The Joel Klatt Show: A College Football Podcast - Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti on the Future of the Playoff | Big Noon Conversations

Episode Date: June 30, 2025

FOX Sports’ lead College Football analyst Joel Klatt sits down with the Commissioner of the Big Ten, Tony Petitti, to discuss what he would like the College Football Playoff to look like in the future and where things stand as the Power Conferences try to reach an agreement on a new format. Petitti states what he believes the new format should try to accomplish for the sport and lays out why the Big Ten is in favor of a 16-team format with 4 Automatic Qualifiers for both the Big Ten and the SEC. He also gives his opinion of the “5+11” model put forward by the SEC and whether it is a format that the Big Ten would consider. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Your job is to work for your schools. And it's not me. It's the voice of the Big Ten. It's 18 athletic directors and coaches who have to be convinced that this is fair. We're not asking to be handed on anything. We want to play tough playing in games to get there. And we want to create an incentive for our schools to schedule more non-conference. Why that model?

We think bigger is better. I think, you know, 12 is not enough. Look, as great as college football is, and it's great. I want more teams to feel like they're chasing that opportunity to compete for a national championship. Joining me on this episode of Big Noon Conversations is the Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petiti. All right. Welcome in to another Big Ten Conversations here with the Big Ten Commissioner, Tony Petiti. I appreciate you joining me, my man. Listen, the first time we got a chance to do this, you were like brand new. We were sitting at the Taranaia for, I think, what was it, the Big Ten Spring meetings or something along those lines.

Actually, it may have been a Fox production meeting. That could be right. I think it was a Fox production meeting. That could be right. But you were brand new on the job. And now almost three years later. Yeah, just a little more than two, two and a half, yeah. And here you are, I would love before we get into, and this is going to be a lot of playoff discussion,

in particular with models, and there's been a lot talked about this summer from every different conference. So what we wanted to do is allow you to come here and really, you know, give your perspective on what you think the future of the playoffs should be. But before we get to that, just I would love for you to just, you know, think about those two plus years and what you've been through and what we're dealing with now in college football, how has it been so far? Yeah, it's been pretty remarkable. And you're right, the paint was still wet when I sat down with you. That's for sure, that first interview out there

with a great backdrop. And look, I think it's been remarkable. First of all, say the job is an absolute privilege to be able to do this on behalf of the Big Ten and our administrators, presidents, all the 10,000 plus student athletes has just been an absolutely remarkable, privilege and responsibility. So I start with that. And then secondly, so much has changed in the landscape of college athletics. You know, you were talking about the future back then about what was going to happen. And we have this historic settlement that was just approved just a couple of weeks ago.

So we're getting ready to implement that. You think about the different success. You know, we added Oregon and Washington, the league got bigger. There were so many different things going on. The efforts down in D.C. It's just been a lot. I really think about it sort of almost like two jobs, which is like the daily running of the conference, which is a lot.

You know, the stage are 28 sports and run championships and officiating and scheduling and dealing with media partners, the traditional job that commissioners have had. Then on top of it, just these incredibly, you know, global, you know, huge changes in the structure of college athletics. That's like almost like a separate thing that has been. And one of the things most rewarding about that has been the collaboration with the SEC, Greg Sankey, ACC, Joe Phillips, and Britt and your market, the Big 12. Like to make a change like that, it just requires so much.

collaboration because it is as big as the big ten is we can't do that stuff by ourselves so that's that boss been really rewarding and like there's no easy answers i mean all of that stuff is so complex and there's there's so much going on within all that and and we're all excited to see you know what the future holds uh in terms of the college sports commission and and you know with the house settlement and the revenue sharing and this new model i'm optimistic maybe we can touch on that a little bit later And then kind of last thing before we get into the playoff, not only have you been dealing with all of those things, but doing it really well,

but also a lot of success on the field. You're two for two on national championships. You roll in here and, you know, Michigan wins a national championship. Ohio State wins a national championship. It has to be rewarding for you. Yeah, it really is. It's great for everybody to be a part of those campuses and you've got to work with those coaches

