Big Ten spring meetings: Big Ten bullying the SEC, is Tony Petitti leading the new Evil Empire?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Bill and Doug Show: Ohio State Football Talk

Episode: Big Ten Spring Meetings: Big Ten bullying the SEC, is Tony Petitti leading the new Evil Empire?
Date: May 20, 2026
Host: Blue Wire
Featuring: Doug Lesmerises (A), Bill Landis (B)

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the recent Big Ten spring meetings, focusing on how the conference—under commissioner Tony Petitti—has shifted its offseason public relations approach, the growing rivalry with the SEC, and the impact of looming playoff expansion on blue-blood programs and college football's structure at large. Doug and Bill discuss the Big Ten’s newfound confidence, media presence, and policy agenda—particularly the push for a 24-team playoff—and reflect on how this power play positions the Big Ten as the sport’s new "evil empire." Debate swirls around playoff structure, tradition, monetary incentives, the meaning of rivalries, and the evolving power dynamics in college football's governance and media perception.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Big Ten’s New Offseason Media Strategy

• Doug and Bill praise the Big Ten's move to allow media access at spring meetings (00:00–04:00).

  • Doug: “Just that they’re saying something publicly is on some level a win for the Big Ten and Big Ten fans.” (00:54)
  • Comparison with SEC's established media dominance and event-centric approach—SEC spring meetings as de facto media days.
  • The significance: The Big Ten, coming off three straight national titles, should finally step up in offseason messaging rather than go dormant.

• Notable Moment (03:22): Banter over the California meeting location and the Big Ten’s lack of a splashy media setup, with a playful lament:

  • Doug: “We’re just two guys with a dream.”
  • Bill: “Where are Bill and Doug?...That’s a huge topic of conversation among administrators, coaches, and media.” (04:00)

2. Rivalry Games and the Playoff Expansion Debate

• Focus on how playoff changes might affect the Ohio State-Michigan rivalry and other year-end games (08:16–26:55).

Ryan Day’s Comments (From Scott Doctorman, The Athletic)

• Ryan Day (read by Bill at 09:39):

  “I think it could be even more important...you’re playing for either a chance to get into the playoff or a chance to get seated high to get a first round bye...I think with the elimination of the championship game, it keeps that rivalry as fierce as it’s ever been and the stakes just as high.” (09:39)

• Doug and Bill push back:
  • Bill (10:21): “It is categorically false the stakes would be just as high.”
  • Doug (13:00): “Once you professionalize the sport, you can’t be playing for vacations anymore...”
    ...“I don’t think [the rivalry's significance] is even worth having much of a conversation about in 1968 terms...The question is how would it be today?”
  • Both agree: The meaning of rivalries is not fundamentally altered by playoff size, though the stakes do shift.

On Resting Players for Rivalry Games

• Common fear: A bigger playoff leads to teams “load managing” and resting players late in rivalry games.
  • Doug (15:35) and Bill (20:06): Forcefully refute this, noting fans would never tolerate resting starters for Michigan or similar games.
  • Bill (20:06): “The next Ohio State coach that rests players against Michigan will be the last one. No one...will stand for that.”
  • Core argument: Rivalries like OSU-Michigan are about tradition, animosity, and pride—they transcend postseason positioning.

3. Big Ten’s Push for a 24-Team Playoff (“The New Evil Empire?”)

• Doug and Bill break down how the Big Ten, united behind Tony Petitti, is driving the playoff expansion debate to 24 teams (26:55–44:33).
  • The Big Ten is methodically isolating the SEC, flipping the narrative from being behind the curve to setting the agenda nationally.
  • Doug: “They are setting the agenda on the field, they’re lifting trophies. But they are not setting the agenda in the perception battle...Now they are.” (29:25)

Why Not Expand to 16 Instead?

• The realpolitik: Adding four more teams (from 12 to 16) disproportionately helps the SEC—historically, those slots would be filled by SEC teams, not Big Ten ones (31:20–34:38).
  • Bill: “He’s letting the word ‘access’ do a lot of heavy lifting. But my reading...is exactly what you said.” (33:51)

Big Ten vs. SEC: Power, Media, & Perception

• The Big Ten is finally at least on equal footing with the SEC in the “perception and conversation battle.”
  • Doug: “If the Big Ten’s the evil empire, call me Palpatine...” (70:26)
  • Discussion of the network wars (Fox vs. ESPN/SEC) and their massive influence on policy stances.

4. Playoff Access, Tiered Incentive Structures & the Impact on Fan Bases

• Tony Petitti’s argument: A bigger playoff gives “access” not just to teams but to hope and meaningful games for more fan bases.
  • Doug: “Access to hope and access to games that matter.” (48:24)
• The analogy to baseball and professional sports: Expanded playoffs work differently in college football due to steep power imbalances; unlikely that low-seeded teams will ever win it all (42:09–44:33).

Bill on College Football’s Flattening

• Bill: “The sport is flattening. It’s not flat, it’s just flattening from where it was. There are still a lot of haves and a lot of have-nots.” (42:09)

Does the Expanded Playoff Add Value?

• For fans of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, etc.—yes, as it creates new milestones and passions.

  • Doug: “What bowl games used to be as a goal...has been greatly diminished. So let’s give [mid-tier programs] a shot to be the 21st best team in the country and make the playoff...I think there is actually tremendous value in that.” (54:32)

• Bill: National shows tend to overlook these teams, making it harder for the general public to appreciate playoff expansion’s potential benefits (55:44–57:04).

Data Point: 80 Teams Would Have Made the Playoff

• If a 24-team playoff existed since 2014, 80 different teams would have qualified—seen by some as a downside but Doug/Bill frame it as a feature, not a bug (57:04–61:03).
  • Bill: “Over the last 12 years, 80 teams had a chance to play meaningful games in November...I don’t know why that’s a bad thing.” (60:08)

Do Tiered Incentives Keep the Regular Season Important?

• Bill: “You can’t apply the logic 100%...but once you get past the top group, yeah, I do think it ratchets things up pretty intensely.” (62:13)
  • Tiers: Top 8 get a bye; 9–16 a home game; 17–24 just in.
  • Generally agree: The incentive structure will intensify the regular season for many teams, but less so at the very top.

5. Predictions: What’s Next for College Football Playoff?

• Both expect stalemate, not a quick jump to 24 teams.
  • Bill: “I think the SEC will probably stand pretty firm for now...Playoff expansion probably is a reality in 2028 or 2029.” (63:22)
  • Doug: “If the Big Ten has some teams that would have gotten in at 16 but are not getting in at 12, it changes the conversation a year from now.” (63:52)
• Financial complications—conference title games are very lucrative and factor into expansion calculations (67:18).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Doug: “If the Big Ten’s the evil empire, call me Palpatine...I’m an old man with a melting face.” (70:26)
• Bill (on mid-tier playoff value): “The next Ohio State coach that rests players against Michigan will be the last one. Nobody will stand for that.” (20:06)
• Doug (on rivalry games’ value): “The whole point of a rivalry is that it exists for itself...None of those things are about the playoff.” (15:35)
• On fan experience: “Fans can think whatever they want...It’s why we love it. Because while it is becoming nationalized...it is still regional and personal first in a way that few sports are.” (50:37)
• Riffing on evil empire:
  • Doug: “Aren’t we sick of it being the SEC? The Big Ten’s the bad guys now.” (70:26)
  • Bill: “Somebody has to be.” (36:00)

---

Key Timestamps for Segments

• 00:00–04:00: Big Ten’s newfound openness in spring meetings
• 09:39–13:20: Ryan Day’s stance on Ohio State-Michigan and playoff expansion
• 15:26–22:40: Debunking “resting players in rivalries” myth
• 26:55–34:38: How playoff sizes affect power conference membership
• 42:09–44:33: Why expanded playoff logic from pro sports doesn’t fit CFB
• 57:04–61:03: “80 teams would have made the playoff”—interpreting the data
• 63:04–67:43: Predictions for SEC-Big Ten playoff negotiations & financial factors
• 70:26–71:12: The “evil empire” riff/coda

