← The Bill and Doug Show: Ohio State Football Talk
The Bill and Doug Show: Ohio State Football Talk
A 24-team College Football Playoff: Why the Big Ten wants it, and would it kill college football?
01:45:41
The Big Ten floated a 24-team College Football Playoff proposal to its schools, as reported by ESPN.com on Friday. On this episode of The Bill and Doug Show, Bill Landis and Doug Lesmerises break down the parts that don't make sense, and some of the parts that do.
Loading summary
Transcript237 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome back to the Bill and Doug show 2014 playoff on the docket. Bill, I love it. You hate it. Why do we think that now? I, I actually don't love it, but we're gonna talk about a proposal that's been out there from the Big Ten. But Pete Thamel the goat did a great job with the story today presenting what he said is an internal document that has been presented by the Big Ten confere to its athletic directors and coaches, I guess, to see what they think. And it is outlining a Big Ten proposal for a 24 team college football playoff. There are multiple things within that, some specifics I think that maybe weren't made clear in the past that add to the discussion. But we're going to go through sort of all the parts of the discussion and I think in the end this is about one thing, one that is an issue that I believe needs to be solved. I'm not sure what the way to solve it is, but I understand the Big Ten trying to solve it. But why don't you give us first blush? Philly Billy reactions. Doug Lam, Bill Landis here in the Bill and Doug show to the 2014 playoff.
- [01:27]
B
To another product of the Tony Petiti Bad idea Machine. Like, I don't. It's like, nobody wants this. No, nobody wants it. They make the worst T shirts and the worst playoff brackets you've ever seen here at the Tony Patini Bad idea factory. And I don't think I, I've seen some of this pop up throughout this discussion of, well, the Big Ten doesn't really want this. They're sort of just doing a trial balloon of what is probably not exactly what they want and, and perhaps even something that is sort of intentionally bad to kind of get back to the table and get what they really want addressed. It's like, I don't think that's what this is. I think they want this. I think they actually want this. I don't, I don't think, I don't think he's that diabolical. I actually think the Big Ten wants a 2014 playoff and I think that sucks. So that's. That is. That is my whatever 30,000foot view opinion on the subject.
- [02:30]
A
For those of you who do not follow Bill Landis on social media, and you certainly should, the initial reaction to Pete's story was a Bill retweet with a thumbs down that I don't believe that Twitter has sound effects. But if it did, in my head, that thumbs down came with a.
- [02:51]
B
Yeah.
- [02:51]
A
Did you intend it that way?
- [02:53]
B
Yes. My. I, I was either going to do the thumbs down emoji or I also like just quote tweeting it and just put who farted? Like, you know, but I didn't, I wanted to. I wanted to have a sense of decorum. So I just use the thumbs down.
- [03:06]
A
See, but that's the thing. Like, we're an independent media operation now. You don't have to worry about the overlords calling you in for a meeting about your who farted tweet. Let it rip, brother.
- [03:15]
B
That's true.
- [03:16]
A
I'm here for it. I'm here for it. I gotta tell you, we got a super interesting quarterback discussion about the Power four that we have researched and locked and loaded and we worked.
- [03:28]
B
You have, you have researched. I haven't done anything.
- [03:31]
A
I had a lovely time. Made a spreadsheet and we were going to do it today, but we're going to save it because this popped up because we want to talk about national college football because it's mid February and what else is there to do? We have a lot, we have a lot of good national college football topics. We understand you guys are often here for Ohio State coverage and we love doing that. We love diving into the Buckeyes, but we also want to make sure we did it during the season. We did at least one show a week that was a northern, Big Ten national college football kind of show. We haven't done a couple those that much in the off season yet. We want to get back to that Bill. So that's part of what we want to do here. We want to make, make sure that we maintain our foot in that college football discussion, which was why when this popped up, we were like, let's do this. I sort of have five topics to sort of run through and we'll discuss some of the specifics in this plan. That again, maybe weren't always part of the discussion. One of the specifics of this Big Ten proposal to go to a 24 team playoff is eliminating conference title games. And with Pete's reporting, there is just like within there a kind of. This is a quote from, from Pete's story on ESPN.com Again, Pete is very good at this job. The internal document gives a window into how the Big Ten views the conference title games, calling them, quote, artificial and saying that leagues that play them take on, quote, way more risk than those that don't and still advance to the college football playoff. So basically it's. And I do think there's some window there of like Ohio State, you go in, you lose the Big Ten championship game. Like Miami didn't play in the ACC championship game, but then Miami had a first round game. So like the. There is some stuff in there where. I think we've talked about this previously. It can be a disadvantage, especially for championship game losers who then don't get a buy. Now, Ohio State lost the Big Ten championship and still got a buy. But if you lose your conference championship game, still make the playoff, like Alabama would be that example, still beat Oklahoma. It's because they're both turds. But Alabama lost Georgia in the SEC title game and then had to play a first round game against an Oklahoma team that had that week off. So all Alabama got out of it was like an extra game. Right. And is, is there somehow that I understand some of the thinking around making a conference championship game should not be detrimental to your national championship hopes. And I do I at least understand some of that thinking. There's a lot of financial discuss discussions that would have to happen. If you take. Like what's Dr. Pepper going to spend its money on? If you get rid of college football conference championship games, I guess the whole town.
- [06:19]
B
The whole town will shut down. What's that, what's that fake town where Brian Bosworth's the sheriff?
- [06:24]
A
Yeah. I mean, it is like you, we've all gone through that. It's unfortunate, but you go through manufacturing towns or towns where there was a steel mill or something that closed down. Can you imagine Fansville? My God, Fansville.
- [06:37]
B
That's what it's called. I wanted to call it a Flavortown, but I knew that wasn't right.
- [06:42]
A
Flavortown will never shut down, baby. What do you think of the idea of getting rid of conference championship games? And then it would be kind of like a trade because you're sort of trading around to the playoffs for that, but specifically getting rid of that.
- [07:01]
B
Yeah, no, I'm actually in favor of that. There are two. Two. I don't hate everything about this, which.
- [07:08]
A
Is one of the. Which is how they get you. I know how they get you, Mr. Thumbs Down Fart sound. There's parts of it that you like.
- [07:17]
B
I mean, there are. There are really only two specifically that I like. And it's the first two things we're going to talk about, but yeah, this is one of them. But my, my motivation for wanting to get rid of the conference title games is another issue entirely. It's about the calendar of the sport and changing it and getting the season done earlier and all this stuff like that is that is like, to pull back for a second. Like, my largest frustration with all of this. Okay, like, the problem with college football is not the playoff structure and like, why we're spending so much time and brain power and figuring out exactly what the, the playoff and postseason structure should be while there are much larger glaring issues with this sport. Doesn't make any sense to me. I know why that's the case because the solutions to the biggest issues in the sport are not things that athletic administrators, administrators and NCAA want to do. And this is one thing they can do something about. So I understand why we're there, but, like, I have no time for it when the calendar is a mess, when roster building's a mess, when the coaching carousel is a mess, but nobody wants to do anything about that. So anyway, I do think we, we probably should get rid of conference title games. Does feel like they sort of run their course. I think it's easier for the Big Ten to feel that way because the Big Ten championship has only been around for like 13 years or something like that.
- [08:33]
A
Right.
- [08:33]
B
Like, it's not. It's like the SEC title game, which is a little more firmly entrenched and I think sort of culturally with. Within the culture of Southern football means a little something more than the Big Ten title does. Does to the big. To the Midwest and West coast now. I suppose. So I, I'm not surprised that the Big Ten would feel that way, calling it artificial.
- [08:54]
A
But.
- [08:54]
B
But the other thing that was mentioned in the article was like, the fact that Fernando Mendoza got popped on the first play of the Big Ten title game. And for a second, the guy who we thought was going to win the Heisman Trophy is laying first face down on the turf and you're wondering if Indiana's entire season is unraveling before our eyes in a game that doesn't mean anything.
- [09:14]
A
So for all of them, you're already preparing your. How Kaden Curry spelled the end of conference title games. You're already. You got that story locked and loaded.
- [09:24]
B
Yeah, I, I just don't. So much happened with conference title game. You, you just, you, you kind of laid it out there, right? Like the fact that the ACC title game didn't matter. The fact that.
- [09:35]
A
Well, I mean, it did. I mean, if Virginia would have beaten.
- [09:38]
B
Virginia would have won, I guess made.
- [09:40]
A
It and then like, maybe Miami wouldn't have.
- [09:44]
B
Yeah, I guess. I guess so. But like, that's not what happened. But it ended up happening. Was the team that won the ACC championship was entirely irrelevant to the playoff conversation. And Then like the result of the Big Ten title game only determined who was going to Pasadena and who wasn't. Like, both teams are going to get the playoff and both teams are going to get a buy. So it's. So it's like how, how important is it really to be the team that gets to stand on the podium in Indianapolis and hold up that trophy anymore? I just, I just, I'm not sure that it matters because I don't think we're in a world anymore where one of the two teams in that game is going to be like a bubble team that has to win to get into the playoff. I think more often than not, if you're in that game, you're kind of already in. So, you know, yeah, I scrap it. Right. I, I would scrap them. Not, not, not even in support of this, like, general 24 team idea. Just whatever postseason structure we're using, I would get rid of conference title games.
- [10:35]
A
When you have a four team playoff. Conference title games are, are plans.
- [10:39]
B
They're play. They are, yeah.
- [10:41]
A
They are the utmost.
- [10:41]
B
First round of the playoff. Yeah.
- [10:42]
A
Like, it's awesome, right? And it's like, well, maybe still you could get in if you don't. But like the winners in, the losers out, probably out on the bubble. Like, there's huge stakes for both teams already. This level of expansion has made them stakeless. So then the only point of it is A, money, which is the only point of anything in college sports or in life, unfortunately, or B, claiming a trophy. But if the conference itself is proposing getting rid of them, then at least some of the people that matter feel like they can make up the money. That's the biggest hurdle because I think for those, like, you know, guys with microphones can advocate for scrapping conference championship games, but it's the guys with the checkbooks who make the determination. So if the people with the checkbooks are willing to do it, that we're way down the line of like, okay, who's gonna fight for them? And then again, the Big Ten is just more accustomed to this because The Big Ten's first conference title game in football was in 2011. The SEC's as you mentioned, was in 1992. That's a two decade difference, right? That' the generation where it's more ingrained. Ohio State and Indiana could have been co. Big Ten champs and they could both have a trophy in their lobby. And that's how the Big Ten used to do it. And then the SEC could do the same thing. And maybe if you wind up with four Teams with one loss, then you have four co. Champs. You don't have to break a tie, give everybody a trophy.
- [12:10]
B
Right?