and what it means for when the Big Ten wins, everybody rallies behind. Like, it's a really interesting job. When you're playing conference games, you're kind of stone-faced. you're on the sideline. You can't indicate any emotion. You make sure the colors are gray and black and don't reflect any school colors. But then when you get into these non-conference games, you're living and dying just like the people on campus are. And so you're rooting really

hard. So that's been incredibly rewarding. And there's a side benefit. You know, the more we win, apparently, the more IQ points you get, you know. And it's just like the- better job you're doing. Yeah, apparently. All those wins matter in terms of like some of my job performance, I guess, you know, on the outcome of games, you know, when you're sitting there. You try to put people in position. Like I think we've done a good job of trying to, you know, provide the resources and the support to let our coaches and student athletes do what they do best. And we've been really blessed the last couple of years and to go through that first CFP with 11 games. And we played in eight of them.

Yeah. And in one game, we had two teams playing. So it was a pretty remarkable, you know, run and just it was great for the conference and a real, you know, confirmation of the quality of football. We're playing from top to bottom. Your goal. And I've talked with Greg and Brett and Jim, you know, all the commissioners about this. your job is to work for your schools. Correct.

And to put them in the best position to succeed, you know. And yet, here we are collaboratively trying to create a system to crown a champion, you know. And it's difficult because there isn't that one person that's right, you know, is overarching over everything. So I would love, let's backtrack objectives as. the commissioner of the Big Ten, what are your objectives for the future of the CFP and its format? Yeah, I mean, the first thing is it goes right back to representing the Big Ten, because that's my job. There isn't a commissioner of college football, like you pointed out. So each of us, when we get in that room, you know, we are looking at trying to work together to come to

the right solution for all of us. But ultimately, my job is to represent the 18 institutions in the Big Ten, our football, our coaches, our players, you know, the way we do things. And so it's really important to represent that. And we start from the place that we're always not going to be a, lined on that. There might be different ideas and different conferences. We have an obligation to try to come together to work these things out. But like the goal for me, like right from the beginning, and I really felt strongly about this, and maybe it's my experience coming from MLB where you

have that one entity, you know, I really believe that you've got to have a postseason format that makes the regular season better. So I start from that. I want more teams to feel like they're chasing that opportunity to compete for a national championship. Teams can get hot late in the season. The fact that they lose a game early, shouldn't disqualify them, those type of things. So to play more meaningful conference games as late as possible. You know, I think you see that in the professional sports model. They try to keep as many teams alive for as long as possible. You know, and especially when you get into a world, when you condition fans to think about

this, this great new playoff that we've created, you know, they're going to focus on achieving that. And so the extent that teams don't have the opportunity to get there, it's going to eventually, you know, hurt. And so we want to make sure we have the interests that teams can break through, have a remarkable season, qualify, and play. And we just believe strongly that, you know, conference record is like the backbone of all of that, like how you play during the season, qualify off your conference record. That's,

that's sort of the best way. We believe. So that's, that, that would be your main objective, if I could boil it down. It's, you want to keep more teams relevant for longer in the season, playing meaningful games later in the year. That's right. I mean, teams that, that finish, you know, if you're sitting there in November and you've got a team, you know, going in, that's, you know, five and three, playing a team that's six and, you know, six and two or whatever it might be. I mean, I look Ohio State last year. Ohio State, you know, lost two Big Ten conference games. Technically, they finished fourth in the conference at seven and two. And we're clearly, by end of the end of the playoff run, we're clearly the best team in the country. And so I think it just,

it's an indication of like, it's hard to figure this stuff out during the course of a season, who's playing really well. One thing I'll say also, Joel, that's really important is like, even within the Big Ten, we've got, you know, you have 17 available opponents. You play nine of them. And so even within a schedule, like, there's discrepancies in the strength of schedule. Like, You just don't know who's going to be strong, who not when you play them, like, you know, the rub of that luck of that schedule when you play teams, who's healthy when you play them. And so, you know, the idea we've had about, you know, playing play in games is a way to sort of accommodate the fact that we're not playing that much of a common schedule, even within the league,