---

Final Thoughts

Doug and Bill deliver a fast-paced, banter-filled analysis of college football’s shifting power structures, the inside baseball of playoff expansion, and the eternal hold of the sport’s great rivalries. The Big Ten’s newly assertive posture—whether heroic or villainous—sets the stage for a new era of conference competition, media strategy, and fan stakes. For listeners and fans, this episode is a crucial primer on the evolving political trench warfare at the center of college football’s future.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Welcome back to the Bill and Doug Show. We're talking Big Ten meetings even though we're not there. I'm Doug Lamoris, he's Bill Landis. We're just excited that they are happening, Landis, and that they're being covered by the media. Tony Petiti is not in a cave hiding from reporters. Frankly, you and I should probably be there. If they keep doing this, we'll be there a year from now. There's news coming out this week from the Big Ten spring meetings and the SEC meetings are next week. Not only did they do it like they. They've had these. They've just never had media before. We've had conversations about this on our old show. We had Scott Doctorman on from the Athletic, the great reporter who was talking about, like, the time he tried to go, that he did go to the Big Ten meetings. They basically, when he got there, they told him to get lost. And there was no media setup while at the SEC meetings, they're running everybody through the fine bomb show and having shrimp cocktail with 500 reporters and getting their story out. I almost don't care what the Big Ten says this week, just that they're saying something publicly is on some level a win for the Big Ten and Big Ten fans. Do you agree?

[B]

Yeah, I do. I think for. For too long, the Big Ten is sort of like ceded the off season to the sec. They just sort of like let Greg Sankey or Mike Slive before him just sort of control every single off season narrative. And like Tony Petiti, I think more recently, I think has been better about, like, kind of getting stuff out there via sources or via coaches, but never anything attributable to him necessarily on the record or even him being visible. So this is a nice change, I think. I think like, you know, the, the conference that has won the last three national championships should operate this way, frankly, even if they hadn't won the last three national championships, they should be doing this. But, but like coinciding with that. I think it just makes too much sense for the Big Ten to kind of puff out its chest a little bit this time of year.

[A]

Right?

[B]

That's. That's sort of what. What May and June are four and July are for in college football. And he's clearly got an agenda. And this is, you know, whether you agree with it or not, this is the most effective way to get it out to people.

[A]

The idea that the Big Ten had won the last three national championships, but in the two previous off seasons, they would win the national Championship. And then between the national championship game and Big Ten meetings at the end of July, they kind of went dormant. Bonkers.

[B]

Crazy.

[A]

Yeah. We thought it was, like, incompetence. Like, it was a dereliction of duty that you cra. It's like you lift the trophy and then you're like, see, in six months, everybody. And Greg Seck is like, this is my time. Like, the SEC can't own the season anymore, but it can own the off season. And then. And so that. So Pete Thamel from doing enough, though, right?

[B]

Like, I think, like, well, I guess I haven't. I haven't turned on the TV to notice, but, like. Like, BTN's not there, right? BTN's, like, not live on location making content from Big Ten meetings. I know, like, national writers are there, but there's not, like. Yes. And like, when Fine Bomb. Or. And. And Dustin Fine bombs there with the beach behind him talking to everybody. Yes, like, that's still. That's still the. The missing piece here of. Of the Big Tens thing. Maybe it would help if it wasn't in California, but that's another conversation. But.

[A]

Yeah, but. And then. Then have it where the big, like, having Chicago. They have fancy hotels in Chicago. They can have the lake as a backdrop and check up studio. We didn't go. We didn't go because we're just two men. We're just two guys with a dream.

[B]

Well, I don't know. That's the other thing about it is, like, it's my understanding that, like, the SEC meetings are sort of like, it's basically another media day. Like, like, everyone goes. And this was not like, here's a press release. This is happening. Apply for your credential. It was like, this is happening. We're finally letting media in. You7 people are allowed to come.

[A]

Yeah, but I mean, come on. We're not. We're not just anybody. We're the Bill and Doug Show. Like, they're. Don't you think people are out there? Like, where Bill and Doug. Don't you think that's a huge topic of conversation among administrators, coaches, and media? Where are Bill and Doug?

[B]

So where are you guys at? I'm sorry, man.

[A]

Yeah, we were like, we couldn't come because we had to interview the Kent State coach, which was awesome, by the way. And nobody else is doing that. You sheep are all standing around Tony Patini at a conference table. It's like, who's getting the Kent State coach on? We had a lovely conversation with Mark Carney. You should go listen to it from Tuesday. Getting your message out matters. And I do think, I don't know if it moves the needle on action, but perception matters. And I think talking to your fans and letting your fans who love this sport, love their teams, their conference doesn't go into hiding. You don't abandon your people, I think matters. And so I don't know if there are people sitting around the dinner table in Minnesota who are like, man, did you hear what Tony Petiti said? It fills, it fills my soul that Tony Petiti had a news conference in May. I've been waiting for this for a decade, for maybe not, but it's the year. Or talk about your sport. And so I think it's a good thing. Pete Thamel from ESPN is there. Ross Dellinger is there. Adam Rittenberg from ESPN.com is there. Scott Doctorman from the Athletic is there. Heather Dennis from ESPN is there. Brandon Marcelo from CBSSports.com is there. Like it is, you know, it's kind of like the. I can't believe we're not there.

[B]

I don't, I'm not, to be honest. I'm not a big California guy. I'm okay, I'm okay with not being there.

[A]

You're gonna go to the USC game for us, right? You're going to see game?

[B]

I am, yeah. But I'm staying at the airport. I'm not gonna, you know. You're not gonna go see the sights?

[A]

I don't know if it, I mean, it, it there, there's places here they could have it if there's places here.

[B]

Plenty of places. Yeah. Yeah.

[A]

There's resorts, there's lovely resorts in, in the Big Ten footprint. I'm sure they'll have it in Piscataway next year.

[B]

Just spread it out. Don't you want to have your, your spring meetings in a place where it's 93 one day and 62 the next day?

[A]

I had to pack six suitcases. I brought all my sweaters and all my tank tops. Who knows what's gonna happen? So that's good. Like the, the, the message. Any message is better than no message. Even if 95 of college football fans find your message incredibly distasteful.

[B]

I was gonna say that. You said talk to you like they're talking to the fans. They're not listening to the fans, but they're talking to them. They're jamming a one way conversation.

[A]

Took that 2014 playoff. It's like they're shoving a 2014 playoff down the throats of college football. And I'm Just like, great job, everybody. Great job all around. Let's talk about something else first before we get to the 2014 playoff, which is Tony Petiti did speak. They said it was about an hour long conversation on Tuesday evening California time. Or a small group of reporters. Like when you're, when you're a reporter writing about the conversation, you've got to include that it's a small group reporters, because then, then your audience is like, oh, this person's in the small group. We don't know if we could, like, if we had brought our own card table, could we have set up in the, in the banquet room of this fancy pants resort and done the Bill and Doug show live? That, that we don't know yet.

[B]

Right, right. And my guess would be like, probably not, because I don't think, I don't think either league intends for this to turn into media days. Right. Like big time media days are in three months or two months. I guess so. Yeah. I don't know if that would be possible or not. It's because. And it's not like every, every national writer who you mentioned has a podcast. They're not there with a microphone, sitting down, laying down podcasts with all these people.

[A]

So they might have podcasts, but do they have the Bill and Doug Show? Do they?

[B]

They do not. You.

[A]

Ryan Day said some stuff. Ryan Day's there and it's good. You're getting all these little interviews on the side. I saw a big Lincoln Riley story. People are talking to Ward Manual. Right. The Michigan ad Ryan Day is talking to folks. But they just got it all straightened out. As far as I can tell, Michigan's just got their. They got it. They figured it out. Boom, fixed part of the conversation. And we'll get to the 2014 specifically in a second around. This is canceling conference championship game weekend, expanding the playoff, and then the death of the conference championship game. And Ryan Day had a particular viewpoint. Do you know who he said this to? Was this in a, excuse me, in a, in a news conference setting or was it a reporter? And specifically that we should credit.