- [12:10]
A
That. I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be offended by that. And then you can hang a banner. You won your conference. It was a tie. You didn't determine it. But we've all. We've had, you and I. Many people like, what is winning a conference title mean? And so it can still be a goal, but it's just not a game. It's still a trophy. It's still a reason. It's a secondary. It's another reason to win your regular season games. So it feels like if the money people are okay with this, like we, we could get to this. And I don't know how many people would object to see them go away.
- [12:46]
B
I don't, Yeah, I don't, I don't know that fans would, would care to, to see the games go away. But there is like a large chunk of the story that Pete wrote was like replacing the financial loss of the conference title games with these additional playoff games. Right? Because not every additional playoff game would just automatically be like grandfathered into the ESPN existing contract. There would be some of them that would be up for bid separately that you can then like sort of recoup your losses on not having the conference title games. So it's like, can, can you have one without the other? I, I don't know. I think you can, or I think you can do whatever. I don't know. Get rid of conference title games, but establish Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 ACC challenges within the regular season and sell those separately to recoup your losses from conference title. I don't know. They're. People have always been creative about ways to get money. I don't, I think they'd be able to figure it out. Something with something that doesn't necessitate adding another dozen teams to the playoff field and a couple extra weeks of playoff games.
- [13:52]
A
So what would happen in this proposal where the top eight teams would get buys and then you'd have 16 teams playing first round games. In this proposal, for instance, Ohio State as what wound up being the number two team this year, the number two seed in the playoff. Their postseason path was the Big Ten title game, then a buy in the first round of the playoffs, and then number 10, Miami, then they would have played a semifinal and a championship game. So if you include the conference title game as a postseason game, Ohio State's path as the number two team in the country would have been four games. So in this new world, there wouldn't be a conference championship game. So you take that off and then the number two seed would have a buy in the first round and then the number two seed would have played the winner of the 15 versus 18 game. And if you had done it this year, it would have been number 15, Utah versus number 18, Michigan. So Ohio State plays the winner of that game, then Miami, then the Georgia Ole Miss winner, then the, the, the national championship game, that would have been the path. So it's also four games. So for teams that in the past would have made a conference championship game and are would be a top eight team, be a top eight seed, you're not adding a game. Right. So for Alabama, for Georgia, for Indiana, for Texas Tech, for Ohio State, for all these teams that played in conference championship games, it is not an addition of a game on the brains and bodies of the players. Right. So I do think that is an important part of this. And as you talk about the calendar, I mean, I think they just start this. You'd start playing first round games on that weekend that currently is reserved for conference championship games. Right. So it's, you're, it's a, it's a trade of games. So what you're doing is you would be trading eight first round games, nine versus 24, 10 versus 23, all of that right down to 16 versus 17. You would add eight of those games and you would take away 10 conference championship games, right in the G6 and the four from the power four. So it's that trade off. It's monetarily, it's the football, but you guys don't care about money. Like they can figure out their own money. For fans, it's, that's the trade off that you're not getting Ohio State, Indiana, but you're getting Utah, Michigan. And so the game, the teams aren't quite as good, but the stakes are higher. So in that for the football fan, what do you think of that trade? Because in the end it's not a subtraction of games and it's not an addition of games, it's a trade of games.
- [16:47]
B
Yeah, sorry, My, my phone was ringing and my computer froze. I.
- [16:52]
A
It's Tony Petiti.
- [16:54]
B
Yeah.
- [16:54]
A
He heard what you said about him. He heard about your fart sound.
- [16:57]
B
He's mostly upset about the T shirt. I like, I like the trade off of that. I think I, because I think those are still like, like Ohio State, Indiana was, was like, we were all excited about that. I'm not, I'm not saying that wasn't like a worthwhile football game necessarily, or a compelling one or like two great ball. Of course it was. But I think like a Utah, Michigan, like as long as you're, you have these pods of like, like for like teams playing each other in super high stake games, I think, I think it'll be entertaining. So like, you know, I, I would probably rather watch a round of that of like a Utah, Michigan or I think like usc, Arizona is another one.
- [17:47]
A
We'll run through them here. They're not, they're not all bangers.
- [17:51]
B
They're not all.
- [17:52]
A
No bangers. But it's, it is. So it's like, okay, would you rather watch Georgia, Alabama and Ohio State? Indiana. Great, awesome teams. And all those teams played hard. Right. Even though the stakes weren't as high. And nobody like Texas Tech, BYU had stakes because if BYU had beaten Texas Tech, BYU would have made the playoff. They lost to Texas Tech, they didn't make the playoff. Right. Like we talked about Virginia, Duke, if Virginia had won, they would have made the playoff. So some of those had stakes. The SEC in the Big Ten title games are just not going to have stakes because forever the SEC and Big Ten, the, the two teams that make the championship games, they're both getting in the playoff. So you're never gonna have do or die stakes. And I think the thing that you risk is could you ever get to the point, which would be not the death knell for college football, but horrible, where those teams would play in a way that indicates they don't care.
- [18:44]
B
Right.
- [18:46]
A
That would.
- [18:46]
B
Which I think people, people were worried about this year. That certainly didn't happen.
- [18:50]
A
But like, what if, what if after Fernando Mendoza got body slammed by Kaden Curry, Kurt Signetti would have been like, that's it. The brothers in we'll see in the playoff. That would have been devastating. And this eliminates that problem before it actually happens.
- [19:06]
B
Yeah. And to your point, like they're not all, they're not all, not all winners here. I just think I'd rather watch games with stakes. Okay, then I think I would like at least at this point in the season. Now the thing that's difficult with Ohio State of Indiana is like they had not played yet. Like this was the first time we saw them like, and Georgia, Alabama was a rematch. So like that complicates it slightly, I think. But I, I would prefer, I think at that point in the calendar to have more games with stakes than like keep the conference title game structure as is because sometimes you might get an Ohio State Indiana, that is pretty compelling. While the rest of the slate might not be that great, I think you, you probably have a better chance or maybe even definitely have a better chance of having like, whatever, four or five, like pretty awesome high stakes games if you do it the way that's proposed by the Big Ten here.
- [20:07]
A
So this is leading into something that I want to discuss later. So, so I'll just run through real quick. These are what the, the eight first round games would have been this year. USC, Arizona, which, like, would be interesting as two former Pac 12 teams who are now at different conferences. Right. Like, we could have played that up. Like, are people clamoring to see those two actual rosters play against each other? I don't know. But usc, Arizona, Alabama, jmu, byu, Houston, Texas, Tulane, Utah, Michigan, Miami, Iowa, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and Vanderbilt. Virginia. Like, honestly, for real, there's some games that I in there that I think like, even pretty hardcore college football fans might skip. But if you're gonna do this, that's what your risk.
- [20:57]
B
You're.
- [20:58]
A
It's like the 23rd best team against the 17th best team. Right? That's what, that's the whole point of this, which I, I don't want to go all the way into yet, but like couple decent games, couple turds.
- [21:11]
B
Yes. And I would all, like, I think, I know there's, there's language in the Big Ten proposal to avoid rematches. Yes, I would, I would also really, as much as you can avoid conference games, even if they're not rematches, right? Like, like, because like byu, Houston, that's not like, right. There's gonna be a large, a large swath of the country that's just not going to care about the game. Maybe I'm wrong. I think there's an element to all of this, right. Which, because it's like, it's, it's true in the NFL. I think it's true in college football. We're gonna watch. People are gonna watch. And like the people in charge know that I've responded to somebody on, on Twitter, I said, like, they know that we're gonna eat the slop, right? So they can put it in front of us and we're. And we're gonna eat it. But taking this hypothetical group of teams from this most recent playoff and what this would have looked like with 24 teams, like, I would still want to reconfigure this board too. Have some more intersectional games, I think, than have like another Big 12 game. What's basically another ACC game with Notre Dame. And Georgia Tech.
- [22:18]
A
Right.
- [22:18]
B
I would like, want to make the two G6 teams like play each other to have to have like a more compelling game there, I think. So there's still, there's still flaws with it.
- [22:28]
A
And this is one of those where like, if once you're doing this, it's like you're in, you're in in a world where you shouldn't be in if you just flip flopped. So BYU, Houston would be 1221. Texas, Tulane would have been 1320. If you flip flop Houston and Tulane, you now have byu, Tulane, which is Jake Retzloff, the Tulane quarterback, going against his former team at byu. And you have Houston versus Texas. So it's like you just slide a little thing and you've made two awesome games. Yeah, right.
- [22:54]
B
Which they do in basketball. Right. Like you're. You're not allowed to pull the time in the first round of the basketball tournament.
- [22:59]
A
Right? Yeah, they'll slide your spot to do what you have, like what has to be done. And it's like, oh no, we were, we were the 20th best team. We got. We got slid to 21. It's like shut your hole. Doesn't like you shouldn't even be here. Right. So like everybody would agree to that. And it's like we're making TV shows. If you're going to 24, you're making TV shows. This is the spin off, right. Game of Thrones was the four team playoff and then they decided to do like the extra dragon show and that was a 12 team playoff. This is, this is the new one with the Knights and. But you know what? I watched all five episodes of the new Night One last night.
- [23:30]
B
I hear good things. Yeah, it's good.
- [23:33]
A
Yeah. So it's like maybe Vanderbilt better than hoops All Dragons.
- [23:36]
B
Yeah. Yeah.
- [23:38]
A
Maybe. We didn't know. Maybe like, like Virginia's this little bald guy and. And Vanderbilt's this like seven foot doofus and they're just walking around together holding hands and it's just like, I don't. Who knew I wanted this? I didn't even know. I didn't know I wanted Vanderbilt, Virginia, but I did in a year.
- [23:56]
B
The appeal of a big guy and a little guy just walking around.
- [23:59]
A
For real.
- [23:59]
B
Yeah.
- [24:00]
A
I mean, yeah. Smart little guy. Big dumb guy.
- [24:02]
B
Yeah.
- [24:04]
A
Never misses. Never misses. Okay, so that's like kind of point one, point two. We touched it a little bit. What do you think of the path for the top eight seeds? We sort of talked about like you're trading something here that like again for Instance, if, if you were making a conference title game, you're not playing an extra game. So that's part of the path. But the thing here that, that has Philly Billy intrigued is that every top eight seed, you'd get a buy in the first round and you'd get a home game in the second round. And that tickles your fancy, big guy.
- [24:38]
B
Yeah. I think these teams, it's, it's just very odd to me that your reward for being the best in the model that we currently have is you don't get to play at home. And your fans, some of them have to take out a second mortgage to go watch. To go watch you play games. Right. Why, why are we not giving these teams home games? I think we should give them multiple home games. That's another conversation. But I, I love any thought process. I guess that gets us to a place where, where the, the top teams in the field get to play games at home. Because I, I also think like the having covered this for two years now and watch them on tv, like, you know, not every on campus game has been the most compelling, obviously, but I don't think anybody would, would dispute the fact that the atmospheres have been way better for the campus games than they have been for the neutral site quarterfinals and semi finals and national championship games. So I, I think you just want to invite more of that.