let alone trying to be compared to SEC, Big 12 and ACC. So, you know, the idea of, you know, having a championship game, you know, where those two teams are in and then playing our 16th versus our third and our fifth versus our fourth, is the idea we've been talking about, I think it just is a way to also normalize your conference schedule because it really is hard to sometimes tell the difference among our own teams because a lot of times they don't play each other. I think this is one of the unintended consequences of what's happened in the last five years with all the conference movement is not only now do we have imbalances between schedules between conferences in terms of league games played within the SEC and the

Big Ten or ACC in the Big 12. But now also you have the inequities within the conference. Correct. You've got, like for instance, you know, if you look at the SEC, you know, last year, Florida and Oklahoma played a horrific schedule, you know, as compared to others. People have pointed out that Indiana got a bit of a favorable draw in the Big Ten. But that's going to happen in a large conference. And one of the things that I think that we've done.

got to do from an objective standpoint is really marked down. I've got four criteria. I love yours and mine fits in with one of yours. I think that we need to increase fan base engagement, which it does exactly what you're talking about, keep more teams alive later into the year. I think we need to increase the valuable or meaningful games that we play in college football, not decrease them. Encourage them, actually. Encourage them. That's right. And that happens, by the way, I'm talking about this in a postseason environment and in the non-conference environment. Because I think both of those...

They go hand in hand. They do go hand in hand. I think we need to minimize the power of the committee. And lastly, I think that we need to maintain more conferences being relevant. You know, so with those objectives, and more specifically, your objective in terms of keeping more teams alive, what you have put forth, I guess, in your idea and your model is a 16-team playoff with... A 4-4-2-2-1-3. Now, all of you listen to the Joel Clat Show, you know I've broken this down so it sounds intricate.

Four automatic spots for the Big Ten and the SEC. Two automatic spots for the ACC and the Big 12. Three at large, one for the group of five, and then Notre Dame falls in that at-large pool with those three spots. You kind of touched on some of the things that that would achieve, including a play-in weekend. But let's just start at that model. Why that model? Look, the first thing I'll say, going back to why that model, you start with the committee. Like, we'll stipulate that the committee does the best job they possibly can.

Like, this is not about to sort of say that they don't do a good job. Like, they do the best they can, making incredibly difficult decisions based on data. Like, look, this year in the Big Ten, we'll cross over. I think we play four Big 12 games. We play three SEC, three ACC, and I think we have two Notre Dame games of my, if I remember all this correctly, it's not a lot of, you know, conference play among us, right, to have a body of work. So when you start comparing teams that don't have a head-to-head, and you have very little, you know, data to look at between matchups between the leagues,

and when those games are played and who matched up in them, so that becomes really difficult. And so I start off with stipulation. I think the committee is set up to do the best job they possibly can. I just think what they're being asked to do is so difficult. So look, I understand there was controversy about, you know, how many aQs, one lead gets another. Let's put that aside for now. Like I think what we're trying to focus on is, at least within the Big Ten, let's, you know, we're not asking to be handed anything. Like, we're playing non-conference games.

We want to play tough playing in games to get there. And we want to create an incentive for our schools to schedule more non-conference because if you're qualifying off your conference record. So you're trying to build a system that increases more tougher games. Yeah, I want to play more. Look, we want to play, I think theoretically, the goal is to play more non-conference games. Because if you're qualifying for the CFP off your conference record and and then a play-in game, the fact that you play a tough SEC or ACC or Big 12 team and maybe get beat

on the road, wherever the result is, that might impact your seating down the road, but it's not going to impact your access. Like, you know, there's three at large. So, yeah, it does a little bit. But at the end of a day, that loss isn't fatal. Like, you know, look, you can finish seven and two in the Big Ten, like Ohio State. And if you lost a non-conference game or one of our schools finishes seven-and-two and loses a non-conference and they finish with a nine and three record, they're in the tournament because a seven-and-two record is

certainly going to get you into a playing game in the Big Ten. So I think that's bringing everybody together, like teams knowing they can come. Because I think, look, as great as Kyle Tripola is, and it's great, there's just more on the table we can do. I think fans want to see these non-conference games earlier in the season. I think we can do more of it. I think, look, everybody's pointing to at least at the beginning, the Texas Ohio State game is going to get tremendous attention.

