Latest news with #Petitti
Fox Sports
20 hours ago
- Sport
- Fox Sports
How 2024-25 CFP Would've Looked Under Proposed Expansion Formats
The College Football Playoff will almost certainly expand again in 2026, going from a 12-team format to a 14- or 16-team format. While we don't know which of these it'll be, it's always fun to think about what things could look like. In the most recent episode of "The Joel Klatt Show: Big Noon Conversations," Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti broke down how discussions over the CFP expansion are going, as he holds a key role. He also shared that he's seeking more meaningful games in the CFP expansion and believes that a 16-team format could help accomplish that. "Bigger is better," Petitti said. "I think 12 is not enough teams given the size of the teams that are competing. You look at professional leagues, they [have] somewhere between 40% and 50% of their teams qualifying for the postseason. We're way below that, even at 16. I think we want to be really careful." As Petitti potentially seeks a 16-team CFP, the determination of which 16 (or 14) teams would qualify is still up for debate. Automatic qualifiers would likely be involved in some form or fashion. [Related: Tony Petitti Seeks More Meaningful Games In CFP Expansion: 'Bigger Is Better'] So, let's see how the proposed formats for the CFP expansion could have impacted last year's field, with the consideration that the CFP has already gone to a straight seeding model after last year. 4+4+2+2+1+3 format In this format of the 16-team model, the Big Ten and the SEC would've received four automatic bids to the CFP, while the ACC and Big 12 each would've received two. There also would've been an automatic spot for the highest-ranked Group of 5 conference champion and three at-large bids. With the idea of a conference championship weekend being thrown out there as an extension to the CFP expansion, we used the standings for the four major conferences to help determine which teams would have received those automatic qualifying spots. In the Big Ten, both Oregon and Penn State would've received an automatic bid, as they had the two best conference records in the regular season. The other two games in the Big Ten during conference championship weekend would have been Illinois (No. 6 in the Big Ten standings) at Indiana (No. 3 in the Big Ten standings) and Iowa (No. 5 in the Big Ten standings) at Ohio State (No. 4 in the Big Ten standings). The winner of those two games would've received the two automatic bids. In this practice, let's presume that Indiana and Ohio State win their respective games. In the SEC, both Georgia and Texas would've received an automatic bid, as they had the two best conference records in the regular season. The other two games in the SEC would've been South Carolina (No. 6 in the SEC standings) at Tennessee (No. 3 in the SEC standings) and LSU (No. 5 in the SEC standings) at Alabama (No. 4 in the SEC standings). Just like the Big Ten, the winners of those games would've received the conference's two other automatic bids. So, let's presume the favorites of those games win, meaning Tennessee and Alabama advance. As for the ACC and the Big 12, it isn't exactly known what their conference championship weekends would look like. The ACC recently mentioned an idea where it could have its regular-season conference champion get a bye that week, meaning the second- and third-place teams in the regular-season standings play for the conference's other automatic berth. For the sake of this exercise, let's send the two teams who finished No. 1 and No. 2 in the regular season standings for the ACC and Big 12 to the CFP. That would mean SMU and Clemson would advance out of the ACC, while Arizona State and Iowa State would've advanced out of the Big 12. Boise State was the highest-ranked Group of 5 conference champion, receiving the No. 9 ranking in the final CFP poll. That was an easy one to figure out. As for the three at-large spots, that's where things might get a little tricky. Notre Dame was ranked fifth in the final CFP poll, meaning it would've likely occupied one of these at-large bids. If we went by the rankings, Miami (Fla.) and Ole Miss would've received the final two at-large spots. However, neither of those teams would've played in conference championship weekend during this exercise, leading to some potential murkiness with assembling the field. For now, let's send Miami and Ole Miss to the CFP. Here's how that 16-team field would've looked under that format, using the final CFP rankings: Oregon Georgia Texas Penn State Notre Dame Ohio State Tennessee Indiana Boise State SMU Alabama Arizona State Miami (Fla.) Ole Miss Clemson Iowa State First two teams out: South Carolina, BYU One of the ideas being thrown out there for the 16-team CFP is for the top two seeds to get a double bye and a play-in round between the No. 13-16 seeds. That would mean Miami would host Iowa State, which was the Pop-Tarts Bowl matchup this past season, and Ole Miss would host Clemson. As for second-round matchups, Ohio State would've hosted Alabama and Notre Dame would've hosted Arizona State. Oregon also would've avoided Ohio State in the quarterfinals thanks to the straight seeding. 