- [25:37]
A
Right?
- [25:37]
B
Like, that's the thing that still like separates college football from the NFL is what it's like in and around the college stadiums on a Saturday. So why would you not want to have as much of that as you can in your postseason structure?
- [25:53]
A
And what college football never wants to do is take things away. So the only, the, the best path often to getting what you want is by adding, so this is not taking any games away from the bull sites. You still would play the quarterfinals and the semis at the bowl sites and then have a national championship game. But in adding an entire round and expanding the field so it's like you're creating eight buys instead of four buys. You are creating 16 campus games instead of four campus games. And that is, you're gonna. Every year the better seeds in the first round would have a campus game and then all those winners would then go on the road to a campus site to the top eight seeds who had buys. But you're not the guys in the sports coach, the guys in the yellow sports coach who come around and eat free shrimp and visit regular season games for no apparent reason. And it's all a boondoggle for bowl people to get vacations. Those guys. You're not taking away anything from those guys. Now, those guys, frankly, can get bent, but we'll deal with them later. In the meantime, you are adding Bill 12 more exciting, awesome, memorable atmospheres. And every single year, 16 of the 136 teams that play FBS college football would get a home playoff game. Yeah, and that's. That's pretty enticing there. Ooh, Tony Petiti's reeling in.
- [27:31]
B
He's got a little.
- [27:32]
A
He's got a Philly Billy on the line there. Come on, bro.
- [27:36]
B
You know, he knows what we like. It's interesting to me and I don't know, like, I. I would imagine this doesn't take away, like, from the Indiana fan experience of going 16 and oh and winning a national title, but, like, basically no part of that magical season of Indiana football happened in blooming. Like they had the game against Illinois in September where they kicked Illinois butt. But, like, they won at Iowa, they won at Oregon, they won at Penn State, they beat Ohio State in Indianapolis, and then they were at the Rose bowl and on neutral sites. The rest of the year kind of sucks. Nothing happened in Bloomington. And I think teams should get, I don't know, at least one opportunity to have part of. Part of that journey be in their home stadium.
- [28:21]
A
Yeah, so. So that's a plus. Also, you said like, you. The first two points were you. You kind of liked. Okay, yeah. This is, this is the third point I have here. Would this keep good regular season games going? Because so many teams would make the playoff and this is one of those where the bald guy in the south floated the idea of, is Bama gonna bail? I don't have my bald cap with me. Is Bama gonna bail on this Ohio State series that's scheduled for 27 and 28 because the SEC is going to nine conference games and people look at Texas losing to Ohio State and think, oh, what's your reward for playing a big time national game against the top 10 team and losing? Your reward is you missed the playoff and if you had played a lousy team there and gone 10 and 2, you would have made it. And of course that's loser thinking and it's wrong. And the whole point is don't lose to Florida. But you can't shake those Ding Dongs in the south from that thinking right now. So I think it is a threat, but I hate it. And everybody who is making the threat can cram it till the sun don't shine. Like, it's horrible. That we're gonna, we're gonna kill the most exciting regular season games and all schedule the Citadel three times if you make us play nine, nine conference games. But I do think, for instance, I thought I was going to talk about this earlier today. I had it looked up. You looked at like Wisconsin's 2025 college football season, right? And Wisconsin was already playing in the regular season. Wisconsin played Ohio State, Oregon, Indiana, Washington and Michigan and Illinois. And they were all ranked at the time, right. So Wisconsin's already playing all those teams. And then they also went to Alabama. Right. And it's, it's awesome, right. Two years ago when we were doing our thing, I went to the Alabama game in Madison because it was like, Bama's coming north. This is great. You know who didn't think it was great? Luke Fickle. Because you're already doing this thing where like, if your conference is good, you're playing a lot of good teams and now you're playing like you're, you're purposefully scheduling another very difficult game. And if it is a race for 11 spots, people are going to do whatever they have to do to claim one of those 11 spots. Because even though 11 is so much many more than four, it still feels like a finite amount of spots. Right. This proposal from the Big Ten is one spot for the G6 and 23 at large. 23 spots feels like we'll get in. And so do you think if it expanded to 24, it would increase the chances of keeping the best intersectional, intersectional non conference games around in a situation where at the moment, whether we think they should be or not, I think it's clear to some degree those regular season games are under threat.
- [31:23]
B
They're definitely under threat. I, I just, I don't know. I, I, I want to sort of believe that the answer to your question is like, yes, this would help keep some of those games on the schedule. But I think more of me worries that, especially like at the, at the, at the back half of this bracket, that it's just going to be about how many wins can you stack and teams are going to schedule accordingly. I kind of think that happens in college basketball a little bit. It's like, can we get to 22 wins and get a tournament resume? It's like, I don't know, our college football team's just going to schedule to get themselves to nine or ten wins regardless now. And, and, and might this even invite more teams to, to embody that thinking? Because, you know, spots, whatever, 13 to 24 are are available to them now in the playoff field? I'm not sure. My, my lean is, is that.
- [32:20]
A
Is.
- [32:20]
B
That teams would probably schedule lighter just, just really just to accumulate wins. Yeah, maybe, maybe that's wrong. I don't know. The thing that bothers me about that, about this conversation is, and I don't maybe this is a, an unrealistic solution, but couldn't conferences just scrap the idea of making these conference schedules so far out in advance, do it year to year and then reward their members who schedule marquee non conference games by giving them easier conference slates? Like part of the issue I think with some of this is like we scheduled this series eight years in advance and when we got to it, five of the teams on our schedule are significantly better now than we thought they were going to be because the entire sport changed. That's why Indiana still is playing a joke of a Big Ten schedule still. Because when they made the schedule Indiana sucked and now they're good, but they get to play the schedule of a team that is a seller dweller in the Big Ten. So like Ohio State has to go to Texas and to Indiana in the same season and when they put the Texas series on the schedule it's probably like all right, that's fine, we'll go to Bloomington, no big deal. And now it's like holy crap, we got to go play at Indiana too. I think it should be on the conferences to figure that out and just stop scheduling things so far in advance, do it on a year to year cycle and try to have things be a little more balanced than they are. And that would maybe eliminate a lot of this worry and not have to tie the postseason structure to the way the teams schedule in the regular season.
- [33:50]
A
Do you think attempting to encourage teams to play a good non conference game is something that should be thought about when creating the playoff structure? Is that, is it worthy enough to take into consideration?
- [34:08]
B
I think so, yeah.
- [34:10]
A
Okay, so then I think we can just, we can discuss or, or disagree on whether it would hurt or help or what is the playoff structure that would encourage scheduling good non conference games? But I think most people would agree it's something that should be in the thought process because.
- [34:28]
B
Yeah, I just don't. I, I think it should be part of the thought process, but I don't know that, I don't know that there is one. I just think like any playoff structure that you could come up with would eventually be spun into. We can't play these non conference games anymore because we can't take on the losses, I like, I just like that's the way that I think coaches and administrators think there because they're all just trying to keep their jobs.
- [34:51]
A
I do think, I mean like the committee is the one who would change that. Right? The committee is like, well, this is why we put in, we put in this 8 and 4 team over this 10 and 2 team because they played a banger schedule. Right. And that, but that.
- [35:01]
B
Which they've never done, which they haven't done yet. We've only done it two years.
- [35:05]
A
But yeah, but I, but I also wonder if you're, if you're getting into like when you're talking about like 11 and one teams versus nine and three teams and it's like, well, we're going to take the 11 and 1. If you're talking about a 10 and 2 team with a lousy schedule, that's an 8 and 14 with a great schedule and it's for the 18th seed. I think they might be more open to not just looking at the number of wins and taking this more into account. I think we agree that it's a worthy consideration to have. I think this would encourage it at least from the Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Oregon, Michigan, Penn State kind of thinking, which is like, are we almost always going to be in the top 23? Yeah. Right. So if we lose a non conference game, I don't think that's the difference for our program being number 21 or 27. So like.
- [36:02]
B
Yeah, and I think for some of those teams too, like, it's like, I think it's even pretty unlikely that you're not going to be in a top eight. Right. Like you're still, you're still going to get your, you'd have to like Ohio State I think would have to lose three games to not be in the top eight. Hasn't happened under normal circumstances in a.
- [36:19]
A
Long time, but I think so this specific example, Ohio State, Alabama. Do you think if there was a. And, and listen with, with Pete's reporting this would ease into this? But we wouldn't get to in this Big Ten proposal a 2014 playoff until 2029. So it wouldn't affect the actual Ohio State, Alabama 27 and 28 scheduled series. But do you think if either program. And it feels like if there is somebody having second thoughts, it's Alabama?
- [36:45]
B
I think Paul Favors, because I don't know that Ohio because I don't know that Ohio State actually wants to play that game either. But they don't have to say anything about it because Paul Feinbaum already made the world think that Alabama is the one that doesn't want to play it.
- [36:57]
A
Okay, but, so, but why doesn't, why doesn't Ohio State want to play it?
- [37:00]
B
For the same reason as Alabama. Just like why, like why, why invite the opportunity for a loss? I think every team thinks that way.
- [37:09]
A
I hate it because I, I think, I think it's wrong because again, the whole Texas argument is wrong. Texas would have been at the top of the two loss pyramid with a loss to Ohio State if it hadn't lost to Florida. The loss to Florida is what Tech kept Texas out. And if Tex. If Texas was a 102 team that had played Sam Houston State instead of Ohio State and was 10 and 2 with the losses it had and one of those losses was to Florida, I don't think they would have made it.
- [37:35]
B
Would have been in. Yeah, I agree.
- [37:37]
A
They, you. They would have been out. They would not.
- [37:39]
B
They still would have not been in.
- [37:40]
A
Yeah, it wasn't because they wouldn't have, you know, they had a lousy loss. They didn't have this. As you know, their best win was at the end again, Texas A M. But not all the two lost teams got in and I don't think they would have made it ahead of the two lost teams that did get in. So the problem is that people are dumb and they're thinking about it wrong. It's reactionary, it's knee jerk. I still think that actually, because if Texas had beaten Ohio State and had three losses, they would have been in. If they had beaten Ohio State and lost to somebody else, they would have been in. Ohio State with the win over Texas would have been in with three losses. They would have been the only three loss team in because of that great win. Right. So I mean that people are dumb and they're scared and they're dumb and all they care about is money. And that's very frustrating. But I think expanding to 23 for the top, top 10 programs in the country would make you more likely to schedule to keep a non conference game on the schedule because it's cool, your fans like it, you make a lot of money on your home game, your TV partners are all for it. And even if you lose, I mean, come on, you're prob. I mean like Texas would have made a 2014 playoff at 9 and 3 easily. They would have gotten a home game in the first round. Like they're in easy, there's no discussion. So it's like, okay, then what are we afraid of? Like this was A worst case scenario for Texas. It kept them out of the current system. They'd be in no problem. They could have lost one more game. They could have gone 8 and 4 and been in the in this 2014 playoff. So I do think this would encourage it. I think that's not for sure. We don't know for sure but we do believe it's a, it's a worthy thing to think about.