As it should. Yeah, and we want more of that. We want to incent that and not create a sense of like where you're worried about. like, does weighing that game help you more or does losing that game hurt you more? And that's what, that's what coaches and ADs are going to be faced with deciding when they start to figure out. Like, because it's tough. Like, look, you know this.

You do our games a lot. Like, to get to seven and two inside the big tennis is pre-remarkable record. That's not an easy accomplishment. And then if you stumble in a non-conference game, you're at the mercy of, you know, deciding and making comparisons with either. I don't know how you compare. Yeah, I mean, I don't understand how you compare 10-win teams in one league to a nine-win team. in another, that nine-win team could be clearly better.

I just think it's very, very difficult, mainly getting back to what I suggest. There isn't much head-to-head, and there really isn't a lot of crossover, at least in our league, because we play nine conference games. We don't play that many games against the SEC. We don't play,

and I'd like to actually play more because I think it's just better for fans. But that's where it is. It's really, it's, look, it's not without controversy. I know we've had this committee system in college for a really long time. I understand the idea about who gets what is controversial, but that's what we should do,

room and try to figure that out. So I agree with you overall. Now, there's some things that I maybe will disagree. And we're open to tweaking. It's not set in stone. There's plenty of opportunity to make this better if people have ideas. We're totally open to that. But the baseline is building a system that goes from a selection-based model to an access-based model is what I think, the direction we should be going. We should be trying to minimize the committee. We should be trying to encourage non-conference games. We should be trying to create a defined path and access to the college football playoff, which then would create not only more meaningful games, but more fan bases engaged deep into the season. So it achieves all of the objectives to move to an access-based model.

Now, one of the things that everyone immediately points out is, is then, well, why do you get four and the ACC and the Big 12 only get two? Yeah, I mean, look, we've, we've, we've, made a decision about what we think is appropriate for us and what you should have on the at-large side and space off historic strength and where we think programs are could there be methods to open that other other ideas that we would consider i think we've been pretty open and we just communicated this in recent meeting we had you know in the cfp room is like look we're open to ideas if there's better ways to do it or there's tweaking around the aQ system um i just think ultimately it's going to be very hard to sort of figure out how you expand the field because

because the alternative Joel to this system is expanding the field and giving the committee more to do. Because if you go to 16 and you have 11 at large, you've just added even more decision-making. The answer is, well, at that point it gets to be easy because you'll cover everybody. No, because the more spots you put into the system, the more difficult decisions you're facing, because teams start to look more alike. They all have a tough road loss. Some of them may have stumbled at home in a tough conference game. The sequencing of when you play, you play, you know, you might be at a really difficult place. place and then have to go on the back home and play somebody else or be on the road for two weeks.

Like all of that journey is really relevant. And so I think you make it, you make it harder. So we're looking to kind of do exactly what you said is reduce the role of the committee. Let them focus on CD and let them focus on the last three at large is, you know, look, if everybody's playing playing games, look, I don't know how the, if there was a system. I don't know, I can't, I don't, I don't want to speak for the ACC or the Big 12 or even the SEC about how they would qualify in an AQ world. But we've done some modeling that you could have somewhere between 40 and 50 teams after week 13 that are either in the play in position or one game back, that's a lot of teams still alive.

