The College Football Playoff is currently using an experimental 12-Team Playoff format with specific requirements determines by the CFP committee and CFP Director Bill Hancock. The current formula for selection and seeding are as follows, retrieved from the webpage at collegefootballplayoff.com/12-team-format: “The 12 participating teams will be the five (5) conference champions, ranked highest by the CFP committee. Plus, the next seven (7) highest ranked teams. The (4) highest ranked Conference Champions will be seeded (1) through (4). All (4) FBS teams will receive First-Round Byes. The Fifth (5th) Conference Champion will be seeded where it was ranked or be seeded twelfth (12th), if not ranked in the top eleven (11) of the CFP Rankings. Non-Conference Champions ranked in the Top Four (4), will be seeded beginning at the fifth (5th) seed.” This selection and seedings system/format indicates that this current bifurcated process possesses a vested interest mentality within the CFP committee.
After the first experimental year of implementing the 12-Team Playoff, because many believed that the 4-team CFP playoff left out teams, there was need for change from specific constituencies to the infancy phase of a playoff format. The reason for change is due to the fact that the Southeastern Conference (SEC) did not receive more bids into the first 12-Team Playoff. The SEC believes that they should have had one of their (9-3) teams earn a bid into the 12-team Playoff. This is a prime example of the SEC’s Democritus, hedonistic, selfish, ESPN’s $5.5 Billion dollar vested interests, which they believe provides them more credibility than any other FBS Conference or FBS Program. No matter who the FBS Programs name is or what that FBS program earned in record of recognition. Since this espousing of dis-satisfaction from the SEC “elitist”, “entitled” or “pompous” group; SEC Commissioner, Greg Sankey along with the Big10 Commissioner, Tony Petitti; are in collaboration or cahoots to possess more bids for their respective conferences in the next phase of the college football playoff. No matter if the playoff is 14-teams or 16-teams. They want more access to the next college football playoff phase for specific reasons. That primary reason indicates for financial purposes.
Immediately after the conclusion of the CFP 2025 Playoffs, discussions started about the examination of the 12-team playoff, was right or a need for expansion. February 2025, in an online article retrieved from the World Wide Web, authored by Ross Dellenger of YahooSports.com titled, ” Sources: SEC and Big Ten building momentum to further expand College Football Playoff to 14 or 16 teams”. Along with Ross Dellenger are Dan Wetzel, author of “Death to the BCS” and Pat Forde who is a college football analyst for Fox Sports, I Believe. An additional article retrieved from the World Wide Web, titled “How to handle the College Football Playoff expansion the right way” Authored by ESPN College Football writer; Bill Connelly. Published on March 3, 2025, at espn.com. Both articles state that the SEC and Big 10 want to possess complete control over the future College Football Playoff format with number of teams per Power 5 Conference accessibility. Designing the next phase of the playoff model per Greg Sankey, Commissioner of the SEC along with Tony Pettiti, Commissioner of the Big 10, entails the 4-4-2-2-1-1 Model.
The 4-4-2-2-1-1 Model being proposed by these two “leaders” is bifurcated, selfish, Democritus and hedonistic. The motive behind this model the importance of name brand programs. They are from a name brand conference. They possess Five-star student athletes. They are financially invested from ESPN. Another narrative these two are promoting is, these conferences possess more student athletes being drafted into the NFL. Which translates into, then they must be given a significant advantage into winning the championship at the FBS level. Those factors alone mean more money, more exposure and vested interest from media outlets; no matter what. What is the 4-4-2-2-1-1 model? This 14-team playoff model would automatically include 4 team berths from both the SEC and Big 10 Conference. Automatic 2 team berths from the ACC and Big 12 Conferences. Automatically 1 team from the Group of Five Conferences with 1 At-Large Bid. The irony of this proposal is the hedonistic approach it takes. Being driven based upon financial dollars for specific Conferences and programs only.
If we break this “proposal” model down further, is that it guarantees the SEC and Big10 a minimum of $16 Million dollars of revenue before the playoff starts. With further advancement into the playoffs, guarantees more revenue for those two specific conferences. Statistically, by gaining a greater significant advantage into the playoff model with both the SEC and Big 10 conferences, they are guaranteeing themselves in receiving a 28.5% access percentage rate, per conference. That combined statistical advantage for both the SEC and Big 10 equals 57.1%, conferences advantage of access to the 14-team playoff model. Far greater and significant than any other conference or FBS team. This proposal proves that the primary reasons that both SEC Commissioner, Greg Sankey and Big 10 Commissioner Tony Petitti, is money and having greater access or significant advantage to the FBS College Football Championship. In addition to a significantly increased chances of being called a National Champion of college football at the FBS level.
The primary questions that require addressing to provide validation, credibility or proof of both commissioners’ claims are, is there substantial proof that both the SEC and the Big 10 are worthy of 4 automatic bids within their 14-team playoff proposal? Is there qualitative, quantitative and historical evidence to refute and negate their proposal?
From the perspective of both Commissioner Sankey and Commissioner Petitti, they believe that they should have a far greater advantage than any other FBS Conference or FBS program into the playoffs. No matter which Power 5 Conference, Group of 5 Conference or FBS Independent Programs. The primary motive for this proposal is that the SEC officials which includes coaches, players and administrators believed and espoused, that one of their 3, (9-3) regular season record programs; Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina were more worthy of earning a bid into the 12-team playoff over a SMU or Indiana. Furthermore, the under lying tone that drives this 14-team proposal is that the Big 10 received 4 bids into the 2024 CFP playoff with Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon and Penn State. These are the childish actions of the SEC espousing or under lying tone of, “if the Big 10 had 4 bids, so should we”. That is the motive behind the 14-team playoff proposal by both the SEC and Big 10 Commissioners’. What does the data tell us that negates their theory and proposal.