5+11 format This is probably the easiest of the five formats to understand. In this format, the five highest-ranked conference winners plus the 11 highest-ranked at-large teams would've received a berth into the 2024 CFP. Here's how that would've looked like: Oregon Georgia Texas Penn State Notre Dame Ohio State Tennessee Indiana Boise State SMU Alabama Arizona State Miami (Fla.) Ole Miss South Carolina Clemson First two teams out: BYU, Iowa State In the possible scenario that there's a "play-in weekend," we would've seen two conference matchups taking place. Miami would've hosted Clemson after the Tigers won the ACC Championship Game, while Ole Miss would've hosted South Carolina. This format would've really only changed the last two seeds from the previous format, with South Carolina taking Iowa State's spot in the field. That would've left the Big 12 with just one team in the tournament. 4+4+2.5+2.5+1+2 format This format is similar to the first format we mentioned. The only difference is that there would've been one more automatic bid for an ACC team or the Big 12 would receive a third automatic bid, depending on which conference's third-place team is ranked higher. As a result, there would've been one fewer at-large spot. For the sake of brevity, let's assume that the same eight teams from the Big Ten and the SEC in the first format receive the eight automatic bids between the two conferences in this format. Let's also assume SMU, Clemson, Arizona State and Iowa State also receive the first two automatic bids from their respective conferences, the ACC and the Big 12. That would leave Miami and BYU as the two third-place teams from the ACC and the Big 12 seeking the other automatic qualifying spot. Miami was the higher-ranked team of the two (No. 13 to BYU's No. 17 ranking), meaning the Hurricanes would advance to the CFP. But if the CFP really wanted to get creative, it could have the third-place teams in the ACC and the Big 12 go head-to-head for this spot. Again, Boise State was the highest-ranked Group of 5 conference champion, so it would've received a spot in this format. Notre Dame was ranked fifth in the final CFP poll, so it likely would've been given one of the last at-large bids. Ole Miss would've been the second-highest ranked non-automatic-qualifying team, likely giving it a berth in the CFP. Here's what the 16-team field would've looked like in this format: Oregon Georgia Texas Penn State Notre Dame Ohio State Tennessee Indiana Boise State SMU Alabama Arizona State Miami (Fla.) Ole Miss Clemson Iowa State First two teams out: South Carolina, BYU This format would've produced the exact same 16 teams and seeds as the first format we mentioned. The big difference is that the slight tweak would've given Miami an automatic bid, as none of the other formats would've given the Hurricanes a guaranteed spot in the field last season. It also would've given some more stability to the ACC or the Big 12, as their respective conferences' third-place team typically isn't ranked in the top 10 of the final CFP poll. 4+4+3+3+1+1 format In this proposed format, the ACC and the Big 12 would each get three automatic qualifiers, while the Big Ten and the SEC would still get four. There would also be an automatic qualifier for the highest-ranked Group of 5 conference champion to go along with one at-large bid. As with the other two examples where the Big Ten and the SEC get four automatic qualifiers, we'll assume the same eight teams make it into the field via the conference championship weekend. How the ACC and the Big 12 would determine their three automatic qualifiers in this scenario is anyone's guess, but the simplest way would be to have the top two teams in each conference in the regular season occupying two of those spots, while the third would be determined through a play-in game. If the higher-ranked team won those games, we'd have SMU, Clemson and Miami representing the ACC, while Arizona State, Iowa State and BYU would get the Big 12's three automatic qualifiers. Again, Boise State would be the Group of 5 representative and Notre Dame would likely occupy the lone at-large spot. Here's how the field would've like in this scenario: Oregon Georgia Texas Penn State Notre Dame Ohio State Tennessee Indiana Boise State SMU Alabama Arizona State Miami (Fla.) Clemson Iowa State BYU First two teams out: Ole Miss, South Carolina The big difference in this format is Ole Miss wouldn't qualify for the CFP because it didn't finish in the top six of the SEC, nor was it the highest-ranked remaining team for an at-large spot. A potential play-in weekend in this scenario would've featured two ACC-Big 12 battles, while the top 12 seeds remain consistent with the other three formats we've gone over so far. 14 team format: 4+4+2+2+1+1 While it seems unlikely, a 14-team format is still on the table for the latest round of CFP expansion. The most common format for a 14-team playoff features four automatic bids for the Big Ten and the