NBA News

Home

Teams

Quizzes

Watch

Newsletter

WVU’s Wren Baker Sounds Off on CFP Proposal That Favors SEC and Big Ten

Originally posted on West Virginia Mountaineers on SI
By Schuyler Callihan | Last updated Jun 20, 2025 9:54 AM ET

The College Football Playoff format will be changing (and expanding) once again in the near future. What the format looks like and how many teams get in is still to be determined. The commissioners of the Big Ten and SEC are angling for more access to the playoff, while the ACC and Big 12 are vouching for a fair and equal playing field.

If you're unaware of what each side wants, here's the skinny.

The Big Ten/SEC want a 4-4-2-2-1 model, which would grant their leagues four automatic bids each in a 16-team playoff, while the Big 12/ACC would each net two, the other going to the highest-ranked Group of Six champ, and leaving three at-large bids up for grabs.

The Big 12/ACC are pushing for a 5+11 model where each Power Four conference champ and the highest-ranked Group of Six champ receive auto bids, leaving 11 at-large bids on the table.

Both models have their flaws, but what the Big Ten/SEC are pushing for is ridiculous, and WVU athletic director Wren Baker agrees. During his appearance on 3 Guys Before the Game, he went in on why the 4-4-2-2-1 model is not good for college football.

“I think it’s really important that we push back on that. Listen, I’ve seen the numbers. Being guaranteed two, there’s some security in that. Our average over the last ten years, if you pull Oklahoma and Texas out, we’ve had an analytics company that’s run the numbers, so we know what our number would be with our current league composition - it would have been 2.2. But 2.2 means some years you get three, some years you get one. So having at least two ensures that you always have at least two, and so, the years you get three, it’s gravy.

"But the problem is with each one beyond two, it’s a multiple of two. On that third spot, you’re going to have two teams play for that spot on championship weekend. Your third AQ, you can have three and six play for that, and your fourth AQ, you can have four and five play. So, in essence, you create a wild-card-type game, and you have six teams in. So then when you turn back around and look at the revenue share, which those two leagues have already pushed and received an inequitable revenue share based on performance…well, we have a look-in in there and the whole premise was that we would have an opportunity to build up football in the Big 12 and maybe earn a more proportionate revenue share during the look-in. Well, if they’re able to do that, then they’ve cooked the books.

"Some people look at it and say, ‘Gosh, you guys are idiots. You could have guaranteed yourself always two, and you might have more some years.’ I just think one, America doesn’t want it. It’s not fair. To me, it just goes against everything that sports is about. I think you earn it on the field. I just think when you look at the totality of it, the 4-4-2-2 should be a non-starter for the Big 12 and ACC.”

He's absolutely right. I mean, let's be real here. What other sports league just hands out automatic bids like they're candy? None of them. The NFL doesn't do it. The NBA doesn't do it. MLB doesn't do it. Want me to keep going? You can't just hand out auto-bids based on what league you're in. There will be years when said league may not be deserving of the number of AQs slotted to them - and that's including the ACC and Big 12, where there may be some years they should only have one.

Not to mention, it would create more of an edge for schools in those conferences on the recruiting trail who can pitch more access to the playoff. At that point, it might as well be the Big Ten/SEC invitational.