[B]

The story that I read was, was Scott Doctorman. I don't know if, okay, he talked to Ryan one on one or if it was. No, it says they told the athletic, so it must have just been a exclusive for our guy Scott.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, so we don't, I mean, we don't want to just glom onto everybody's reporting and not. So go read all these people. Go read ESPN.com and go read the Athletic and go read CBSSports.com and anybody else who's out there spending money to bring you this information. It's a great thing. We appreciate them doing that. Ryan Day is explaining what about the Ohio State Michigan game, The idea of rivalries and no more conference championship games.

[B]

Ryan Day believes that eliminating the Big Ten title game would make the Ohio State Michigan rivalry better. I'll, I'll read, I'll read one of the quotes. I won't read all the quotes, but I'll read one they said. I think it could be even more important. Talking about the Ohio State Michigan game, you're playing for either a chance to get into the playoff or a chance to get seated high to get a first round buy. Or if you're already maybe predicted to be one of the top eight schools, then you're fighting for a higher seed. So all of those are critically important to your success in the playoff. I think with the elimination of the championship game, it keeps that rivalry as fierce as it's ever been and the stakes just as high.

[A]

Okay, you do not agree.

[B]

It is categorically false. Okay. That the stakes would be just as high.

[A]

So, so there is, it's, I think he maybe went a scooch far there. That it's like, it's just, it's exactly like it was in 1968. It's like, okay, there is as it ever was and there is as it is now. And so I'm not sure. I think this is a separate show. I don't know if people are making this point. I'm make this point for 20 seconds. People who always say that college football had the best regular season. Right? That is it. There's the best regular season in sport is college football's regular season. Do they then follow it up by saying, while when college football had the best regular season, they had the biggest frickin horrible joke of a postseason that they could not figure out how to determine a national champion. And so it's like if you're longing for the days when it was the best regular season, there was no playoff. Like there was, there was nothing. I hated that part of college football. It's like, hey, we had a great regular season. Oh, who's your champ? We don't know. We asked a couple drunk sports writers and they, they did like a bunch of different lists and five different teams are the champ. Great. Enjoy your regular season. So I have a long rant about that that it's like, okay, I get it. Like to dispute. Oh, the regular season has lost something it's like, okay, because there was nothing, there was nothing before. And I do think when you were amateurs who were playing for vacation, it was like, okay, we have a great regular season and we're not even here for like, who, what's a winner? Right? Who cares about a winner? We just want to figure out where our fans are going in January. But once you professionalize the sport, you can't be playing for vacations anymore. Especially when most of the good players like, I'm not going on vacation for free. Like, what are you talking about? Like, so that's a conversation. But like as Ryan a talks about this, I don't think it's even worth having much of a conversation about. How would that compare to 1968 and the Ohio State Michigan game then? Right? And the beginning of, I guess the beginning of the tenure war was 1969. Let's talk about 1969, the beginning of the ten year war. It's Woody versus Bow. Everything that could be. Would the Big Ten, would Ohio State Michigan be better than that? Well, no, but we're never going back to that. So is, is the best conversation. How would the Ohio State Michigan game and any other rivalry game on the last week of the regular season be affected by, by no more conference championship games now? How would that future compare to the current reality? Or like what's the right conversation to have around not just what Ryan Day said, but this general idea how eliminating conference championship games would or would not affect last week of the season rivalries?

[B]

Well, I do think he's, and this, I don't think this was mentioned specifically in the story or even in anything Ryan said. I, I would agree with, with any statement that's like, well, it's good that you no longer would have the opportunity for like Ohio State and Michigan to play in the last weekend of November and then play again the following week in the Big Ten championship. Like, I, that would suck. I, like, I, I do think like we will one day see the season where Ohio State of Michigan do play multiple times. But the idea of them playing multiple times in back to back weeks was like disaster scenario for me in terms of like tearing apart the fabric of the rivalry. So if he's coming at it from that perspective, I, I, I think I get it. I do bristle at like, like, you know, as meaningful as it's been, the stakes are, are as high as they've been. Like, that's, that's just not true. And like 1968, it's not true. 2006, it's not true. 2016. It's not true. Right. Like, I. And some of that has already sort of like in like is inevitably sapped away when you expand the playoff field. I get that. I don't really think to this point I. Anything close to like, the Ohio State Michigan rivalry being diminished in an expl. In an expanded playoff field in terms of like, the meaning. But the stakes are. Are different. They're entirely different. And you can't put that genie back in the bottle. But you also don't have to, like, I don't know, twist reality and try to convince people that this somehow makes it more meaningful than it has been. Because I just don't think that's true.

[A]

So. But has been. What if has been means right now. What if has been means in the 12 team playoff? Like, how would. Because that's, that's the reality. We're never going back to four. So a 12 team playoff versus a 24 team playoff. A 12 team playoff with conference championship games. A 24 team playoff with no conference championship games. Do you think there is an effect on Ohio State, Michigan or any other rivalry game between those two scenarios?

[B]

I don't know. It doesn't feel. It doesn't feel tremendously different to me. No. I.

[A]

The thing that I pushed back against and I was getting fights on Twitter, I said to somebody on Twitter, everyone on Twitter. I don't really engage it, but there's a lot of doom and gloom around the 2014 playoffs. So I always say, and I've said it on the show, which matters if you're watching this show for your substack subscriber especially, like, that's. That's who we care about. I did call somebody a grumpy prick on Twitter the other day. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say that. The idea that expanding the playoff will hurt rivalry games because if, if, like both teams are in the playoff because there are more playoff spots, people are gonna not care about winning the rivalry game or they're gonna rest players in the rivalry game. Right. This has been a conversation. Ryan Day, like, made this a conversation. Whatever it was five years ago, right, that he broached the idea of like resting Ohio State players in the Michigan game if you knew you were already in the Big Ten title game or something. Right. Like, he sort of brought that up to me. It's like the reverse of that framing that. If the framing is a 2014 playoff would diminish rivalry weekend. I would say rivalry rivalry weekend. Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Washington, Oregon, Auburn, Alabama, all those kind of games means that you, you can expand the playoff if you want to, because those rivalries will always matter. Because my contention is, like, people say things like, I'd rather my team go 1 and 11 and beat Michigan, then go 11 and 1 and lose to Michigan, right? So. And people say, like, how many announcers come on a game and say, throw out the records, It's a rivalry game. Well, you can't say that stuff and then be like, well, if everyone's in the playoff, nobody cares. Because the whole point of a rivalry is that it exists for itself. It exists for those three and a half hours what happens on that field. It exists for bragging rights. It exists because of tradition and familiarity and hatred. And none of those things have anything to do with the postseason. None of those things are about the playoff. And so I don't think that's going away. And I think that is the primary thing that remains different between college football and the NFL. And I, I absolutely refute the idea that either side in the Ohio State Michigan game would ever care less, play less hard, rest their guys in the rivalry game because they're like, oh, we're locked into the three seed, so who cares? Because you always care. And like, we've seen the proof of this. Ohio State was in the playoff, win or lose in 2014, and losing to Michigan started a discussion about whether Ryan Day should be fired. Even though they were still in the playoff 24. They didn't lose. They lost. They had to play. Like, right? They, they lost, their seed went down, but people were not like, they got a fire Ryan Day because his seed went down. They said, they got a fire Ryan Day because he lost to Michigan, because he can't beat Michigan. I don't care what he does in the other stuff. He can't beat Michigan. I don't think that's ever going away. And, and is that exactly the same in every other rivalry? No, this is the greatest rivalry in sport released. The greatest rivalry in college football. But it's still never going to be okay to lose the, the old oak and bucket. It's never okay for Oregon to lose to Washington or Washington lose to Oregon or USC and ucla, like, all those games will always matter. And so when Ryan Day says, you know, so. So if the idea is like, okay, well, now we don't have to play Ohio State, Michigan, and then think the next week, well, we have to go play Indiana, right? You might be more like, I don't think it would ever happen, but they played Michigan this year. In a game they had to win because they were on a four game losing streak against Michigan and then they had the number one team in the country waiting the next week. So if he's saying now you won't have that conference championship game waiting for you the next week, you can't play a one versus two game the week after Michigan. That makes Ohio State Michigan even bigger than what it would be now. I think it probably is mostly the same, but what I would definitely argue against is that the 2014 playoff will diminish year end rivalries. I think that is categorically false.