That's a lot. And some of them might be less realistic chances than others, but they're all sort of playing. And like, you don't want to get that mode where you lose that third game and you're sort of not. Because I worry that as the CFP gets better and better, you know, missing it and where you go after that gets to be harder. Sure. Right. So you just want to make sure that, again, that we're opening up opportunities, qualifying

off the field and then and see where we go. also think, look, I think the play and weekend, like, I'm only getting to speak for the Big Ten, but you send some teams out there do-or-die games, knowing that they have to win to make sure they're safe. Like, there could be some really great matchups around our championship game. That's a great weekend for college football. Like, the best way to market the sport is to play more good games. You can talk about all the advertising campaigns you want. You can talk about all the slogans and all the promotion and everybody talking. But the end of the day, what fans really care about is like, put more good games in front of them and they will, they'll definitely watch.

I want to get to the maybe like 16 versus 14 in a second. And I also want to get to that 5-11 model that the Big 12 and the SEC kind of inexplicably throughout there, to be honest. I'll be honest. I'm in this not quite as much as you. You're a commissioner, obviously, but this is my profession. When that was thrown out, that was left field when 5 and 11 was thrown out. Now, before we get there, I do want to just touch on this.

this piece because we'll put the committee to bed. Again, it's not their fault. But if you give the sport to the committee in a selection-based playoff, we're going to enter into a world where it is all propaganda and narrative, which we saw at the SEC Spring meetings when they put out their propaganda packet, which as just an observer of the sport is frustrating because it doesn't serve the purpose of the sport. you know and if if we go to a selection-based model aren't we just going to further incentivize conferences to drive into their silo and not look out for the whole sport look it can go either way

look we have a great relationship with the SEC we've done a lot of really good things together I think what they do is they put out why they think they're strong that's what leagues do so I don't there's no there's no negativity like every league should make its own case we make our case for why we want four and people may disagree with that people may disagree with you know different aspects of what our leagues think about their their schedule. And look, they've got a great track record the last several years, just like we do. And so I know they feel strongly about what they do. And rightfully so. So there's no, there's no negativity to it at all. It's just like, look, we know that others will have different

ideas. Just like we're an advocate for this system, there could be other leagues that think that 511 is better. There's no, there's no sort of, how could you do that? It's like, okay, let's figure out how we actually, if we're going to do 511, tell me how we're executing. How do we make it, how do you make it so the selection committee can actually do more when we think it's hard to do what they're doing already. And so that's, that's where I focus. Like, if you're telling me you want 5-11, you know, how many conference games are we all playing? And then secondly, after that, like, what are the criteria that we're using to make those determinations? How are they fair?

How, you know, how do you, because at the end, I don't think, Joel, we're talking about a system where we're going to spit all this data into a computer, and it's going to spit out one through 16, and we're going to live with that. We're still talking about data that's used by people, right? And that just means it's subjective. And, like, and again, I stipulate they all are, and they have great intentions. They're working their tail off. They're in that room. They're watching.

they communicate with us all year long. They're doing the best job they can, but I just think that system is just hard to sort of compare it to a system where we're playing on the field. But that playing on the field requires some differences and a big change in the way people think about qualifying. But it does require you to play more tough games.

There's no doubt about that. If you're going to play a playing game, you're adding a tough game to your schedule. Was there any argument or reason or data point given in the recent meetings that convinced you at all that 5 and 11 might be feasible?

I said that the most recent meeting we had, like, you know, and I've talked about this before, like I'm open to any ideas. We said, look, we'll start off with the idea that, you know, we've been a proponent for a certain system for about a year now, and obviously we want to hear other ideas if they are out there, and we'll study everything that's sent our way. We will study quickly if we need independent help to evaluate it. We'll go get it.

I just haven't seen anything yet. and then communicating back. And it's not me. Like, I don't, it's not my voice. It's the voice of the Big Ten. It's 18 athletic directors and coaches who have to be convinced that this is fair to expand. And that's where we are. Like, is there something that shows that the metrics can be applied?