SEC, while the ACC and the Big 12 get two apiece. The highest-ranked Group of 5 conference champion would also get an automatic bid, while there would be an at-large bid for the highest-ranked remaining team. This format is comparable to the first format we mentioned; it just has two fewer at-large bids. So, the four teams representing the Big Ten and the SEC would remain the same in our practice scenario. The same goes for the ACC (SMU and Clemson) and the Big 12 (Arizona State and Iowa State), but as we mentioned earlier, it's unclear what each of those conferences would likely do for a conference championship weekend if it had two automatic bids. Just like the other formats, Boise State (highest-ranked Group of 5 champion) and Notre Dame (highest-ranked at-large team) would also make the field. Here's how a potential 14-team CFP format would've looked like last season: Oregon Georgia Texas Penn State Notre Dame Ohio State Tennessee Indiana Boise State SMU Alabama Arizona State Clemson Iowa State First two teams out: Miami, Ole Miss The top 12 seeds in this format would've remained the same compared to the other four formats, but this is the first format that doesn't include Miami. A play-in weekend also wouldn't be possible in a 14-team format. Oregon and Georgia would've received first-round byes as the other 12 teams duked it out. Some of those first-round matchups would've included a game between former Big 12 foes (Iowa State-Texas), Clemson making the trip up to Happy Valley to take on Penn State and Alabama facing Ohio State. Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
Fox Sports
6 days ago
- Sport
- Fox Sports
Tony Petitti Seeks More Meaningful Games In CFP Expansion: 'Bigger Is Better'
There aren't many things I'm more passionate about than the College Football Playoff. As discussions about expanding the playoff field continue, I've drawn my line in the sand on what should be done to help preserve the greatness of our sport. So, I decided to meet up with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti in New York City recently and find out where his mind is at in playoff expansion talks for the most recent episode of "Big Noon Conversations." Petitti, along with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, are among the two major power brokers in the CFP expansion discussion as several ideas have been thrown out there about expanding to 14 or 16 teams. Here are some highlights from my conversation with Petitti. Parts of this interview were edited for clarity and brevity. Klatt: As the commissioner of the Big Ten, what are your objectives for the future of the CFP and its format? Petitti: 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, 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, the way we do things. We start from a place where we're not always going to be aligned. There might be different ideas in different conferences. We have an obligation to try to come together, to work these things out. But the goal for me, right from the beginning, I really felt strongly about this, and maybe it's my experience coming from MLB, I really believe that you've got to have a postseason format that makes the regular season better. 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 types of things. So, to play more meaningful conference games as late as possible. I think you see that in the professional sports model — they try to keep as many teams alive for as long as possible, especially when you get into a world when you condition fans to think about this great new playoff that we've created, they're going to focus on achieving that. The extent that teams don't have the opportunity to get there, it's going to eventually hurt. We want to make sure we have the interest, that teams can break through, have a remarkable season, qualify and play. We just believe strongly that conference record is the backbone of all of that — how you play during the season, qualify off your conference record. That's sort of the best way we believe. So, if I could boil it down, your main objective would be to keep more teams relevant in the season and playing meaningful games later in the year? That's right. … I look at Ohio State last year. Ohio State lost two Big Ten conference games. Technically, they finished fourth in the conference at 7-2, and were clearly, by the end of the playoff run, the best team in the country. I think it's an indication of why it's hard to figure this stuff out during the course of a season. One thing I'll also say that's really important is, within the Big Ten, you have 17 available opponents. You play nine of them. Even within a schedule, there are discrepancies in the strength of schedule. You just don't know who's going to be strong and who's not when you play them, the rub of that luck of the schedule or when you play teams, who is healthy when you play them. The idea we've had about 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 the SEC, Big 12 and ACC. The idea of having a championship game with those two teams in, and then playing our sixth-seeded team vs. our third [seed] and our fifth [seed] vs. our fourth [seed], which is the idea we've been talking about. I think it's just a way to also normalize your conference schedule. It really is hard to sometimes tell the difference between our own teams, because a lot of times they don't play each other. I've got four criteria that I think need to be hit for the reformatting of the CFP. I love yours and mine fits in with one of yours. I think we need to increase fan base engagement and increase the valuable or meaningful games that we play — Encourage them. That's right. I think we need to minimize the power of the committee and I think we need to maintain more conferences being relevant. What you have put forth is a 16-team playoff with a 4-4-2-2-1-3 — four automatic bids for the Big Ten, four automatic bids for the SEC, two automatic bids for the ACC, two automatic bids for the Big 12, three at-large bids and one for the Group of 5. Why that model? I understand there was controversy about how many AQs (automatic qualifiers) one league gets or another. Let's put that aside for now. I think we're trying to focus on, at least within the Big Ten, we're not asking to be handed anything. We're playing non-conference games. We want to play tough play-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 creates tougher games? Yeah, I want to play more. 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 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, whatever the result is, that might impact your seeding down the road, but it's not going to impact your access. There are three at-larges, so it does a little bit. But at the end of the day, that loss isn't fatal. You can finish 7-2 in the Big Ten, like Ohio State, and if you lost a non-conference game with a 9-3 record, they're in the tournament because a 7-2 record is almost certainly going to get you into a play-in game in the Big Ten. As great as college football 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 early in the season. I think we can do more of it. Everybody's pointing to that Texas-Ohio State game, which is going to get tremendous attention. We want more of that. We want to incentivize that and not create a sense of, "Does winning that game help you more or does losing that game hurt you more?" That's what coaches and ADs are going to be faced with. 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 clearly be better. I just think it's very, very difficult. Mainly, getting back to what I suggested, there isn't much head-to-head, and there really isn't a lot of crossover, at least in our league, because we play non-conference games, we don't play that many games against the SEC. I'd like to actually play more, because I think it's just better for fans. So, I agree with you overall. Now, there are some things that I will maybe disagree with. The baseline should be building a system that goes from a selection-based model to an access-based model. We should be trying to minimize the committee. 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. Now, one of the things that everyone immediately points out is then, well, why do you get four automatic spots and the ACC and the Big 12 only get two? We've made a decision about what we think is appropriate for us and what you should have on the at-large side, and it's based on historic strength and where we think programs are. Are there other ideas that we would consider? I think we've been pretty open, and we just communicated this in a recent meeting we had. We're open to ideas. I just think ultimately, it's going to be very hard to sort of figure out how you expand the field, because the alternative to this system is expanding the field and giving the committee more to do. 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, the more spots you put into the system, the more difficult decisions you're facing. Teams start to look more alike. We're looking to kind of do exactly what you said, which is to reduce the role of the committee. Let them focus on seeding and the last three at-large spots. If everybody's playing play-in games, I don't want to speak for the ACC, Big 12 or 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. Some of them might be less realistic chances than others, but they're all sort of playing and you don't want to get into that mode where you lost that third game and you're not [in it]. I worry that, as the CFP gets better and better, missing it and where you go after that gets to be harder. Was there any argument or reason or data point given in the recent meetings that convinced you at all that the 5+11 model (one automatic qualifier from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Group of 5; 11 at-large bids) might be feasible? 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. We'll study everything that's sent our way. 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. 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. That's where we are. 