[B]

No, I agree. I don't think I'm, I'm with you on, on almost all that. It just seems to me like like Ryan Day went like too far I think in rallying against that idea to like, then say like, like the meaning is the same. The meaning or the, the stakes changed when we expanded the playoff. That's a fact. It's not changing. But I don't think the meaning ever went away. And like the 2014 playoff, I don't think does anything to change the meaning. The meaning is the meaning it's Ohio State Michigan. I don't think it's enhanced by like, oh boy, if we win this game, we're going to be a three seed instead of a five seed. Like nobody cares. All they care about is did you beat Michigan? And that should be like, for me, like that's enough. So like, I don't, I don't know why we have to pretend like or like it just felt to me like you were like using the Ohio State Michigan game to like prop up the 2014 playoff. And it's like, miss me with that. I don't need that. I like that. They're separate conversations, I think. But no, I'm, I'm with you all the way on the. I believe strongly these games will still have meaning. I don't for one second ever think that anyone in a rivalry like Ohio State, Michigan or anything like that across the sport will start resting their players. I feel like people are applying like pro sports logic to it. When. And Tony Petiti, I think that said something to this, like to this extent, right? Like those playoffs are determined by standing. So it's like, yeah, you might have your spot locked up no matter what. So at the end of the year, yeah, maybe you do rest your players, but that's not how this is going to work. There's always every game you play is going to move you up or down and then you add the meaning of the rivalry on top of that, like, it's just not going to happen. I think, like, was this. Stefan [e-mail] said, like, the next Ohio State coach that rests players against Michigan will be the last one. Right? Like, this is like, no one, nobody will stand for that on either side of the rivalry. It's not going to happen. It's a total, like, straw man. Like, I don't, I don't. Or boogeyman. I don't know why people are. People who I feel like are smart folks covering college football talking about that idea in a serious way. I just think look ridiculous because it's just. I cannot fathom that ever happening. You might load manage throughout the season. Guess what? That's happening already. By the way, I hear from a lot of Ohio State fans who wish, like, their young players would play more. I don't know why that's necessarily a bad thing. In the biggest games. They're not going to do that. That's not how. That's not. They, they don't do it in pro sports either. Load manage against Rutgers. You don't load manage against Oregon or Michigan. Like, that's, that's just not how coaches and athletes are wired. So I don't know why we would assume that would be the case. Yeah,

[A]

I think to argue the. And I was doing that some on Twitter. It's like the argument of like, they're going to arrest players. Like, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of college football. Because to me, if you were having, if you were starting from scratch and you were having a meeting of a bunch of consultants of like, okay, we're gonna have a 24 team playoff. It's like, man, that's a lot of teams in the playoff. Then it's like, well, what do we do? How do we make teams care about the last week of the regular season when they know they're going to be in the playoff? And it's like, man, could we play their most important regular season game in the last week of the regular season so they would care about that game no matter what? It's like, yeah, but how are you going to make it that important? It's like, well, what if we put 100 years of tradition and history behind it? It's like, yeah, but it's 2036 and this is a meeting of all robots. We can't go back in time 100. But that's where we are. And we did. It's like, thank you, 1907. You've saved rivalry weekend in 2020. 7. So, so like it exists. It's there. And I think it's, I think it's, it's practically. Rather than it being the risk of the 2014 playoff idea, I think it's practically the saving grace of the 2014 playoff idea because we see it in the NFL all the time. Week 18, the last week of the season in the NFL is nothing. There's like three games that matter and, and the TV networks are hoping they wind up in a game where someone's playing to get into the playoff. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. If you're playing Browns versus Steelers, if you're playing like Denver versus kc, it doesn't matter. You could play Eagles, Dallas. If, if it is the last week of the regular season and you have your playoff spot and mostly your seed locked up in the NFL, you cannot. There is not a rivalry that exists that supersedes resting your guys for the playoff. Sorry. In college football, it does. I think it's. Of all the things, it's the NFL location of college football, this is the number one difference how much the rivalries matter.

[B]

I agree. I don't. And I just, like, I don't, I don't, I don't see that changing. I did. There's like, there's like flawed professional sports logic, I think, like being applied to like kind of both sides of this argument, I think to the. In this way with assuming the teams will rest players in the games that mean the most. But also, and something. I don't want to jump the gun. Like what Tony Petiti said about like comparing college football to Major League Baseball. It's like, well, you're wrong. So, so it's happened. It's happening both ways. But yeah, I do think, I do think that is still the number one separating factor. And I, like, again, I just don't. I don't see it changing. I don't, I don't know that like these fan bases would allow that to happen. Right. Like show up in Ohio Stadium and don't play your starters against Michigan. Hope you make it out. You know what I mean?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, or whatever in Ann Arbor near Michigan or, or in Alabama when you're playing Auburn. Right. Like, that's just, you know, fan. Fans I don't think are empowered to do a whole lot in, in college football. But, and, and nor are they listened to enough. I, I think, but I don't, I don't think they will let that part of college football being stripped away.

[A]

So you thought generally that like Ryan Day went a little more yeah. Was maybe on the right track, but then, yeah, yeah.

[B]

And also, it's like, you know, I wasn't listening to him. Have the conversation. Right. Like you read something and hear something, it can end a little differently. But just, yeah, that, like the notion that, like, oh, suddenly Ohio State, Michigan has more meaning. It's like, oh, I disagree. I don't think the meaning changes. But like, I don't like where we are now to a theoretical 2014 road. I don't think, I don't think Ohio State Michigan fundamentally changes, but I would also disagree that, like, it gets better somehow. I don't, I don't think that's True.

[A]

Okay. The 2014 playoff, that specific discussion, it was from what was reported. And again, thanks to all the reporters who are out there gathering this information for everybody, not just for podcast hosts, but for fans who care about this sport so much. It felt like it was the main thing that Tony Petiti was talking about in his hour long conversation with reporters. And the basic gist of it is the Big Ten is united around 24 teams in a playoff. Every coach that we have seen quoted has espoused that. I don't know if it is. I don't know how it happened. I don't know if Tony Petiti made a great presentation and had all kinds of stats. And the coaches just looked, looked over at each other. They're like, you know what, he's right.

[B]

He must work great charts. He's got a guy at Kinko. She's just on it, making, yeah.

[A]

Oh, my God. Aren't you swayed by a good chart?

[B]

Yeah, I can be swayed by a good chart. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. Or if he just got him in there and said, if I hear what? If I hear one. If I hear one person support a 16 team playoff, I will call your university president tomorrow and get you fired. Don't even breathe. And I don't know if I care. I like the united front. I don't know if it was a carrot or a stick, but the Big Ten is making a push and a point. And we have gone from the leaking of the 2014 playoff in February and everybody laughing about it to the Big Ten is united behind it. The ACC and the Big 12 are on board. And when the SEC goes, had, has its meetings next week, the number one topic of conversation will be, the Big Ten wants this and is pushing it. Do you agree? It will be at SEC spring meetings. It will be them responding to what the Big Ten wants as the primary driver. And that is not how it used to Be the Big Ten is setting the agenda. And so I don't get the specifics of like whether it's bad or good or whatever. He's ruining the sport. But like, I like that that idea fires me up because they've set the. And again, how many conversations have we had about this on our various shows?

[B]

Yeah, a ton.