There is quantitative and qualitative data that refutes and negates this ridiculous 14-team proposal with 4 automatic bids each for the SEC and Big 10 Conferences. If college football had adopted a 16-team playoff model starting in 1996 using the Professional Model Theory (PMT), then we would not be having this discussion of who has better leverage, entitlement or access to the title of champion within college football at the FBS level. (The PMT was published in 2 literature works by the author of this blogpost. Specific Title and Chapter posted towards the end of this post). Historical data collected by the author proves that by using the PMT, that the SEC and Big 10 would have more teams qualify or earn bids to the field of 16, based upon the PMT. However, not every year would the Big 10 and SEC receive 4 of the playoff bids each. The PMT is based upon overall regular season records earned before the conference championship weekend.
Research proves that from 1996 through the current 2024 FBS season, that both the SEC and the Big 10 on average, would receive less than 3 bids each. During this same time period, data collected for the SEC would have earned a total of 77 PMT 16-team bids at an average of 2.75 bids per year. Significantly less than the 4 automatics in which they are proposing in the next playoff model phase. Furthermore, during that same period of time, the SEC possesses a 57.1% rate of earning multiple bids of at least 3 or 3+ teams, into the PMT 16-team field. Taking this data collection one step further with a minimum number of bids, the SEC possess a 92.8% rate in earning multiple bids of a minimum of 2 teams but more than 3 teams into the PMT 16-Team Playoff. Examining that data further, the SEC would have had entered 3 or 3+ teams into the PMT 16-Team playoff 16 times over the course of that time period. This also includes, that the SEC would have entered a minimum of 2 teams and least 3 or more teams into the PMT 16-Team Playoff 26 times. Data collected does prove that during the 28-year data collection, that the SEC would have at least had 4 teams earning bids and no more than 5 teams would have entered into the PMT16-Team Playoff. Those 4-team bid earned would have occurred in 1999, 2004, 2011, 2013 and in 2012, the SEC would have had 5 teams entered into the PMT 16-Team Playoff.
Examining the Big 10 Conference during the same period of time with data points and variables, the Big 10 would have earned a total of 74 PMT 16-team bids at an average of 2.64 bids per year. Again, significantly less than the 4 automatic bids they are proposing with the SEC proposal. The Big 10 does possess a better percentage rate than the SEC in earning multiple bids of at least 3 or 3+ bids into the PMT 16-Team Playoff model. The Big 10 possess a 60.7% rate in earning bids within this variable. Higher than the SEC but comparable. However, the Big 10 possesses an 85.7% percentage rate associated with earning multiple bids of a minimum of 2 bids but more than 3 bids into the PMT 16-Team Playoff. This is significantly less than the SEC when comparing that same variable. The Big 10 would have entered 3 or 3+ teams into the PMT playoff 17 times. One time more than the SEC which does not make that significant. However, reviewing the variable data associated with entering a minimum of 2 teams and at least 3 or more teams into the PMT 16-team playoff determined that the Big 10 would have accounted for 24 times earning bids into the PMT 16-Team Playoff. Comparable to the SEC. Data collected during that 28-year period determined that the Big 10 would have accounted for 4 teams entered into the PMT 16-Team Playoff, 7 times during the years of: 1999, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2021 and 2024. The Big 10 has never earned more than 4 bids into the PMT 16-Team Playoff.
Data proves that the claims by the SEC and Big 10 Commissioners’ holds no validity to their proposal. Numbers with qualitative, quantitative and historical research validates that the SEC and Big 10 are hedonistic in relationship to a money grab for their entitled 14-Team 4-4-2-2-1-1 concept. There is a better way to possess an expanded playoff within college football which is not bifurcated, not hedonistic, not entitled but possesses inclusivity for all FBS team’s accessibility to the playoff. Where the coaches and student athletes earn their way into the PMT 16-Team Playoff.
There is proven, published, historical, quantitative, qualitative and data driven research that explains, demonstrates and possesses inclusivity to a 16-Team Playoff for College Football at the FBS level using the PMT model. The book titled: ” College Football In The BCS Era, The Untold Truth: Analysis of Factors That Supports the 16-Team Model” (Siggelow, 2013) Chapter 15 Titled: The Future Business Plan For The 16-Team Playoff, Pages 175-199. In addition to book titled: ” College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts, Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2016) Chapter 18 Titled: The Future Business Plan For the 16-Team Playoff. Both Chapters explain and demonstrates the use of the use of the PMT 16-Team Playoff Model. Both publications and literatures are protected by copyright and intellectual property rights protection. Numbers and data do not lie. The just paint a much clearer picture and narrative versus a word salad narrative that possesses no data to support their argument.
Therefore, does college football at the FBS level need an expanded playoff, yes. Does college football need to make the expanded playoff inclusive to all FBS programs and not brand name programs and conference, yes! Does research support and prove that the PMT 16-Team Model is better than the current 12-Team CFP playoff or the proposed 14-Team Entitled playoff format with restrictions, yes. The Group of Five Conference Athletic Directors and Commissioners need to know that there is another available alternative to them, before signing off on the next proposal that is exclusive. In time, they will know the facts, data, truth and research before voting on the next phase of the college football playoff. Trust me, I will make that happen.
I am available for interview either by phone or in person. Along with on-site presentations at academic institutions for athletic administration programs in the fall.
If you decide to recite, use, post or verbalize any of this material, please follow APA/MLA citation standards and practices. The copyright insignia at the bottom protects my intellectual property and my own ideas.
If you have any questions about my idea, concepts or literary work; please do not ask me. You can contact me at cfbpoexpert on the X Platform and Blue-Sky Platform.
© All Rights Reserved under Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights 2025.