- [39:19]
B
Is there, is there a world where we're like maybe we're both kind of right where the top top has a stronger appetite to play these games but whatever tier 3 and lower doesn't because they're more in that we got to get as many wins as possible category.
- [39:35]
A
Yeah. Indiana is still scheduling three patches, right?
- [39:41]
B
But like. Yeah, but yeah. Yeah. Any. Yeah. The middle, the middle of the Big Ten in the SEC and the middle. Middle and down. Yeah right. Because Indiana I still.
- [39:55]
A
But it's like it's one of those things. It's like remember like when that was like that was like the number one of the top 10 off season discussions last year in college football. Indiana's weak non conference schedule was one of the top 10 things across the sport. And then it was like oh what happened? It's like they played their lousy non conference schedule and went 16. 01 the national championship and does anyone talk about that anymore? So you know like it would be great. I would love to see Indiana and Kurt Signetti now schedule.
- [40:24]
B
I think people talk about what they would. They would talk about it less if their league schedule was better and like their league schedule ended up being pretty good this year. But again like they to like foster I think some upward mobility. The Big Ten gave the traditionally bad teams easier conference schedules. So like that and that was maybe more true of 2024 Indiana. That was 2025 Indiana. But yeah if they did it on a more year to year basis and and like knowing how good Indiana was going to be going to last year, like they probably would have given a slightly different schedule than what they got in addition to their weekend conference schedule.
- [41:00]
A
But there's also part of it where like as a conference and as a TV partner don't you want your best teams playing each other to create those gigantic ratings? Don't you want Ohio State and Oregon playing each other? We know Penn State and Ohio State are taking a two year break but like don't you. You want those. You want Oregon going to State College, right. You George has been been playing. I mean Georgia made the sec, got in bed with ESPN and They made Georgia play every other good program in the SEC for the first two years for ratings. Kirby smarts like, why am I playing Alabama and Texas? This is ridiculous, right? But it's like, well, it's not by accident. And so. And then it's one of those, like if you're Fox and you're trying and if you were doing, if you did what you suggested, which is do the schedules later. I mean, they just did the schedule reveal. What if the Big Ten entire schedule reveal wasn't just, hey, here's when the games are. It's the full thing, it's your opponents and everything. Because what's the point of knowing your opponents? It's not like people could plan anything. You didn't know when the games were. People were like, oh God, we know Ohio State and Indiana are playing each other. That affects my life. It's like, well, it doesn't affect it till there's a date, right? So if they just waited. But if you're Fox and Ohio and, and you have an understanding that it doesn't make any sense to make Ohio State play seven top 25 teams in the regular season, that's not going to serve anybody. It doesn't serve Ohio State. It doesn't serve the Big Ten and trying to get his best teams in the playoffs. It would serve the fans because they'd be banger games. But if it comes down to would you rather have Ohio State play Alabama and will not have Ohio State play Oregon this year, or would you have rather have Ohio State play Oregon and have Ohio State get rid of that Bama game? Like what's more about now, if you play Ohio State and Oregon two consecutive years, Fox gets both those games. If it's Ohio State, Alabama, Fox gets one of those games and then the other games on, on ESPN and ABC because it's in Tuscaloosa. So that's part of the equation. But like it's, it's all trade off. So like what, what's the, what's the answer? As a fan, we care about fans. What do Ohio State fans want? Play Oregon, Penn State, Indiana more or play Rutgers and Minnesota a little more. But make sure you keep the Alabama game.
- [43:10]
B
I don't know that I know the answer to that question.
- [43:14]
A
I want to play the Alabama game if I'm a fan. It's like I want to see the things I've never seen, right? I, I want the chance to go to, to Brian Denny Stadium. I want the chance to see the Crimson Tide in Ohio Stadium. And if that Means give me a Rutgers instead of an Oregon. We'll, we'll see Oregon enough. Like it's, it's cool. We're good.
- [43:32]
B
Yeah.
- [43:33]
A
That's what I would always take. But I don't, but that's me, that's my, that would be my fan perspective because I, I do think. And then again, especially in a world where you're playing, if you're, if you're doing this stuff where you're still playing all your non conference games early, like, September's gonna suck if all the good teams are playing three patsies in September. Talk about fart sound. Thumbs down.
- [43:55]
B
Yeah.
- [43:56]
A
Yeah.
- [43:57]
B
So we need to move the bowl games before the start of the season.
- [43:59]
A
Yeah. All right. Let, let me, I'm gonna reverse 4 and 5 and let's do 5 first because 4 gets back to the thing that I think it's all about. The main thing about this is you're letting in teams that nobody really sees as playoff worthy. So in this bracket, I, I said I, there's probably seven teams that would have made the playoff this year that were not in playoff consideration in the last week or two. That would be number 15, Utah, 16, USC, 17, Arizona, 18, Michigan, 21 Houston, 22 Georgia Tech and 23 Iowa. So like I, I didn't put Virginia in there because Virginia wound up 19th, but they were in the ACC championship game. If they would have won, they would have made it. Right. Some of the group of six teams are still in there, but nobody was sitting around thinking to themselves, you know who I really think is a playoff team that is not going to make it is Houston. I need to see Houston in there. Right.
- [44:59]
B
Conor Wegman in my life. Yeah.
- [45:01]
A
So, so this is the thing that I, I think is the. Well, is this what is the toughest to stomach about this proposal in your mind, is this what led to the immediate thumbs down fart sound is the idea of these seven teams being in the playoff?
- [45:18]
B
Yes. Because like we didn't, we didn't have 12 good teams in this year's playoff. Right. Like, and, and I think more often than not we're gonna feel that way. So, so then why, why are we inviting more opportunity to feel that way? Like I said, like, we'll watch them. That's the thing. Like, what it goes back to is like people will watch, put these games on television, people are gonna watch them. But I don't know if that's. I guess, I don't know, maybe that's the only reason you should do it then. The only reason you need to do it. But I don't think that people want to sit on their couches or go to a sports bar and watch Iowa play a playoff game. Like, these are teams that are sort of, like, inherently flawed in some ways, or teams that really did absolutely nothing to warrant getting a postseason opportunity. Like, even, like, Michigan was 9 and 3. It didn't beat anybody good. And the three teams that it played that were good, like, kick their ass. Like, there's just. They just weren't a good team last year. They just happened to get a schedule that gave them nine wins. So that means they should make the playoff. And like, I understand in professional sports, oftentimes there are teams that aren't very good that end up making the postseason because of the way that that is set up. But I don't know that college football needs to set itself up to do the same thing just because it can and because it stands to make more money off of it. I just. I think it really, like, dilutes the product and dilutes a little bit what it means to be a champion in the sport if you start inviting teams that don't deserve it to be part of the postseason play.
- [47:01]
A
So I think this is what. This is what most people would say is their. This is what they don't like. Of these seven, I would say probably every fan base other than Michigan would be very excited just about the idea of making the playoff. Regardless. I was like, okay, it's 24. It's diluted. Who cares? Utah fans, USC fans, Arizona, Houston, Georgia Tech, Iowa, I think, would have been thrilled. And in this scenario, Utah would have gotten a home game. USC would have gotten a home home game. Those fan bases, I think, would be extra thrilled to get a home game. But even the idea of, like, I was going to play Miami in the first round, like, the whole state of Iowa would have been fired up about that. So I do think this is the thing that I wonder about. I think when there's a negative reaction to something like this, it's from the national perspective. As a overall college football fan, I don't like this. This is too wide open. These are teams that don't. Aren't playoff worthy, that didn't do enough in the regular season to make it. And I don't think they should be in. But I don't think Iowa fans and Houston fans and Arizona fans would have been mad about getting in. Right? Like, Iowa fans aren't like, turn this. We don't. We don't want this. We don't Deserve to go, right?
- [48:32]
B
Yeah. Yeah.
- [48:32]
A
So then is it, is it a national sport or is it a regional sport? Because you're creating incredible regional excitement and also creating some national fart sound thumbs down situations. But do you, do we really. How many people consume the sport like that? You're an Ohio State fan, you're an Indiana fan, you're a Georgia fan. Does it bother you, from your perspective of being a fan of the Georgia Bulldogs, that Houston made the playoff and they're playing a first round game and instead of number three, Georgia playing number 14 in the first round, you're now playing the winner of number 14 versus number 19, right?
- [49:20]
B
Yeah.
- [49:21]
A
And it's like, okay, if it was just we're playing the first round, number three, Georgia. We're playing number 14, Vanderbilt. Well, now we're actually playing the winner of Vanderbilt, Virginia. Okay. I don't know. Does that actually take away from Georgia or Alabama or Ohio State or, or fans like that? Because the Virginia fans, Virginia made the playoffs and they had a parade because it's now this Vanderbilt, Virginia game is the biggest game in the history of Virginia football.
- [49:53]
B
I don't know. I mean, I guess not. I, I think part of the pushback maybe comes from the idea of just sort of like you're, you're delaying the, the inevitable. Because people already kind of feel that way about the 12 team playoff, right? It's like we have whatever. We have these G6 teams being led to slaughter and we have, I, I don't know, like an assumption, I think that you can structure this any way you want, but the four best teams are the four best teams. Now, it hasn't really played out that way, especially this past season, but I think there's some of that just maybe baked into the opinion that if you really kind of stopped and thought about it and pulled back, it's like, well, is that actually true? I don't know. And I do think, I do think me perhaps structuring it this way would allow college football to capture a little bit of the, the basketball upset thing. Right? I, I just think as things are structured now, it just like, it ain't gonna happen now. And granted, like, we're not. None of these teams that would be in an expanded field are like Cinderella brands or whatever, right? But number 22, Georgia Tech, on the right day could beat Notre Dame, right? And then go beat Ole Miss. And it's like all of a sudden the 22 seeds in the quarterfinal. Like, I, I understand maybe why you'd want to foster a system that like, strive to create some of that. Even if I think it's. It's far less likely to happen as consistently as it happens with the basketball tournament because the sports are different. So I don't know, maybe, maybe it doesn't take away from the experience of the big Dogs at all. I think maybe it's just a, whatever, a lack of patience from people who view it that way and think like, well, these. We're just going through the motions with these other games. Give me, get me through the first two rounds so I can see Ohio State and Georgia play each other.