[A]

Yeah, they're setting the agenda on the field, they're lifting trophies. But they are not setting the agenda in the perception battle in the conversation around the sport. And now they are. And who, Mama? I think that is, I think that is a game changer for how college football will be shaped. And then ideas matter. Ideas matter. But it's clear that the Big Ten. Would you agree that the Big Ten is at least equal to the SEC and the perception and conversation battle right now and maybe is ahead?

[B]

Yeah, I think it's equal. He probably convinced me that they're ahead. Yeah, I mean, I mean on the field certainly they are. But, but as we've discussed many times that the perception of the sport, it's just, it's a, it's a slower burn there to get people to think a little differently. So I, I don't know. Like, I, I'm very interested to, to hear the talking points that come out of Dustin next week because like, you're right, like this will be the primary conversation. I'm still, I'm still on alert for how much talk will there be about like depth and the grind and the nine game SEC schedule and, and trying to still hold up the SEC is something fundamentally different and better and more challenging than, than the Big Ten because I think that's like sort of the only thing the SEC kind of has to wield anymore. So that'll be, that'll be interesting. Could be entertaining. We'll. We'll see. But yeah, it does feel like, like finally after these three championships and the Big Ten, I think understanding or having a better strategy, sort of like in the, in the PR battle that they are on at the very least even footing foreign.

[A]

He says there's no discussion around 16. We did a show in February when this idea was first leaked about the 24 and I, I have not heard. This is why I kind of wish we were there. I have not heard or read Tony Petiti say this specifically, but the point we made on that show was going from a 12 team playoff to a 16 team playoff. If you look at the recent history of the College Football Playoff rankings, extra four teams that you are bringing in would be a lot of SEC teams And not many Big Ten teams. And. And until the perception of the middle of those conferences changes. From a selfish standpoint, I understand why the Big Ten wasn't. Doesn't want to go to 16 because they're not adding much and the SEC is adding a lot. So if you look at that conversation like, okay, who are the four teams that would be added? And like, in an average year, it's like two and a half SEC teams and maybe one team from the Big 12 and ACC and half a team from the Big Ten. I don't want that. If I'm the Big Ten, that's not enough. So either stay at 12, which is where it is. Where you just get the top 12 is the top layer of the SEC and the top layer of the Big Ten. 24 is the top and middle of the SEC and the top and middle of the Big Ten. Sixteen is the top and middle of the SEC and just the top of the Big Ten. If you look at recent history. He's not saying that. I think that's still a huge part of this as they have these conversations. Because what Tony Petiti is saying is we've had no conversation at the Big Ten around 16. We want 24. If the SEC won't go to 24, we'll stay at 12. And I think the only way you can explain that is through what I just said. Because if it's. If it's theoretical, we want more opportunity, we want more teams to have something tangible to chase. We think it enhances the regular season for more teams to be in the playoff. Then how can you think that 12 is better than 16? Because if you just think bigger is better, then a small jump in size is better than no jump in size. But that's not where they are. They're at 12 or 24. So I kind of wish he would say this thing out loud because I think it must be the truth.

[B]

Yeah. And it feels to me like it'd be the type of thing he wouldn't say out loud unless he was, like, specifically asked it to your point. He's talking like access is the buzzword. It seems like was reading the ESPN story. And like he said, like, you know, 16 is just not enough access. But I feel like it's like not enough access parentheses for us kind of thing.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like, it's just like it's. It's left unsaid. He's letting, like, the word access do a lot of heavy lifting. But. But my reading of that is exactly. Is exactly what you said, because I Do think. I think it's right. It's not. I don't think it's like a proper reflection of the sport necessarily. But, but it, but it is still the perception battle at the Big Ten is, is continuing to fight and like, you know, it's not. It's on some of the programs like in the middle of the Big Ten too, to be a little better, I think than, than they've been or be like more like consistently better maybe is a better way to say it because they, they do kind of like tend to, to dip and rise a little bit. But it's just, it's far less of an uphill battle if you have 24 teams like 6, 16. I just like they're, they are going to continue to lose the perception battle and I understand why he doesn't want that.

[A]

The first four out last year, the four that would have made a 16 team playoff are Notre Dame, BYU, Texas and Vanderbilt. So that's, that's no more Big Ten teams. It's two more SEC teams. And that is representative of the recent history. So I do think part of it, if they wind up. So as everybody understands, the SEC and the Big Ten are in charge of this. That's how this works. It's written in the contract. They have to agree. What everybody else says doesn't matter. The Big 12 and the ACC or with the move to 24, it doesn't matter. It only matters in perception and maybe pushing the SEC rather than being on an island. But we have gone. We have gone from when this was leaked in February. The Big Ten was on an island with 24. We are now at the point where the SEC is on an island by being anti 24. And I just like the idea of them being on an island. We put them on an island. Yeah, I just. And, and maybe the SEC would say, well, we're on an island with 95 of college football fans and I unders. I understand that maybe like the Big Ten are like the bad guys like on the mainland, right. Who are like we, we're in charge. And look at all this. And it's like, yeah, but you're the empire. Like you're, you're. But I'm just so sick of the SEC being the evil empire that's in charge of everything. I almost don't care if the Big Ten is the evil empire.

[B]

Like somebody has to be. Yeah, yeah.

[A]

It's like, like have a little run at it. Have a little run at being the bad guys that are pushing people around. Like I just Want them to push people around for a little bit.

[B]

So

[A]

do you think so? Tony Petiti says again in these comments to all the reporters out there, if the sec agrees to 24, he thinks they could get it implemented for 20, that this would be the last year of the 12 team playoff and we'd be at 24 by next, by the following year. If that's what comes out of SEC media day, SEC spring meetings, that it's like, okay, because they're already. Some coaches like the, the Big Ten is united. Everybody says 24. The SEC is split. Some coaches like 24, some don't. The commissioner's not at 24 right now. If, if that's what happens after the SEC spring meetings in Destin, that the SEC is like, okay, we're on board with 24, then they're going to have a meeting, they're going to vote on it, they're going to do it and we're going to be at 27. We're going to be at 24 teams for 20, 27. That. And so that would be a win for the Big Ten. It might be a win for the evil empire of the Big Ten, but the Big Ten will have gotten its way. Bullying and pushing and cajoling and mocking and gathering support and isolating the SEC and forcing them to come around. On some level, I'd respect it.

[B]

Yeah, I think you can respect it without agreeing with it or, or being excited about the actual idea that that is being implemented. I like, I don't, I don't think that's where we're going to be.

[A]

What do you think is going to happen?

[B]

I think we're gonna, I think the stalemate is going to continue, I don't think. Because part of this too is like, is like, it's the Big Ten versus the SEC, but it's really like Fox versus ESPN and like, yeah, it is in ESPN's best interest to try to get this to play out as close to the end of their current CFP contract as possible, which I think is 2031. I don't think that is possible, but I think they can try to do things to continue to kick the can down the road at least a little bit, to maintain their sort of monopoly on broadcasting the entirety of the playoffs. So I, I don't know. My guess is it probably like we're at 12 for like another two years, maybe this year, 26, 27 and then maybe 28. Everyone realizes, like, this is inevitable, we need to expand.

