as well.)
— The additional games created by a 24-team event likely would lead to other networks becoming broadcast partners. (Currently, ESPN is the exclusive rights-holder.) Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks, whose network is the Big Ten's primary broadcast partner, said last year that he favors a 24-team field.
So, yes: Petitti's plan has some merit.
But there are two obvious flaws.
We expect instant and justified pushback from the Group of Six, which currently has one guaranteed berth to the 12-team event. Petitti’s proposal doubles the field size without providing another slot for the top teams from the American, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West, Pac-12 and Sun Belt.
That contentious issue could be quickly solved by allocating a second berth to the Group of Six, thus leaving the power conferences and Notre Dame, which make up just half the Football Bowl Subdivision, with 22 of the 24 spots.
The other issue is more difficult to quantify: the impact a 24-team tournament would have on college football's cherished regular season, unsurpassed in American sports.
The exclusivity inherent to the 12-team format would go the way of the dodo.
Do college football fans want a barrage of three- and four-loss teams in the playoff? Because based on the final CFP selection committee rankings from the 2024-25 seasons, the following teams would have cleared the bar for a 24-team field: Colorado (9-3), Syracuse (9-3), Houston (9-3), Georgia Tech (9-3) and Iowa (8-4).
Petitti probably would argue that interest in the NFL playoffs doesn't diminish when 10-7 and 9-8 teams participate, but college football is not the NFL and should never become the NFL.
We cannot stress that enough and, in all candor, are not convinced Petitti, who worked for Major League Baseball, appreciates the need for college football to remain distinct.
Our assumption is that Petitti believes doubling the field size would give hope to more Power Four teams — perhaps by a multiplier of three, if not four — and thus increase the number of meaningful games in October and November by an order of magnitude.
But that's only half the calculation.
The other half: What impact would the 24-team field have on the premier matchups that define the three-month regular season?
Yes, three-loss Iowa against three-loss Washington in early November would mean more.
But one-loss Texas against undefeated Georgia in the middle of October would mean less.
The sport had best be wary of kneecapping its premier product.
In a previous life, Petitti was a programming executive for ABC and CBS. Scheduling is a wheelhouse topic for him. So we ask: What evidence has Petitti uncovered to indicate the 24-team playoff would provide more benefit than harm to the regular season?
A decision of this magnitude cannot be made on faith and desire alone. It cannot benefit the Big Ten and SEC at the exclusion of all others. And it certainly cannot be based on what works for the NFL.
Elements of Petitti's plan have merit. But on the component that matters most, clarity remains elusive.