- [51:51]
A
Right. And I do think, I actually think potentially the most distasteful would be the true Blue Bloods who had bad years and still made it. Like, if Clemson or Penn State had been slightly better than they actually were this year. But they were in the top five in the preseason and they went eight and four and all year everybody was like, clemson and Penn State suck and they're 8 and 4 and they're the 23 seed.
- [52:17]
B
Yeah.
- [52:18]
A
And it's like, I don't like, I, I think there's a part of it of like, you know, what if Vanderbilt fans of Virginia fans and Houston fans and Iowa fans are super excited and get to play a playoff game? You know, they're in the playoff. They can hand that banger they love hanging out banner. They love football just as much as Georgia fans and Ohio State fans do, but they just never get to experience that. Is that such a terrible thing? The idea of you had a bad year and you still, like, backed in is like, okay, like, why? Why? I don't need to see 8 and 4 Clemson after their season fell apart. But then, I don't know. And then probably the worst case scenario is 8 and 4 Clemson that sucked all year, gets hot, makes the semifinals, and you're like, okay, so then the regular season is meaningless. Dabo peed down his leg for three months and he's in the semifinals anyway. Right. With this underachieving, talented team that never deserved this opportunity and then got hot at the right time because guess what? They actually have good players. They just stunk the whole time. That's probably the worst, worst, worst case scenario. But you know who'd be excited about that? Clemson fans.
- [53:28]
B
Yeah, maybe that. Yeah.
- [53:31]
A
I don't know.
- [53:31]
B
I. I don't. But it's just like, at first blush, it's like, this feels wrong, but then like, you like, okay, so give me a reason why it's like, I don't know, it just sort of. It just sort of does it feels like too many teams? Like, it's. I, I think, because I don't know that the notion that, like, while the group of three or four teams that can win a national title is more fluid maybe than it's ever been, I still think every year the group that can win is probably still going to be pretty small. So then why are we inviting 20 other teams to the party when we don't have to, when we've already, like, expanded it to 12? And, you know, the results, I think. I think, have been pretty good. But there's, There's. There's some, Some stinkers in there too, already. Right. And I just like, you're. You're just kind of inviting the opportunity, I think, for what people assume would be more stinkers. Maybe, but maybe that's wrong.
- [54:32]
A
I do think. I mean, the reason that you're doing it is because we understand there's a. There's a subset of teams that can win the national championship, and there's a subset of teams that making the playoff is the national championship. And Houston is probably never going to win the college football national championship. But hanging a playoff banner in their facility, having their fans be able to wear T shirts that say college Football Playoff, getting excited for that game, for that Houston BYU game. Right. That is something that. The point for Houston fans is like, ah, we're never gonna win the national title anyway. What's the point? The point is you made the playoff and instead of being excited about, hey, we made a decent bowl game that, you know, we hope we get a cool matchup and guys don't opt out of, it's like, I remember that time that we played BYU and we all decided to go to Utah for that game and we went to that playoff game. We got our doors blown off, but oh, man, that was awesome. Right? That was a fun experience to be excited about. The playoff. I, I do. I'm okay with the idea of there are some programs that making the playoff is the goal and the reward that they don't have a chance to win at all. And then there are other teams that you kind of assume you're going to make the playoff and you're like, so if there's two tiers of playoff teams, I'm okay with that. I am not advocating for a 2014 playoff. But we're going to 16. We're going to 16.
- [55:56]
B
Yes, eventually.
- [55:58]
A
And all what this is, this is swapping out conference championship games that kind of don't have huge stakes for a play in round of games. For eight games that are kind of play ins to the 16 team tournament. And we're getting to 16 anyway, so it's like, okay, like there's no point really. I would keep it at 12, but I don't think 16 is so egregious. Past 12. All you're doing is eliminating. Right. A couple buys for people. It's like you're not. So we're swapping. If the end of this is the trade of conference championship games that some of whom don't have stakes, some of whom have minor stakes and include teams that are already in the playoff and you're swapping that out for a round of playing games primarily involving college football programs that will be super excited about this opportunity and then eight of them will lose and eight of them will go on to play on the road at the actual best teams. I wouldn't pick it, but if you think of it as a trade and it's primarily that I'm swapping conference championship games for a play in first round, I'm not sure I'm totally against the trade.
- [57:25]
B
Yeah, I guess I can see that. I, I would, I don't have much issue with 16 either, but I would also want to ask the conference title games and start the 16 team tournament earlier.
- [57:37]
A
Yes.
- [57:37]
B
And just get it all wrapped up faster.
- [57:39]
A
Calendar considerations. Right. We're at. You're, you're. If you're whacking the conference championship games, you're creating an opportunity to accelerate the calendar.
- [57:47]
B
Yes.
- [57:47]
A
And get everything done earlier.
- [57:49]
B
This is still ending the same. Yeah.
- [57:51]
A
No, this is, this is not a calendar consideration at all.
- [57:54]
B
No, this is the same endpoint. Yeah. So.
- [57:56]
A
So if you're, if, if a calendar you said is like number one is one of the number one things for you. Right.
- [58:01]
B
Biggest problem. I think it's the biggest problem.
- [58:02]
A
Yes.
- [58:03]
B
Yeah.
- [58:05]
A
This takes away a potential opportunity to begin to solve that.
- [58:09]
B
Yeah. And that's like, that's my, the thing. It's the thing I think about first and foremost when I see this and like, see that, see the, the suggestion of it. If you want to like. And it's almost. It's like a separate conversation. So if you want to remove that from the consideration, like I can see, I can see what you're saying. And I know, I know you're just like you're playing devil's advocate a little bit. Like, you know, I don't. With the 12 team playoff, there's, there's more programs who can believe. And I do kind of like that. I, I don't think to this point we have like any evidence to suggest that a 12 team playoff has made the regular season worse. And I think like November has actually been better.
- [58:54]
A
Yeah.
- [58:54]
B
The last two years because of the 12 team playoffs. So. But I don't know if that's like, if, if that's the sweet spot and I guess we, we won't know until we know. But I, I am fearful of like you keep adding to that number of 12 and, and then things do start to become watered down a little bit. Yes. College football just kind of whatever ceases to exist on, on some level, at least in spirit. So like that's mostly what I'm, what I'm fearful of. But I do think there, there are, I do think there's value in programs that like just like you're not going to win a national championship, but you can hang stuff up in your stadium. This is, you got to the playoff like I, I get that. I understand and like the game is about the players and the fans and that's like giving players opportunities to play in more meaningful games and fans opportunities to believe in something they were never able to believe in before. So.
- [59:53]
A
And I do think it is a worthy, certainly a worthy consideration to think about. Are we killing the regular season? Are we taking away the meaningful regular season games? Because now, you know, we feel like we're already at a spot with a team like Ohio State where oh, nine and three Ohio State's probably in and are we now creating where 8 and 4 Ohio states probably definitely in and like 7 and 5 Ohio state with the right wins might be in.
- [60:22]
B
And I didn't go through like Iowa was 8 and 4 last year. Iowa which is in this field at number 23 was 8 and 4 last year. Right.
- [60:31]
A
And Iowa was not close to making the playoff. But Iowa played two games down to the wire against Indiana and Oregon that were winnable games with five minutes left. And if Iowa had won both those games, they would have made the playoff at 10 and 2 with wins over in Indiana and Oregon, Iowa would have been like the six seed. Right. So you've now created again it's part of it is, do you want things to be punitive? It's like why I had a chance. And congratulations to Iowa for playing so tough. And you know what? I was pretty good. Iowa was not in the playoff conversation for one second at 8 and 4, not for one second. But is it offensive for 8 and 4? Iowa, who was a good football team that had really good defense, played some good teams, really close is it like offensive to your sensibilities that Iowa got in and then like, what's the point of those regular season games against Indiana and Oregon that Iowa lost to both of them and I, they all still made it, all three of those teams. Like, does it, does it render those very exciting? Those are some of the best games of the regular season. Iowa, Oregon and Iowa, Indiana, were they not. Those were awesome games. Would those games be worse if Iowa could lose them and still make the playoff? While those three and a half hours on Saturday, worse because Iowa's not dead if it loses? Some people would say yes. I, I'm not sure Iowa would still try to win. They would still want to win. Indiana and Oregon would still want to win. I don't know. And the thing that I think makes it different is in valuing the regular season and I think like some of the four team truthers feel like, okay, like we've already killed the regular season. I don't think that's true. I think the regular season's excitement and urgency has been reduced by like 5%. What would you say? How much has the regular season been lessened by going from a 14 playoff to a 12 team playoff?
- [62:39]
B
Yeah, not much. Like I, I think at most like 5%, but perhaps even less than that. Yeah.
- [62:44]
A
And so now it, but part of it is, okay, if you're going to 24, you're killing the regular season. Well, if college football is holding the Alabama Ohio State series out over the ledge and saying if we don't go to 24, we're going to drop it, we're gonna drop it unless we go to 24. And it's like we're going 24. We'll do whatever it takes to save Alabama, Ohio State, don't drop it.
- [63:08]
B
You're.
- [63:09]
A
Are you saving the regular season in some way by going to 24? Now you're doing it at, you're doing it at knife point. I don't want to go to 24. It's the only way. You'll never see Alabama, Ohio State again. You have 24 hours. It's like, I don't want to do this, but if so you're sacrifice. We can't pretend that there's not some sacrifice of the regular season if we feel like it's been lessened by 5% or less so far. Well, are we now lessening it? It's like, I don't know, what's Ohio State gonna go this year? I don't know. Anything above 8 and 4 gets them in. Okay, that's different than like, oh my God, if Ohio State doesn't go undefeated. Hey, remember that time Ohio State lost to Purdue and they didn't make the playoffs? They could lose three games like that now and still make the playoff. Right. That, that's a lessening. Nobody would argue that, that, that doesn't lessen it to some degree. But if that lessens it like 15 total from where it was. But by saving Ohio State Alabama, you get 8% of that back because that's going to be two awesome Saturdays. The two years you play that game. I don't know, I don't know how much of the. How. I don't know how severe the threat is. If you could keep Ohio State Alabama without going to 24, great, then that, then I'm less interested in 24. But if the only way to keep Ohio State Alabama in the future is to go to 24, that makes 24 at least slightly more enticing to me.
- [64:38]
B
What is. So you killed a 24. You keep Ohio State Alabama, but you keep Ohio State Alabama with like no stakes?
- [64:48]
A
Well, but I don't know if it's like, are we. I. It feels like, and we've talked about this on our show before, it feels like the only way those teams and coaches and administrations are willing to play those games is if they have no stakes.
- [65:01]
B
Yeah. Which is like again a separate conversation. I guess it's like, do you really want it? Do you want. You can have it, but you get the most watered down version of it. It. I don't know. It's like, then keep it.