[A]

So I do. You're right. Astute as always. ESPN agreed to a new six year deal with the College Football Playoff in March of 2024. And Fox should have been in there more. So if part of this is that Fox wants a piece of the playoff, Fox should have gone after a piece of the playoff previously. And if they're regretting that decision or whatever, so now they want to expand to more playoff games so they can get piece of this. And then, then they screwed it up. And like they're, I, I don't know why they didn't do that before. So they're not infallible and they are selfish. But I, but ESPN and the SEC are selfish and all I've wanted and I think for some people that you just want somebody to stand up to ESPN and the sec. And it used to be ESPN and abc, they were with the Big Ten. So that was the counterbalance. It was the SEC and CBS and that kind of thing, right? And it was like, okay, well if the two biggest powers in college football are ESPN and the sec, they were on opposite sides and then the sides flipped and ESPN went to the sec and now we have Fox, NBC, CBS with the Big Ten. And when it flipped, it was clear the two biggest powers were on the same side. They were partners now. So then all the, I think you needed a counterbalance to that. Somebody had to stand up to that or they were going to run roughshod over the sport. And so this is standing up to that. So I think, I think in the long term, not allowing the SEC and espn to just 1000% dictate everything that happens is good. And then we can get into the specifics of once you have another power, how that all evolves. Right? But I, I do not think if, if, if the Big Ten wasn't doing this, we'd just be going to 16. It would be an SEC led, let's move to 16. Everyone be like, yeah, that makes sense. Just get rid of the buys. We're not adding any weeks to the calendar. Sixteen's better. You get more access. It's all good. ESPN keeps all of it. We're all good, right? And if, and if, and if the Big Ten wasn't standing up to that, we'd already be there, like without a doubt, led by the SEC and ESPN getting exactly what they want, which would be continued domination of the sport. And so it's hard because FOX and the Big Ten fighting back is basically big noon and a 2014 playoff. And everybody hates both of those ideas. And they're fighting back with the most Distasteful. We know you guys hate this, but we're doing it anyway. But I'm still, I'm still invested in the fight. Any fight is better than no fight. So as Tony, but as Tony Kitty tried to explain this. He's talking about, as you said in baseball, nobody ever complained about more access to the playoff. And he was talking about tiered incentives. 1 through 8, you get a buy. 9 through 16, you get a first round home game. 17 through 24, you're in at least you're out. First of all, what do you think of the comparison to baseball as you've mentioned previously and trying to say, like, hey, we expanded in other sports that I was part of and that was good. So expansion here is good.

[B]

It's a, another representation of fundamentally misunderstanding college football. Like, that's right. Why, why, why? I, I was, I was reading an article on MLB.com it was actually written by a guy I went to school with. 16 wild card teams have made the World Series. I think eight of them have won the World Series. Never gonna happen in college football. So it's like, why are we applying that logic to a sport where like that outcome is just, it's not possible. Like an MLB is not a salary cap sport, but it's at least a little flatter, I think, in terms of roster building than certainly college football. There's a, I think there's like a bit of, like, of a, of a misunderstanding of college football. It's like we always talk about like the, the sport is flattening. It's not flat, it's just flattening from like where? From from where, from where it was. Right. There are still a lot of halves and a lot of have nots. And, and you're creating this system where like, and I'm not, as you've, I think, smartly brought up in the past, right. Like you are, you are changing the, the feel of a season for a lot of fan bases who like, have never had reason to root for their team to get playoff access. And I'm not, I, I, you know, I do think that that does have some meaning, but those teams are never going to win a championship until like college football has a salary cap, which I don't think is ever going to happen either. So then like, don't compare it to baseball because it's not, it's not the same thing. Like, and I don't even know, like, do people like the expanded baseball? I don't know. I don't know that people actually like it anyway. But the nature of those sports and professional sports is like, you know, when you let that many teams in debate in the MLB playoffs, when you let 16 teams into the NHL playoffs or whatever the NBA is now with the playing structure, like some of those teams at the bottom of the, of the playoff field do have a chance to win it in theory and like. And it is far more realistic to sort of fathom than it will ever be in college football. So then why are you creating a system that just is like kind of adding extra games without I think really adding any kind of like extra juice to the actual postseason format? Like you're not, you're not introducing more teams that could theoretically win the championship because nobody believes they can.

[A]

And I think it does go back to your. It's two tiered incentive structures, two tier goal structure. There are going to be teams who just making the playoff is good season, there's a victory in itself. Then they're going to be other teams that are like, that's great, we made the playoff, but that's not what we're here for. We're here to win a championship. And I do think this would go back to my argument that I'll make on a separate show, which is what bowl games used to be as a goal to make that right. Hey, we made a BCS bowl or we made the fourth best Big Ten bowl instead of the eighth best Big Ten bowl, or we went six and six and made a bowl at all and at four and eight we didn't get to go to a bowl. All those different versions of success have been lessened because guys are opting out of games. And I know the Pop Tart bowl is still exciting, but you've like, you've turned those like making the bowls or making the postseason still might matter, but then the actual games of those postseason games have been greatly lessened. Nobody can argue that there's guys who are opting out of BCS games, right? Like it's like, oh, the only way that you prevent guys of opting out of games is to say that by the game that you're playing, you still have a chance to win the championship. Otherwise they're going to opt out because they're exhibitions. And so I think you have to adjust to that. And so like, you know, there's. So then I don't think the idea is not that the 23rd best team in the sport is going to win the the championship, but that's not the goal. The 23rd best team that year, the goal is to play A is to make something that designates you as successful. You can hang a banner for making the playoff and then you're going to play a game that matters and you're going to play the, the hardest you can. All your best guys are going to play. And that, that game of number 23 versus number 10 is going to be a huge game. Now are you going to win it? And even if you win it, are you going to win the next round? Like, no, but you've already achieved something. And if you don't have that, like, what's left to achieve has been greatly diminished because of the professionalization of the sport, which some people are against, but a lot of people are for these guys should be making money, right? And unless you're going to put in people's contracts that like, hey, we're signing you to an nil deal, we're giving you the rev share money. And by the way, you have to play in the Music City Bowl. You cannot opt out of this or you lose half your money. You know what I mean? Like, you have to do something to make the end of the season meaning. There's no other sport like that where you have a postseason, but the postseason doesn't matter. So I think like, because of the death of bowles, in some ways, then expanding the playoff fills the gap for that second tier of bowls. And if once upon a time people could be excited for the Music City bowl, then now people can be excited for a 10 vs 23 game in the playoff. And it's not because either the 10 seed or the 23 seed has a realistic chance to win it, but it's because that game matters. So I, I think they should explain. I should be the spokesperson for this crap. I can explain this to people in a way that it's all about trade offs. It's all of it together. It's like it. I do think it's being explained wrong to some degree. I don't mean to make it about me. I think it's being explained wrong to some degree.

[B]

No, I think it is. I think it is too. And they're, you know, it's, it's hard to change behaviors is not the great word. But like that, you know, just the way that we have kind of like digested college football for so long. Like you are, you are like trying to break some pretty strongly held habits of people and, and flip perception a little bit. I don't think it's impossible, but I do think it's being explained because like, I, I just feel it Feels like to me, it's like, oh, 2014 playoff access. Access to what? Because you're not going to convince me that Virginia is going to win the national championship. No.

[A]

Access to hope and access to games that matter.

[B]

But I. But I don't think. I think they are coming up a few steps short of. I think, explaining this in a way that will actually. That actually has, like, any chance of, like, getting, like, rallying support behind it. But I think. I think what you said, like, maybe what I. Maybe not, because there are people who still, like, wish we had only two teams and who. Who qualify for the championship without any kind of playoff, the old BCS system or whatever. But I think there's, like, a. There's a bit of a separating point, I think, in the sport, right, like, the. And I just see, like, you know, where we see a lot and interact a lot with, like, Ohio State fans. So I just, like, I've. I've not heard from or met many Ohio State fans who are interested in the idea of an expanded playoff, because I think it does. In some ways. I think it, like, fundamentally changes Ohio State's existence a little more than, like, in a negative way than it might say, like, Minnesota's. And it's hard for people to wrap their minds around that, but. And I don't know if you can ever win them over with for, like, the good of the sport or the good of Minnesota's fan base, because, like, why would they care? So you're not going to get everybody around, but maybe if you explain it the way that you did, you'd have a better chance of getting some support behind it, because, frankly, I don't. I don't really. I don't. I feel like I don't see any. I haven't seen, like. I can't think of, like. Because I think you've done a good job of, like, not. Not necessarily, like, championing. Championing the 2014 playoff, but at least pulling people back from the ledge a little bit. I don't think I've seen anybody that says, like, this is a great idea. This is awesome. I can't wait for. I can't wait for the 2014 playoff. Whether that's a media voice or, like, even, like, a strong contingent of fans. So while there's a strong coalition within the Big Ten coaches and administrators to get this done, it does kind of feel like they're on a bit of an island act, like, pushing an idea that not many people seem to be all that interested in.