We haven't heard anything yet. It doesn't mean that someone won't suggest something. We start off like, look, we think bigger is better. I think, you know, 12 is not enough teams given the size of the teams that are competing. It's just, you know, you look at professional leagues. They go to, they go somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of their teams. teams qualifying for the postseason. We're way below that even at 16, right? So I think we want to be really careful. We want to be open-minded. But I think we come in, you know, skeptical might be the

words like, how are you going to make something back? Because when I talked to like Ward, who was, Ward manual, the AD at Michigan was the chair of the committee. When I talk with him, which we've done a bunch, like about, hey, did you feel like you didn't have enough? That's not what I get back. I don't get back from him. Like, hey, if only we had more data, we could do this even better. It's not that. It's like, hey, we have a lot already. At the end of a day, you're making comparisons. You're bunching teams together and you're making a decision collectively with a bunch of other people who are working really hard. That's different than winning a game 31, 27 on the field. Right? You've been a proponent of playing weekend. I think that that's an incredible idea,

cross-college football. I would argue, let's say I was in the room. I would say 14 is better than 16 because 16 is redundant. That's what I've said on this show. I've said that it's a safety net that is unneeded because you have playing weekend. And you're basically creating a safety net for the third place team and let's call it the SEC or the Big Ten to lose at home and still get slid into the playoff. So is it redundant to have the three at large spots? I think it does a couple of things. One, it does protect a, you know, a third place team in the Big Ten who lost one game and gets caught at home in a close game and loses to have one more opportunity to get in. You're right. You want to call that redundant. It's definitely a safety net to get one more

chance at it. But I think it does something else that you talked about before is like it increases the chance of others from outside the A4 to get in if you have more at large. So ultimately, if there is a second, you know, really strong team coming from the outside, can come from anywhere. So you are potentially catching more. I think the 16 that we've heard about is like playing some games, you know, early, like a 16, 13, 15, 15, 14 weekend and then preserving the buy. I think one of the things that I really liked about 14 is rewarding two teams with buys. Yeah. You know, and so if you can find a format with 16 that still does that, this way when we're

all playing these conference championship games, is that if that's what we end up doing, that there's really a lot at stake there. Like, if you show really well, go in, win a game, it impacts your seating. But playing for that buy really helps. It's a long journey to get to the end of the road here. You're playing a lot of tough games and in our league. coming off like I think all leagues pretty much that last week in the season is a big rivalry game.

Sure. So you're just grinding and you're going potentially to a champ game and playing games. So I think having the catch-all maybe is a safety that everybody wants. I get back to the total number 16. I was originally like you. I was really more focused on 14. But then in talking to the guys about like, hey, opportunity to come. And it does provide some opportunities outside the A4 to have a couple more bites at the

apple there. Trying to maintain relevancy for a championship game, a one versus two. You can still need a buy so you have to kind of flex that schedule like you're saying so 13 through 16 they play to kind of get you our 14 through 16. There's some work to do on. The scheduling is really tricky, you know, finding the right home for the windows to maximize the audience. You're up against the NFL competition at that time of year. So it's tricky. It's not an easy event to schedule. So there's some outside limits against that and there'd be some work that we'd all have to do. But, you know, I think, look, we started with the idea of like thinking more about

14, but in some conversations we had early on with the SEC 16 seemed to be something that, you know, when we came together with them that gained more momentum in our group after listening to their to their EDs. In your model, you've said you'd be open to ideas. One of the ideas that I've heard thrown out is a 4-4, 2-5, 2-5 model, where basically there'd be five spots allotted to the ACC and the Big 12 rather than just two. Because to them, and again, I've spoken with those commissioners, specifically Brett Yormark, and he said, it's just a tough pill to swallow to say, hey, you're going to get half the spots

that we get, you know, would you be open to a two and a half model for those conferences? I know I've read about that, but I haven't really, I want to be fair and be open-minded to not kind of like preordain anything because it hasn't been presented. So like I haven't had, I haven't seen any real substantive conversation about that model. So I don't really know. Like I go back to the main position, which is send us whatever you want to send and we'll look at it, whether it's the 5-11 or the, this idea that you just suggested or anything else that could be out there. Look, the right way to do this is to make sure that, you know, every league's there. Like, look, there still are three at large. So the four, two,