- [65:15]
A
I don't. But would you rather have Ohio State play another Mac team?
- [65:20]
B
No, I guess not.
- [65:21]
A
Because that's what they're replacing Alabama with.
- [65:23]
B
Yeah.
- [65:23]
A
The choice is between a watered down Alabama game or another Mac game.
- [65:31]
B
Yeah. Obviously I'd rather, I'd rather Ohio State Alabama than Ohio State Bowling Green.
- [65:36]
A
But the, the 2005 Texas Ohio State game, A.J. hawk versus Vince Young. Right. Where the winner of that game that actually was to make the national title game, it turned out in the very first week of the season and Texas went on and won the national title that year and Ohio State finished in the top four and didn't get a chance to play. That's gone. It's already gone.
- [66:00]
B
It's never coming back. Yeah.
- [66:01]
A
So that's not one of the options. Awesome non conference game with gigantic stakes is gone. Now the trade off is we've seen, we saw an Ohio State Texas semifinal, two awesome programs, highest stakes possible. Two years ago that Ohio State won on an iconic play that propelled Ohio State to a national championship that in 2005 wouldn't have existed because we didn't have four teams make the playoff. So there's a trade off there too. So if you lose Ohio State, Alabama during the regular season, but you have a 24 team playoff, you're now creating opportunities for four iconic playoff games maybe, right? So it's not that you're just changing when you play the games and you're playing all. If you lose Ohio State, Alabama, you're playing all the cool non conference games at the end of the year in the playoff. They just don't exist in the regular season anymore. So it's not a, it's not a loss without some kind of gain. But man, if you can keep it all, you can play Alabama, Ohio State in September and then also have high stakes, awesome national non conference intersectional showdowns in three or four rounds of the playoff.
- [67:19]
B
Yeah, if you're, if you're, if you are, Gary, if you're going to guarantee me that those series will still happen and maybe that we'd even get more of them, that the best teams in the playoff are going to get home games and we're gonna ax conference title games. You are, you're laying out some breadcrumbs.
- [67:39]
A
Guess what? We're turning that thumb. Yeah, maybe get.
- [67:44]
B
It's sideways.
- [67:45]
A
It's sideways. Hey, Tony, we got a sideways thumb now. I'm not sure that any of the stuff we've talked about is driving that. There's one. What do you think? I think there's one thing driving it.
- [68:01]
B
Oh, I actually. So, I mean, aside from money. But yeah, but yeah. The next point about. Yeah, go ahead, you, you lay it out because I don't. I, I think I need some convincing here.
- [68:14]
A
Tony Petiti is worried about the perception of the Big Ten and he feels like the two ways to guarantee that the Big Ten will be properly represented in the playoff is to either have automatic qualifiers, which he's floated before and everybody hated, or to make the field so large that that second tier of Big Ten teams will get in just on sheer volume. And this to me is a perception problem because let me ask you this question. Who is the best conference in college football? And you may answer honestly, I won't get myself.
- [68:59]
B
I, I would say it's the Big Ten.
- [69:04]
A
Okay. In the 12 team playoff this year, five SEC teams got in and three Big Ten teams got in. In the actual 12 team playoff, okay. If it had been a 16 team playoff this year under the same rules, it would have been seven SEC teams and three Big Ten. When the SEC reportedly wants to go to 16. Right. Because Vanderbilt would have gotten in and Texas would have gotten in. So all we're doing is adding more SEC, we still wouldn't have gotten to another Big Ten team. So a 16 team playoff is now seven to three. If you do the automatic qualifiers in a 16 team playoff that Tony Petiti proposed before, four Big Ten, four SEC, two ACC, two Big 12, one G6 and three at large, it would have been six SEC and four Big Ten. Okay, so that gets a fourth Big Ten team in at least. But it's still a gap to the SEC. But if you do the 2014 playoff, it's seven SEC and six Big Ten. If this year's playoff, if this would have been a 2014 playoff this year under this proposal. So to just go to the 16 teamer that the SEC is in favor of, all that would have done this year is get the SEC two more teams, get Notre Dame in and get the Big 12 one more team. It would not have gotten another Big 10 team in. And do you think that a sick a 16 team field that would have been seven from the SEC and three from the Big Ten and also by the way, three from the Big 12. Is that reflective of what is actually happening in college football?
- [70:48]
B
I actually think it would have been this, yeah. What injustice has been doled out to the Big Ten the last two years?
- [70:56]
A
I think the injustice is. I'm not sure it's injustice. I think it is logistics. And for instance, I do think, and like this is one of those, it's not, it's not a fair apples to apples things. But Iowa and Vanderbilt played in a bowl game. Right? And Iowa beat Vanderbilt convincingly. Right. Vanderbilt was in the playoff discussion the whole year. Vanderbilt would have made a 16 team playoff. Iowa would not have. Iowa was never in the playoff discussion. Iowa would not have done made it. Right. Well, Iowa lost a non conference game to Iowa State. That's its own fault. Right. But also like I don't think Vanderbilt played a team as good as as Iowa State in the non conference. And then Iowa lost to two of the best five teams in the country in Indiana and Oregon. And for all like whatever Vanderbilt did, they didn't play teams as good as Indiana and Oregon. Right. But the result is Vanderbilt at 10 and 2 was right in the thick of the playoff discussion. The whole year would have made a 16 team playoff. And are they a better football team than Iowa? Are they actually better than Iowa? I mean I'm not pretending a bowl game is the end all be all. But they're close, right? They're at least like nobody thought, nobody.
- [72:08]
B
Thought they were close until they played.
- [72:10]
A
Right.
- [72:10]
B
And I would say that like using using bowl game results to bolster that opinion is like one step beyond using NFL preseason games to, to determine who are the best teams in the NFL.
- [72:24]
A
Right. But, but they all. I mean did the Vanderbilt tight end sit out? I guess like they weren't all at full strength.
- [72:30]
B
I think there's the, there's the holdout conversation. Yes. But there's also just like it's not. It's an exhibition game. Even if everybody plays, it's an exhibition game.
- [72:44]
A
But is it not. Does. Did it tell us a little something about.
- [72:48]
B
Yeah, I don't know.
- [72:49]
A
I don't think where Iowa and Vanderbilt were as sure football teams this year.
- [72:54]
B
I don't, I don't think you, you dismiss it entirely. But I think that there is a, a and I like it's fun. I understand why. I do think there is a rush on the part of like the Big Ten to take entirely too much meaning out of those games too.
- [73:13]
A
So I do think this individual season snapshot is not entirely reflective of how things normally work out. It just so happened that the Big Ten had three banger teams, had three of the five best teams in the country and then there was a drop off to their next level because Penn State season completely fell apart. Right. Because Michigan started a true freshman quarterback because Illinois didn't rise up to the level that, that people like me and others maybe thought Illinois was going to be. And so you wound up with this tier of Michigan, usc, Iowa that mostly based on just like stacking wins right now. Michigan lost to Oklahoma in the, in the pre. In the non conference season. And that certainly had an effect. You can't deny that. Right. But I think so The Big Ten is looking at that though. And it's this discussion that you vine had and I have had before. I don't think the middle of the SEC is really any better than the middle of the Big Ten. And I do, I think a lot of the perception stuff, the stuff that the sec. This is what everybody does. It's the thing that, that you accuse other people of is actually the thing that you're doing. And so the SEC thinks it's a meat grinder. But actually when you go through the Texas schedule and the Vanderbilt schedule and the Missouri schedule and the Tennessee schedule and all these teams that were Ranked in the top 25 the whole year based on stacking wins and the perception of their conference. They were all ranked higher than mid tier Big Ten teams when actually none of those teams beat anybody. None of those mid tier SEC teams who all would be making, who would be making a 16 team playoff? Who would be making a 2014 playoff. I don't think they ever were better than the mid tier Big Ten teams, but they were perceived that way. Now couple of the things are based on, on the field. If Iowa beats Iowa State, if Michigan beats Oklahoma, that changes, right? For sure. But if Tony Petiti is sitting and thinking how the SEC is ready to go to 16, how can I support going 16 when this year that would have meant instead of five to three, it would have been seven to three. Seven to three bids for the SEC versus bids for the Big Ten. And I know it's a one year snapshot, but that is intolerable. It is not reflective of reality. It is what we have talked about previously. I think the Big Ten has, is, is equal to the SEC on the field right now. It is not equal in perception. And I don't think the committee or college football at large has caught up to that. And so Tony Petiti's answer is twofold. Either take it out of the committee's hands, they're still given three at large. The SEC still would have gotten more, but the Big Ten would have been guaranteed for USC's getting in okay. They're, they're, they're a fine football team. It is not an affront to America for USC to make the playoff in a world where Vanderbilt's making the playoff okay or make it so big that we're scooping up everybody that it's not a discussion. Because where the Big Ten still loses in the perception battle is the mid middle tier versus the middle tier. The middle of the SEC is perceived as better than the middle of the Big Ten. So the 24 team answer is we're taking the whole middle. We're not picking what Tony Petiti wants to avoid. And I think it's reasonable is a committee choosing between middle teams. This is now part of this is now the SEC is going to go to nine conference games. That's going to shift it a little bit. So that's why the, the s. The Big Ten like insisted on that because we've talked about that imbalance when you're stacking wins. There's just fewer losses for a conference if you're playing eight instead of nine. So that's going to Change a little bit. Everybody's interested in having similarly difficult non conference schedules. But in the meantime, I understand Tony Petiti not trusting perception and committee members to give a fair assessment of mid tier teams. So he tried one solution and everybody hated it. Nobody likes automatic qualifiers. I actually understand automatic qualifiers. Nobody likes it. So now he's trying this instead. But it all goes back to the same thing, which is the Big Ten is still better than people believe it is and that is not reflected in the way the committee operates. And so he's trying to fight back against that.
- [77:35]
B
So why invite the middle at all then?
- [77:39]
A
Because we're expanding. I mean we're stuck at 12 now.
- [77:42]
B
But they don't have to. Why doesn't he instead just stand up to, to the SEC and so like why we don't have to and just stay at 12? There hasn't been a Big Ten team that deserved to make the playoff that hasn't gotten into the 12 team field. In fact, Indiana got in and maybe shouldn't have two years ago. It's like they got the benefit of the doubt in 2024. 12 works for the Big Ten and I think 12 works for the SEC. If you just, I understand where you're coming from. If expansion is inevitable, but then just.
- [78:11]
A
Like just don't think it's inevitable.
- [78:15]
B
It is an option available to the two entities that are determining the future of this. If the Big Ten is just going to like lay down and accept it's expanding because that's what the SEC wants to do, then I guess that's what they're going to do. And Tony Petiti has to do this. Why does he need to stand up and try to keep it at 12 and then you don't, you don't invite this messy problem of the middle of the SEC getting perceived as stronger than the middle of the Big Ten when it shouldn't be.