[A]

I think the important thing Here. And it does frustrate me. It. I, I need. I just need to be clear on this. I. I anger people sometimes. Fans can think whatever they want. Fans give their money, they give their passion, they give their heart, they give their souls, they give their time, they give their energy to their college football team. They love their team, they love their sport. They can think whatever they want. I am absolutely empathetic and understanding of anybody who feels like the sport that I love is changing in a way that I don't like. But from a. And they can be myopic. You care about your team because again, this is. Again, there's. It's just, there's. It's such a rich tapestry, this freaking sport. My God, what a rich fricking tapestry college football is. It's why we love it. Because while it is becoming nationalized in a way that I like, it is still regional and, and personal first in a way that few sports are. You don't. And you don't want to give all the regionality away in the name of nationalism. 100 understand that. Adam Rittenberg, I thought, wrote maybe the most important story because there's a lot of stuff that we're just not getting into of like, are they going to break away? How do you handle the money, the cs, the College Sports Commission, Are they screwing it up? Like, that's great. I don't know. Rittenberg wrote a story. Our guy will have him on talking to Dan Lanning and Ryan Day at these Big Ten meetings. And they both said, here's a Ryan Day quote. It's debatable whether a 2014 playoff is, is best for Ohio State. You can go back and forth on that, but it's certainly best for the conference and great for college football in general. And Dan Lanning said the same thing that I think is true. And so, like, if you are arguing from a standpoint of Ohio State or Alabama or Georgia or Oregon or Texas or these teams that are just gonna be in the 12 team playoff a lot, almost all the time of like, what do we need to go to 24 for? Like, I understand that from your personal viewpoint, but the point is there aren't many teams like that. And there's a lot of good football teams that care and invest who are just never going to be one of the 12 best teams in the country. They're just not. There's a lot of teams blocking their way, but they might have a shot to be the 19th best team in the country and they're going to have a shot at this at the 12 team doesn't give them. And so if you're an Ohio State fan, I'm not trying to convince you that it's necessarily that this is better for Ohio State, but I think you should. You have to at least be able to acknowledge why an Iowa fan or a Minnesota fan or a Nebraska fan or somebody like that would be interested in 24, because they're just. Now, you don't have to go through Ohio State, Oregon, Michigan and Indiana to get somewhere. You can get there with them, you can go around them, you can go side by side with them. Because there's a lane for me, there's a lane for a program. And this Tony Petiti is talking about this when we're asking programs to do rev share to come up with nil ways of getting their donors to give money, there's more investment. And so you have to ask for more investment because the guys aren't playing for free anymore. So then there should there be more reward? And so, like, I think that's reasonable. So I am always trying to say, like, I'm not just coming at it from an Ohio State standpoint. If you are an Ohio State fan coming at it from an Ohio State standpoint, you're right, it might not be better. It might make your regular season is the right. Is the Ohio State regular season better? No, it's not. Is it more exciting? No. Are there greater stakes to the regular season? No. Is your rivalry game gonna die? I would say no. But what you're giving up, like, is gonna be made up for, I think for all those other second tier programs and their fan bases who are currently just shut out of this stuff and now they have a chance. And Tony Petiti is talking about that and I think he's talking about it from the monetary standpoint of we want to reward the investors and that's monetary and financial because everything in college sports is business now. But I think you can also think about that from a passion investment. And if once upon a time an Iowa fan was excited to go to the Music City bowl and see if we can finish in the top 25 when the final AP poll comes out, that has been diminished. So let's give him a shot to be the 21st best team in the country and make the playoff or maybe some year be the 15th best team and get a home game in the playoff. Right. I think there is actually tremendous value in that.

[B]

Yeah. I again, like, I think, I think there is too. The financial piece is interesting as well because it's like, it's not. People might hear like the. Like wanted to incent and incentivize the investment and think like you're talking merely about sort of just like the.

[A]

The.

[B]

The feeling of having a successful season. It's like, no, you can get an extra home game and all the money that comes with that you can get. You participate in. In the playoff payouts. I think there's actual, like, tangible financial benefits that. To. To making the playoff. I think part of the issue too. It's an issue, but I think a. A thing that exists is sort of like an impediment, I think, to getting more people on. I don't want to say like, your side, but like kind of. Kind of seeing it. The way you just sort of laid it out is that many sort of like college football shows, like national shows, just like, don't ever talk about anyone other than like the top 12 teams in the sport. So I think it then becomes a little harder to like, empathize with a fan base who might be like, really juiced up about this. You just, you. They're. They're not like Ohio State, Oregon, Alabama, Georgia beat shows, but they might as well be because those are the only teams they ever talk about. And then that sort of in or influences your perspective on something like the 2014 playoff. Because, like, why we already have a system that exists that allows those very best teams to play for. Why do we need to do something that would add more teams that we. We deem lesser than because we never talk about them or interact with our fan bases.

[A]

This was another point that Tony Batitti brought up, which is the idea that if they had had the 2014 playoff, since the first playoff in 2014, 88, zero different teams would have made the playoff. I do want to shout this out. I saw this as on a retweet from our guy Kano Agara, who's great and we should have him on the show soon. But he retweeted something from the next round. Their Twitter account is next round live. And I think they say they are like SEC college football show. They tweeted this in May. Like, they made a graphic of like 80 teams would have made it. Here's how many times everybody would have made it. And they were sort of saying, like, oh, like the Big Ten did this research and found it out. It's like, we made the graphic. Maybe the Big Ten took it from them. I don't know. But at least they made it before the Big Ten talked about it. Good job. By them at next round live 12 college football playoffs in this time period, if it was a 2014 playoff, Bama and Ohio State would have made it every year. So and again it's one of those. This is where I would ask Ohio State fans. In the four team playoff, Ohio State finished like fifth, sixth and seventh and eighth I think right, like is, do you, like you prefer that? Like that's part of it, like that's in a specific Ohio State. If you think like I don't like the expanded playoff and are you willing to trade the 2024 national title for it because you would rather it before Ohio State never would have made it. And the years that Ohio State was sitting on the edge of its seat and a second SEC team got in instead of the Big Ten champ in a four team playoff like you prefer, you'll take that over. Ohio State made it every year. And maybe your answer is yes, but again I always go back to like if your favorite part of the sport is, is losses being punitive? I love when losses are punitive. It's like okay, but it's like just what are we holding on to? But the point. So Bama and Ohio State would have been 12, Clemson 11, Georgia and Notre Dame 10. But then like what we're talking about here is Baylor would have made it four times, Michigan State would have made it four times, Wisconsin would have made it four times, Arizona would have made it three times, Indiana would have made it three times. Kansas State would have made it twice. West Virginia would have made it twice, Syracuse would have made it twice, Wake Forest would have made it once. UNLV would have made it once. Like Minnesota really jumps.

[B]

I'm looking at the graphic. The only one that really jumps out to me is that Oklahoma State would have made it six times.

[A]

Yeah, so it, and like I saw somebody sort of like cite this like the 80, 80 different teams would have made it over the last 12 years as a negative. Do you think, do you think it is a negative that 80 different teams could be hanging a playoff banner over the last 12 years? Do you think there is a consensus or a large group of people who would view that as a negative?

[B]

I think yes, but I, I, I don't think it's a negative. I think there's probably a large group of people who would. It's just, it's just so fundamentally different from how we've experienced college football that I just like, it's, it's natural to sort of just like, whoa, that's a lot that feels like Too many. I, I think another way to view it is like over the last 12 years, 80 teams had a chance to play pretty meaningful games in November is like a, is a different way to put a positive spin on it in a way that I think could get people excited about it. So. Or, you know, to an extent, I guess. But no, I don't, I don't know that I. So I didn't see that number and thought, boy, that's too many. I don't want to sign up for that. I saw that number, I thought, like, oh, that's pretty interesting. Like, that's significantly more than I would have guessed. One and two. It's like, I don't know why that's necessarily a bad thing.