like there's an opportunity to get more than two and there's opportunity for us to get more than four potentially. So I think that's another reason why when you ask me, like, why 16, it does help with that initial thing. Look, again, depending where you sit, you'll either, you know, there are many people who hate this, you know, we've seen it. And it's, I understand why it's the idea that, hey, we were starting from different places. But I do push back when people say you're not earning your spots. I think we're earning your. our spots playing nine tough games and going through a really tough playing. I think that's earning your spot. I think a committee, select the 11th. I think it's more than the selection committee.

That to me is more of an invitation. You're actually getting invited by a selection committee instead of like, you know, guaranteeing your spot by winning a game. But look, it's, this is tricky. I'm optimistic that we'll find a path to work this out. There's a lot of stake here. And I think we all, I think the principles of making the regular season better are really important because you don't want to get to a place where the postseason format is actually encouraging. you to not play good non-conference games. Like that's a really, that would be a really bad place to be. Fans love these matchups and we've got to play more of them, not less of them.

I think fans want to see, you know, maybe Notre Dame have a different path versus just kind of, you know, Notre Dame has this. And I was just spoke with Marcus Freeman, not too long ago. Great guy. Love Notre Dame. Notre Dame's great for the sport. There's no doubt. And yet, there's always these carve outs for them, you know, and specifically.

for the playoff. As it expands, and you're trying to make life more difficult on yourself with playing weekends and maybe even, you know, scheduling non-league games, what do we do with Notre Dame? Yeah, look, I think, you know, Notre Dame has got access. We've all agreed that they should have their path to access. I don't think anybody's suggesting what we change that for them. That's not something that they be obligated to do. We've, you know, no matter what format change. And the process is, and the format change is the Big Ten, the SEC have to come together and make a suggestion. And then the others weigh in. We take that feedback decide what we want to incorporate. But there are certain parameters that are guaranteed.

Like we can't come up with a format that says, you know, for example, that the conference champions aren't in. That's not what we agree to. So even with the discretion that we have together with the SEC, there are parameters that we agree to in certain things. And part of that is Notre Dame's access. And I'm fine with that. I'm not looking to relitigate any decisions we've made in the past. Like, you know, people can argue about what their path is versus somebody else. I just want to do what's best for the Big Ten. And I think as a byproduct of that, I think it's, I believe, and people can say were wrong. I believe it's better for college football overall. But like, you know, everybody's entitled to have their opinion and those other commissioners are going to represent their leagues really

well like they always do. And hopefully we'll come together and find something that makes everybody happy. It was interesting because Coach Freeman said he would be open to and, in fact, encourage, you know, his administration to join a conference if he felt like they were put in a position where they did not have equal access or direct access or they were put at a disadvantage as it related to the postseason. And they have a great path now, and that's fine. We've all agreed to do that. No one's suggesting we should change anything. Like, they're a huge part of the ecosystem of college football, you know, and the success. And look, they had a remarkable season last year, you know, going down to the last game against Ohio State. Yeah. It was a great championship game.

This timeline, I know that the Big Ten and the SEC have, you know, for lack of a better term, kind of the power with the MOU. do you see yourself and more specifically the institutions that you represent agreeing to 5 and 11 at any point? It's way too early because we haven't even seen a proposal of what it would be. We haven't seen like some key things. How many conference games is everybody playing? We haven't seen what the criteria changed the committee. I think, you know, Commissioner Sanky was on record coming out of their meetings and destiny that they have to do work on the selection committee because their guys believe the same thing. If you're going to increase the role of a selection committee, I think, I don't think anybody,

in the group, whether it's the ACC, the Big 12, or the SEC, or us believe that you can keep it the same and that you would be okay with that. So I think we've got to do work there. Look, I think we've shown with our ADs and our leadership group, send us ideas and we'll work as quickly as we can. Like I think we've shown that we'll pay attention whenever we're told to look at something and we'll do the work as quickly as we can with the goal of that. We've got to make sure it goes back to the things that we care about, makes the regular season better, encourages more good games, is fair, you know, and it reflects what we think we do in the Big Ten. Just like others think that what they do is really difficult.