- [78:40]
A
Do you, do you believe it's inevitable?
- [78:45]
B
I mean, yeah, because there's just been no talk about staying there. Yeah, but I mean like that's. Tony Petiti has just as much voice in this as Greg Sankey does, but neither one of them really seem intent on keeping it at 12 when actually staying at 12 might benefit the Big Ten just as much as expanding it or expanding at the 24 would. Yeah. So I don't know. It's like I don't there. I think, I think you're absolutely correct that if you just look at the way the ranking shook out, although I guess in 2024 it wouldn't have been quite as stark. I think it would have been closer to balance in 2024. Right. So a 16 team field in 2024, Big 10 SEC I think would have not been as, as desperate as 7 3.
- [79:33]
A
So I'm looking at it now. So in 2024 the Big Ten actually got more in. They got in 4, the SEC got in 3 because Alabama didn't make it. But teams 11, 14 and 15 were all in the SEC and the next Big Ten team wasn't until number 20. So I think you would have been looking at 6, 4 SEC in a 16 team field. So because like that once again it's, and it's the, and again I, I agree with you that just to go by bowl game results is, is not the smartest thing to do. But we have like, we do sort of have like limited options of how to compare these teams to some degree. And so for instance, number 20 Illinois stuffed number 15, South Carolina in a trash can. But in a 16 team field, South Carolina would have been in. Illinois wouldn't have been automatic qualifiers. Right. They're probably neither are in 24 team field. They're both in. Right. So but who's better? Who is better, Illinois or South Carolina? And the bowl game isn't the end all be all. But at the end of the year South Carolina was nine and three and Illinois was not in three. South Carolina was five spots higher than Illinois in the rankings and they played each other and Illinois won. But there's, there's a model, there's the current model 12 where both got left out 16, the SEC gets in and the Big 10 doesn't. Automatic qualifiers like you get to the at large, probably the SEC gets in but the, the Big Ten already has four so it's okay, 24, they both get in. So I think like there's, it's still even last year when the Big Ten got in 4 and the SEC got in 3, there's still more respect for the middle of the SEC. It's just where the line was drawn. Made it 4, 3 Big Ten. But if we draw it lower, it's now 64 SEC if we draw it at 16. So I understand. So I guess the question is, I think standing up for 12 is a great idea. I think you should send Tony Petiti an email about that. I don't know how realistic that is because I, I think that's like a TV partner discussion. That's like we have if we can make more playoff games because we have these players to pay. Like I don't I don't know. And this is what the people who were against expanding to 12. Part of what they were against is, well, the minute you expand to 12, you're going to expand to more. And so, okay, but I still think he had to get off four. Right. And people who would say eight's the right number, whatever. I understand all those arguments. We're never going lower, we're never going back. I think all we're doing is how, how much can you slow down expansion. But I'm not against, I'm not against standing up for 12. But I think the two years of the 12 team playoff makes it very clear why he doesn't want 16 with no automatic qualifiers. And I think he's right. I think he's right to not want 16 with no automatic qualifiers until something changes about how people view South Carolina versus Illinois and how people view Iowa versus Vanderbilt. Because I think that's pretty entrenched still right now. And I don't think it's the correct way to actually view those types of programs.
- [82:42]
B
I agree that it's entrenched. I agree that it's not the right way to view the programs. And I think a far simpler solution than expanding to 24 and bloating the playoff is to make those teams play each other in the regular season. Because we don't have, we don't have data. We don't, we don't have, yeah, I guess data like we're going by eye test and, and what history has told us about those two leagues and like perception based off nothing to assume that the middle of the SEC is better than the middle of the Big Ten. There's a pretty easy way to find out whether or not we're right. And it's to make them play. Like, I don't like, why can't they go to 16 and establish a Big 12 Big 10 SEC challenge every year where you play your counterpart within the standings and then guess what, you make the regular season better and you get your expanded playoff to make more money. But you don't make it 24 teams because no one wants 24 teams. I think you can get people around to the idea of 16. You'll get some pushback, but not as much as 24. And I think it could work and be compelling and you can have more, you can scrap conference title games, you can have more on campus games. All of it without inviting perception. I guess still is still as much as you are right now with a 12 team playoff and actually eliminating a lot of the, the misconceptions out there in the sport by like actually putting the teams on the field against each other and figuring out who is better. And, and over the course of whatever five years you start to actually have a reference point that's based on results than assumptions. Like I, I, it doesn't seems rather easy to me, frankly. I don't like if this is what he's afraid of and like 16 is just not palatable because he's worried about getting dwarfed in, in participation by the sec. Then get together with Greg Sankey and establish a structure that helps eliminate that by playing, playing each other in a regular season more often than they do because it never happens.
- [84:42]
A
That's the best solution. Nine conference games, which they're both at now, a 10th game in the SEC Big Ten Challenge in September. It would be a windfall for the TV markets, for the TV partners. I mean you could, it would, it would create competition. You would, we've talked about this before but like it would give people reason to care about Purdue versus Kentucky and to care about Mississippi State versus Rutgers because it goes on the ledger in the SEC Big Ten Challenge. But you also would be like, we're trying to use South Carolina, Illinois bowl game from two years ago, Vanderbilt, Iowa bowl game from this year as, as evidence here. And this would be actual evidence, evidence that really matters. And so that's the best solution. And I, and, and part of me is like, so then it's, it's one of those where I think what everybody is worried about with the schedule is, you know, I don't want to play a tough non conference game when everybody else isn't doing it and then I take a loss and somebody else takes an easy win and they have 10 wins and I have nine and the committee just stack wins and it hurts us. But if everybody's mandated to be part of this challenge now, it's one of those things again. It's like if we had done this in 2024, Indiana would have been playing Mississippi State based on history and perception. And as you build that up and Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State and Oregon would have been playing the best teams in the sec. So the Indiana beats Mississippi State and Oregon loses Georgia. And all of a sudden it's like, well, Indiana has an extra win but like, you know, we also understand who's good. It is evident evidence there. So let's go back to that then. But like, so I'm not, I guess I would say I don't think this is the best that the Big Ten can do. But I, I think this is what they are trying to fight against.
- [86:46]
B
Yeah.
- [86:46]
A
And they are trying to find a solution to the, the situation that has played itself out the last two years. And in their minds they've proposed now two separate solutions. Which is the automatic qualifiers and which is a 2014 playoff and the pers. I think the, the reaction from people generally is negative to both of those. So keep trying. But I don't know. And like you've. You said like people have suggested, are they just floating these ideas knowing they're bad? Right. And you said you don't think that's the case. You think they actually believe in this? I think they are. And I don't want to say. I think they are trying everything they can to solve what is the number one issue, which is the, that the perception of the Big Ten is trailing the reality. And as they think about the playoff and how many teams you're going to get in, they do not believe some of these scenarios would reflect reality. And they don't trust it. They don't trust the committee. They don't trust consensus. Because I think that I, I don't think the committee's been wrong, but I think the consensus is wrong. And just like where, where the lines are right now, if you expand that line to 16, you're going to give the SEC a huge unwarranted edge. So they're trying to do something else. But on the list of so. So let's say your best solution is keep the 12 team playoff and play a big 10 SEC challenge. Right. That's. That would be ideal for you. Yes, that's ideal for me too. What would you prefer of 16 teams with automatic qualifiers? Four for the SEC, four for the Big Ten, two for the ACC, two for the Big 12, one for the Group of Six, three at large. That versus the 2014 playoff. Which. Which would you prefer more?
- [88:31]
B
I don't like automatic qualifiers because I don't think like the Big Ten didn't. Didn't have four playoff teams this year. They have three.
- [88:45]
A
But did the SEC have five?
- [88:54]
B
No, no, no.
- [88:54]
A
I don't deserve to be there. Bama sucked turds.
- [88:58]
B
I think Bama deserves to be there. I think they deserve to be there over like USC and Michigan. Yeah.
- [89:06]
A
But no, I don't Oklahoma deserve like, Oklahoma only got in because they beat who stinks.
- [89:13]
B
That's an argument against automatic qualifiers for me too. Like why. Why are we reserving spots for teams that don't deserve it? I think more, more often than not, we probably will have four teams from each league to deserve it. But I don't know that we had that last year. So it's hard for me to say that we should have automatic qualifiers when the results last year.
- [89:32]
A
But, but do you, do you, do you agree that absent automatic qualifiers, it's more likely that the teams that don't actually deserve to get in, but are going to get in are from the SEC.
- [89:45]
B
Right now? Yeah, probably. At least, like, I think there's evidence to support that the last two years. Has the fact that the Big Ten has yet again won the national title change out in any way? I'm not sure. I, I wouldn't want to bank on that if I were the Big Ten, certainly. So I, I think your concerns would are warranted. Yeah.
- [90:08]
A
Yeah. I mean, it's one of those things like, so USC loses at Illinois on a last second field goal. And Illinois is not the greatest team ever, but they're like a good, solid football team. Right? They went nine and four. They lose at Oregon. Okay, well, Oregon's the fifth best team in the country. And then they lost at Notre Dame. And then, so they said we're not playing Notre Dame anymore. So. Because they're doing the same, like, Right. They're already, we're talking about, oh, what's going to happen in these games. We already, we've already seen part of it if we just lost usc, Notre Dame. Because USC is looking at that and saying like, well, and, and, and, and, and the win over USC didn't get Notre Dame in, so it knocked USC out. It didn't get Notre Dame in. And then they're like, why are we doing this? So, and I guess Notre Dame still wants to do it, but USC wanted to do it at a certain time of year. All right, so you, you don't like the automatic qualifiers? You prefer, you would prefer 24 over the automatic.
- [90:58]
B
If the options are 16 with automatic qualifiers or 24 with 23 at large. I, I guess I would take the, the system that has more large teams. I would, I would, I'd be okay with 16 with whatever 15 at large, I guess. And set in stone regular season mechanism for making the best conferences play each other more regularly.