[A]

Right. So it's an evolution. Like, but these are the things the Big Ten is citing. And then again, the last thing, the tiered thing that, that Petiti is setting. Do you think that's real? That fighting to be a top eight seed, which gets you a first round by fighting to be seated nine through 16, which gets you a first round home game, fighting to be 17 through 24 just to get in that you're just, you've made it, you're in, you have a chance, you're gonna play a meaningful game. Do you think that tiered structure provides real motivation for teams during the regular season? That there's a big difference of those three levels that, you know, as you were saying, it's like, well, Ohio State's already sitting guys out in the second half against Rutgers and Purdue and that kind of thing, but that there's enough of a difference between 11 and 1 and 10 and 2 and 9 and 3 that the first one might get you a buy, the second one might get you a home game, the third one might get you in, but you're on the road in the play in round. Is that an actual incentive structure that that is real and works to keep the regular season important?

[B]

I would say, like for, for the most part, yes. I, I do think there's probably most years going to be like that top group of four to five teams maybe that they don't care if they're one or eight as long as they're at home. And there's not much that's going to happen to knock them out of being at home high that maybe like, I, like, I don't know how much of a carrot that is necessarily. I don't think much changes about their regular seasons compared to sort of like how they exist right now. But once you get past that group. Yeah, I do. I do think it kind of like ratches things up pretty. Pretty intensely, in fact. So I. Yeah, I wouldn't. I don't think you can apply the logic 100 across the entire playoff field, but you can probably apply it to whatever, 80% of it.

[A]

Okay, what's your prediction? Officially, you've already said it, I think. But as it relates to the playoff field, when we come out of SEC spring meetings, what the, what the decision will be around the playoff size going forward.

[B]

I don't think we're going to get any where any closer to like feeling the 24 is inevitable by 2027. I think. I think the SEC will probably stand pretty firm for now, and we'll probably be having many of these same conversations this time next year. And I would, I would say that playoff expansion probably is a reality in 2028 or 2029.

[A]

Oh, I think this becomes. I, I think I would agree with the prediction that the SEC won't say, okay, 24 is fine and that, that that will be it. I don't think there will be a decision this year that says, okay, Every. The Big Ten of the SEC have agreed for a 2014 playoffs starting in 2027. I think then this becomes, this season, becomes a gigantic season for this discussion because I think if the Big Ten has some teams that would have gotten into a 16 but are not getting into a 12, I think it changes the conversation a year from now. And I think they would acquiesce to 16 if they think it would be meaningful to their membership. So if the, the four teams that would get in are not two SEC teams, a Big 12 team and independent Notre Dame ACC affiliated, but there are Big 10 teams at 13, 14 and 16 this year. I think it absolutely changes the conversation. And all of a sudden Tony Petiti says that stuff about 24. We can throw that out. We're good with 16, Greg Sankey says good, and we get to 16 and then we can see how 16 goes and then decide, do we need to get to 24? I swear, I think it is this. I think it is a thousand percent selfish from the Big Ten. Sixteen in the real world does nothing for us. So we're not doing 16. We're having zero conversations about it. Show us that 16 might do something for us and we'll talk about it. So all of a sudden, can USC, can USC finish 14th? Yeah, it is on the committee. Because, I mean, honestly, it's on the committee. If you look at the College Football Playoff rankings last year, and you know, Iowa's 23rd at 8 and 4 with close losses to Indiana and Oregon that could have gone either way. And Vanderbilt at 10 and 2 is 14th. But who did Vanderbilt really beat? How much does it matter? Iowa played these great games. They almost got wins, but they're just, you're eight and four too bad you're 23rd. And they play in a bowl game that Diego Pavia plays in and Iowa wins, but they're, they're nine spots apart in the rankings. Right. And this normally this sounds like the discussion that SEC people would have oh, our 8 and 4 team is better than your 10 and 2 team. Actually last year the 8 and 4 Big 10 team was better than the 10 and 2 SEC team. And it was shown on the field. If USC, right, which goes 9 and 3 and is 16th, why was 9 and 3 USC three spots behind 9 and 3 Texas, right. Like, like why is that they lay lost in a last second. Phil, go to Illinois and then they lost to Oregon and they lost to another good team. Right, like that. So if that conversation, right. If this year that 9 and 3 Big Ten team is ranked above the 9 and 3 SEC team last year, Texas gets in, USC doesn't in a 16 team playoff, they have the same record. They're similar teams in a lot of ways. If that changes, Tony Petiti's mind will change.

[B]

Yeah, well, what. Because the other thing he said is like the, the math doesn't math with 16. If you're dropping the conference title, like the conference title games are worth what's the number? $200 million to the respective conferences. And a 16 team playoff doesn't make them whole. If they were to get rid of the conference title games, I still think that could be a pretty big impediment to go into 16.

[A]

I think you are right. I don't quite understand that thinking because I don't know why you have to. I don't know why the conference championship games would be dropped if all we're doing and going from 12 to 16 is getting rid of the buys. But except I think in Tony Petiti's version of the 16 team playoff there is an extra round because his mind right. Is it, is it not that you're playing like 13 versus 16 and 14 versus 15 and like that kind of things. If you're just dropping four extra teams in and getting rid of the buys, I think you can keep the conference championship games. But then it goes back to the discussion we've had of now you're at 16, you look at Big Ten, Big Ten championship game last year. Ohio State, Indiana, they're both in. They're both going to be a top four seed. Now, I do think you run the risk of that, of guys being rested during a conference championship game. Right. Which then goes to. You're replacing conference championship weekend with a playing weekend like that. So I don't know.

[B]

And I don't know in that scenario where I agree with you. I think teams probably would treat conference title games much differently. Are they then still worth $200 million?

[A]

Because. Right.

[B]

Fewer people are watching them.

[A]

Right. USC last year lost at Illinois, lost at Notre Dame and lost at Oregon. They lost three road games. Oregon made the playoff. Notre Dame almost did. And Illinois was a solid like 9 and 4 team. Texas lost at Ohio State, but lost to Florida, who sucked. That's the worst loss of that group. And yet Texas was prominently. And then, like, whatever, right. Texas beat Texas A M, but USC beat Iowa and USC beat Michigan. Like, is. Is. Is Texas beating Texas A M any more impressive than USC beating Iowa and Michigan? Like, in the perception of the sport, yes. In reality, no. So this is it. This. I swear to God. Is it. This is the whole thing. USC versus Texas last year. The way the middle is viewed, if. If that perception changes, Tony Petito changes mind, the Big Ten will get on board with 16. Some of this we've discussed previously. You can go back, you can search in your podcast feed, you can search in your YouTube feed anytime. We're talking about playoff. 2014 playoff. We did it a couple shows ago where we outlined how we think we could make this work. And we did it in February where we laid out a lot of these points. But what matters is now the big tent laying it out publicly before the SEC making its point. If the Big Ten is the evil empire, call me Snoke. Is that the right Star wars reference? I mean, I'm an old.

[B]

Who's the old man?

[A]

Who's the. The old man with the hood on his head whose face is melting because he's 4, 000 years old?

[B]

Palpatine.

[A]

I'm Palpatine. Yeah. If the Big Ten's the evil empire, call me Palpatine, I would. I'm gonna get that shirt for Tony Petiti. Somebody's got to be the evil empire. Aren't we sick of it being the sec? The Big Tens, the bad guys now the Big Tens, the bullies. Sorry. We have more stuff coming this week. You can read us over on the substack. Bill and doug o issue.substack.com I don't know if we'll have another show. We can have another show on here this week. We might. We'll see. There's a lot of stuff going on. We might.

[B]

Maybe I won't.

[A]

I might. Yeah, I might. I got. I got more stuff to say. Bill and Doug. Osu.subsack.com Thanks for being here. Call me Palpatine. He's Bill Landis. I am an old man with a melting face. And that was the Bill and Doug Show.