We think what we do is really difficult. That's right. Last thing on the playoff, what was your sentiment and the Big Ten overall the sentiment about home games in the playoff? How did you feel like they came off and would you like to see more in the future? Yeah, I went to, you know, I was fortunate to be at Penn State when they played SMU and then go that night to Columbus to watch Ohio State play Tennessee. And the environments were great. I mean, home games are great. And look, the Tennessee fans traveled.

That was some environment. It was, you know, there were a lot of folks on both sides there. And I think that riled up the Ohio State fans that were there. It was a really great environment for, and obviously, Ohio State got off to a good start in the game. So, yeah, it was a great environment. I think there's a lot of back and forth. I think when you, this is an area where there's like a lot of things to balance. There's the great tradition of the bowl games and staying connected to the bowl games, which is really important.

And there's also coaches who say, you know, hey, wait, I didn't get a chance to host a game. I was seated high, but I didn't get that chance. I think one of the things that will hopefully correct a little bit of the problems last year is going to the straight seating. I think that was a really needed change. I think it makes it tough when you're moving teams up and down a lot of lines based on parameters instead of like their real, you know, real assessment. So that'll help. I think more to come and see how this evolves. There's challenges.

Look, you know, it was really interesting. Like, I haven't worked on college football since the early 90s. This can be like, I think this year was the first time there were meaningful games played in cold weather. And both those games were very cold. Yes. And so at the end of the day, like, I don't think you've seen that. Maybe there's some cold weather games. I think it would give your conference and advantage.

Yeah, so, I mean, we understand, like, you know, we're built for playing that way. It doesn't mean that others can't be successful in cold weather. Of course they can. But just in general, you just haven't seen that in college football where all of a sudden you're lining up and it's 14 degrees. Right. And so that was unique. And so I think, you know, we'll see how it goes. But there's deep commitment and respect for what the balls do for the game and the tradition.

I think, you know, I think we got to figure out. the balance over time. But if you do go to 16, you are playing more campus games because you'll have more first round games. You may not have later round games, but you'll have more first round games. Well, lots to figure out. Yeah, a lot to do. Is it exciting? Yeah, it's great. Look, you're, you're blessed when you, we get to work on something that people deeply care about. So that creates responsibility. It's a privilege, like I said before. And I feel obligated to do this right for our coaches and our players and our institutions and our administrators. Like everybody, you know, we're in this together and we want to be good partners. We want to collaborate with everybody. We want to listen.

And that's why we say, look, send us the ideas and we'll consider them. We've worked really hard on ideas that we've had. And I understand what we are today. It doesn't mean that maybe it'll change. Maybe some other things will happen. We'll see. But, you know, I think that's what I mean. You might get a memo from the Joel Clatchio. We might just start. You guys may. We got to give you guys a vote. Yeah, you got an idea. Send it our way. We'll study it. Tony, thanks for sitting down. Thank you. Thank you so much. Great to be with you. Yeah. Great to be with you. Yeah. Great to have a chance to talk about it. Good luck on everything because I will tell you this just from everybody involved in college football, myself

included. We're all just rooting for the best possible scenario and the best possible system. And I certainly trust you. I trust Greg and Brett and Jim. I mean, you guys are good humans and individuals and you're going to look out for your institutions, but also the sport. And hopefully you land on something. If we can figure out the house settlement together, we should be able to work this out. I was going to say house settlement is way more tough than this. We should be able to do this. No doubt. Tony, thanks for you. Nice, Joel. Appreciate it.

Yeah, you got it.