- [91:30]
A
Yeah. Okay. I, the thing of it is, is when people talk about the automatic qualifiers, they usually say, like, it's gonna, it's mostly gonna happen anyway. Right? Like, and I think the Big Ten is saying, like, we don't want to leave it to mostly anyway because we only got three this year. We were the best conference and we only Got three. And so there's other things that. And again like in a world where people are saying like why, you know, we want to keep good non conference games, right. We think that's valuable. USC played Notre Dame, lost, didn't make the playoff. Iowa played Iowa State in a rivalry that's really cool. Loss, didn't make the playoff. Michigan played Oklahoma in an awesome non conference game, lost, didn't make the playoff. So Texas is sitting around at 9 and 3 complaining that they lost to Ohio State and didn't make the playoff. The Big Ten has two, three loss teams and a four last team that lost non conference games and weren't even in the playoff discussion. So like really what's the difference between Michigan and USC and Iowa and Texas, right? And even if like you would say, well I would put Texas at the top of that group, okay, I'm not disputing that. But it's, it's similar enough to have a discussion and nobody was talking about those teams that way. Nobody was talking about USC the way they were talking about Texas. And I understand Texas beat Texas, saying them at the end of the season and that matters, right? But actually the USC win over Iowa is a pretty darn good win because nobody realizes how good Iowa is. So you're not giving you. Right. So like that's that whole thing that to me if you're the Big Ten and people's part of the argument against automatic qualifiers is, well, you're, it's, you're going to get there anyway. It's like I don't want to get there anyway. I want it guaranteed. I want it guaranteed that our conference that I think is as good as the SEC has a minimum number of teams that will make the playoff. Because I am not leaving the Iowa, Vanderbilt argument and the Illinois South Carolina argument to chance because the evidence is we always lose that argument and it's not fair, it's not reflective. And so until this the, the perception of the sport catches up to the reality, I'm. I'm saying make it automatic. And I, and I guess like, I would say the other side of it of, I mean the automatic is like, okay, so in this world, right, that if we had 16 and they were automatic like USC, who was would have been like one spot out, would have gotten in like Notre Dame's got an automatic threshold. So usc at number 16 wouldn't have gotten in. They would have been like the first team out. But they'll get in ahead of Utah or if you. Or they would have gotten it ahead of Vanderbilt. Right. Like it's a two spot difference. But USC gets in because you got to have four Big Ten and the SEC already has five, so they're not getting a six. Like I think that's fine. And I don't think it's like giving somebody something they didn't earn with an automatic birth. Oh, you didn't even earn this. You were just. You automatically got it. It's like. Well, I think we kind of did earn it. It's just the committee didn't see it that way because the committee always leans SEC is more how I would see it it so. But you dislike automatic qualifiers enough that you'd rather just get go all the way to 24 to. To leave it to them?
- [94:46]
B
I don't know. Probably. Yeah. Yeah.
- [94:54]
A
And this is the thing too. I think the committee does a fine job. I'm not like ripping the committee. I think the committee is the best way we've ever had. It's better than computers that nobody knows the formula. It's better than a bunch of ding dong sports information directors and sports writers who barely not ding dong but who don't. It's not job description. They barely have time to do the polls. Like it should not be based on them. This is the best way we can do it. But I just think in the sport it exists, this SEC lean, that this is why it makes the Big Ten look crazy. But the thing about this, in the end is I would much rather the Big Ten look crazy while fighting for something that it believes in that they think it's not. They're not exactly asking for an advantage. I think the Big Ten is asking for the, the structure of the sport to reflect the reality of what's happening on the field. And I would much rather the Big Ten fight and look crazy than give in. And so if I don't know that.
- [95:51]
B
They'Re fighting though, I feel like, I feel like they're not fighting because fighting to me is Tony Petiti getting in front of every microphone he can get in front of and telling the world how much better the Big Ten is than the SEC not altering the field so that like the perception exists, but the results are different.
- [96:06]
A
So. So the issue is, right, like they're fighting because the SEC is ready to go to 16. And if the Big Ten said cool 16, they'd be at 16 already. We'd be at 16 for this year if the Big Ten had agreed to that. Right. Expansion's good. Gives four teams more opportunities. We'll get rid of the buys, whatever Sounds good. We'd be there. So, like, fighting. They're not agreeing to the thing that the SEC and I think a lot of other people generally agree would want. Just go to 16. What's the big deal? So this is where it's like. And you are 100 right here. The Big Ten is terrible at this. And they. They are trying to structure around the perception battle because they are terrible at fighting the perception battle. Right.
- [96:54]
B
You said it better than me. Yeah.
- [96:58]
A
If you can't beat them, structure them. Because Tony Petiti is much more comfortable making a bracket, sending it to the ads, creating all these ideas than getting up and going on our show or getting in front of a microphone and saying, the SEC can cram it. It's ridiculous that we got three when we've had the last three national champions and they got five. Did anyone watch Oklahoma? Alabama made my eyes bleed. You're telling me that USC or Iowa or Michigan wouldn't have represented themselves better than that disaster of a game? What are we doing? Wake up to the reality of the sport. Five to three for the SEC over the Big Ten is not reflective of reality. And everybody better wake up because we're tired of winning titles on the field and getting ignored when it's time to talk about the best teams.
- [97:55]
B
It's like reverse gerrymandering. Yeah.
- [98:02]
A
But it is. Yeah, we can't. We can't because the committee's the ballot box. We can't win at the ballot box. So let's draw structure.
- [98:12]
B
But you should be winning at the ballot box. Like, you're not. Yeah.
- [98:15]
A
Yes.
- [98:16]
B
You gerrymander because you're going to get your ass whipped. So you. So you change things around to make sure that you could still win. That's not exactly the position that the Big Ten finds itself in, but it is trying to reshape the districts here.
- [98:28]
A
Yes.
- [98:29]
B
That they can get. They can get what they think they should be getting representation wise in the playoff.
- [98:35]
A
So, like, I, I think you could put in a clause that's like, we're going to. We're going to do automatic qualifiers until for three straight years, the Big Ten has at least four playoff teams among the top 16. Naturally. And then the automatic qualifier thing will fall off. So. And then, like. Because like the funny part. The funny part is stalemating on this keeps the status quo, which is. But actually. But as we said, the status quo was fine because Indiana got in ahead of Alabama in 2024. So in 2024, it was 4, 3. Big 10. In 2025, it was 5, 3 sec. But the issue is, if it had been 16 in either of those, the SEC advantage would have been gigantic. So you can't go to. You can't go to 16 at large. The Big Ten cannot go to 16 all at large. They cannot. Not in this current state of the sport. They absolutely cannot. And if that's. If that's their line in the sand, I'm here for it. I appreciate them standing up.
- [99:42]
B
I just, I think they. And I get, like, whatever perhaps this is. This would be poor wartime strategy, but I think they need to engage it on both fronts if that's the case. Right. They need. If they think they need to. To push the 2014 playoff to combat the current sort of, like, status quo of things. I, I understand that. But then they also, in tandem, need to do a better job of fighting against the status quo and getting people to change their point of view on the sport because they just. They don't do any of it.
- [100:11]
A
Right.
- [100:12]
B
So.
- [100:13]
A
Which we've done many shows on. Greg Sankey is out there at SEC days in the summer, even before they have the official conference stuff in July. They had that little, like, hangout, Right. In May or June. And yes, the Big Ten did away with that, and they did it for a couple years. And, like, the one or two reporters that went. Got shooed away. Should we go to. Should we go to that this year? We should go to that.
- [100:36]
B
It's in California. Is that right? Let me figure out what it is. Yeah. We are here to tell the world how good that is. Please allow. Please allow us access to your people so they can say how good the Big Ten is.
- [100:49]
A
We're not yelling at the Big Ten. We're yelling with the Big Ten.
- [100:53]
B
Right? Well, we're yelling at them to allow them, to make them allow us to yell with them.
- [101:01]
A
Okay. That's the deal. I. I do think, have we gotten to this point? So I. In the end, to me, I'll take stay at 12 teams. Big 10 SEC challenge. That's great. Beyond that, I. I'd probably go to 16 with automatic qualifiers for the reasons that I've laid about. Laid out about automatic qualifiers. But also, I don't think 24 is as much the end of the world as maybe a lot of people would initially perceive it when they see a bracket like that. So it's not what I'd prefer, but I understand the thinking around it, and I don't think it would just completely destroy college football as we know it. So I mostly argued a lot of devil's advocate things here. I'm. I'm pretty much there with you on a lot of things, but are you any More open to 24, a 2014 bracket? Are you more open to it now than you were 100 minutes ago?
- [101:58]
B
Yeah, I think probably slightly. It still definitely would not be my preference. It would not be the thing that I would advocate for if I advocated for anything. It would be just to kind of stick with what we have, at least in terms of number of teams and work through that and use more than two years of data to assess the pros and cons of that situation before we decide to move on from it entirely. But I don't. I don't think this proposal from the Big Ten is like, entirely without merit. I just, I think I, I bristle pretty quickly at the sheer number of teams, but I, I think I understand at least how they arrived at that point.
- [102:40]
A
And the thing that we, again is the. It's a. A talking point for us all the time is this is selfish from the Big Ten, but it should be selfish. You should be looking out for your own interests. Now. The difficult thing is without a commissioner, there's nobody that out for. Without, without a. A commission, a college football commissioner. Right. Who's thinking about the best interests of the sport holistically, everybody winds up thinking about only themselves. And that's unfortunate. But I do understand why the Big Ten is doing this. But I do think they are doing it from strength, not weakness. And so I think it can again be perceived as, oh, well, they just want a bunch of bids because they can't actually. It's like, no, the football's good. It's like, like, I think it's been. It's not viewed correctly, but it's not. This, this overblown bunch of library blowhards are just want to expand the playoff until Iowa can finally get in. It's like, no, I was actually good. I was better than people realize. And so we've got to find a way to create that reality. So I do think they're doing it from strength, but I think that still often gets portrayed as weakness, which goes back to the perception thing. The ball is good. The talk around the ball in the Big Ten is not good enough.
- [104:01]
B
Yeah. Yeah. I don't. It's just out of. It's just they're. The way they present themselves, I think is out of line with the reality too. Right. They don't do themselves any favors because like, I think proposing a. A structure like this is. Is something that a lesser than would want. Right. But they're, they're not so they're kind. I acknowledge they are caught in a tough spot because of all the perception issues that we talked about. But I again repeating myself, I just think they can do a better job of, of fighting the perception battle than they do rather than just like skirting that part of it and just trying to game the, the system to make it, make the perception have less of an impact.
- [104:44]
A
Yeah.
- [104:45]
B
Okay.
- [104:46]
A
We'll keep talking about Big Ten football, national college football, Northern college football here on the Bill and Doug show. We'll keep talking about Ohio State football. We'll keep doing around the shoe. Every Monday we did around the shot, which is Ohio State basketball this week. We'll get back to Football Talk on this coming Monday. We'll keep writing and doing some special shows about Ohio State football on our sub stack at billanddugosu substack. You're certainly welcome to join us over there, but we are grateful that you decided to hang out with us and talk about the College Football Playoff. On this show. We'll continue to do at least like one national show like this a week bleeding up to spring football. And then we'll, we'll try to keep doing as much of that stuff as we can. But for now, he's Bill Landis. I'm Doug Lee Maurice. And that was the Bill and Doug Show. Go.