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 think bigger is better. I think 12 is not enough teams given the size of the teams that are competing. You look at professional leagues, they go somewhere between 40% and 50% of their teams qualifying for the postseason. We're way below that, even at 16. I think we want to be really careful. We want to be open-minded. I think we come in — skeptical might be the word. Like, how are you going to make something back? When I talk to Warde Manuel, the AD at Michigan who was the chair of the committee, when I talked with him 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, "Hey, if only we had more data, we could do this even better." It's not that. It's like, "We have a lot already." At the end of the day, you're making comparisons, you're bunching teams together, and you're making a decision collectively with a bunch of other people who were working really hard. That's different than winning a game 31-27 on the field. If I were in the room, I would say 14 is better than 16 because 16 is redundant. It's a safety that's unnecessary because you'd have that play-in weekend. Is it redundant to have the three at-large spots? I think it does a couple of things. One, it does protect 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. It increases the chance of others from outside the A4 (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC) to get in, if you have more at-larges. I think the 16[-team model] that we've heard about is playing some games early, like a 16-13, 15-14 weekend, and then preserving the bye. One of the things that I really liked about 14 is rewarding two teams with byes. If you can find a format with 16 that still does that — this way, when we're all playing these conference championship games, if that's what we end up doing, there's really a lot at stake there. I think having the catch-all may be a safety net everybody wants. I get back to the total number 16. I was originally like you. I was really more focused on 14. But then when talking to the guys about the opportunity to come, it does provide some opportunities outside of the A4 to have a couple more bites at the apple. You said you'd be open to adjusting your 16-team model. One of the ideas is a 4-4-2.5-2.5-1-2 model, where there are basically five spots allotted between the ACC and Big 12. I've spoken with those commissioners, specifically Big 12 commissioner 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." Would you be open to a 2.5 model? I've read about it, but I want to be fair and be open-minded and not kind of preordain anything because it hasn't been presented. I haven't seen any real substantive conversation about that model. So I don't really know. The right way to do this is to make sure that you know every league is there. There are still three at-large [bids in the 4-4-2-2-1-3 model]. There's an opportunity to get more than two, and there's an opportunity for us to get more than four potentially. That's another reason when you ask me, "Why 16?" It does help with that initial thing. Depending on where you sit, there are many people who will hate this. We've seen it and I understand why. It's the idea we're starting from something different. I do push back when people say you aren't earning your spots. I think we're earning our spots, playing nine tough games and going through a really tough play-in. I think that's earning your spot. I love Notre Dame and Notre Dame is great for the sport. Yet, there are always these carve-outs for them and specifically for the playoff as it expands. What do we do with Notre Dame? We've all agreed that they should have their path to access. I don't think anybody's suggesting that we change that for them. That's not something that they'd be obligated to do. No matter what the format change is, the Big Ten and 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 the conference champions aren't in. That's not what we agreed to. Even with the discretion that we have together with the SEC, there are parameters that we agree to on certain things. And part of that is Notre Dame's access, and I'm fine with that. Do you see yourself or any of the institutions you represent agreeing to a 5+11 model 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 some key things: How many conference games is everybody playing? We haven't seen what the criteria [is for] the committee. If you're going to increase the role of a selection committee, I don't think anybody in the group — whether it's the ACC, Big 12, SEC or us, believes that you can keep it the same and that you would be OK with that. So I think we've got to do work there. What was your sentiment, and the Big Ten's sentiment overall, about home games in the playoff? Would you like to see more in the future? 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. The environments were great. Home games are great. The Tennessee fans traveled. That was some environment. There were a lot of folks on both sides there, and I think that riled up the Ohio State fans that were there. This is an area where there are 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. There are also coaches who say, "Wait, I didn't get a chance to host a game. I was seeded high, but I didn't get that chance." I think one of the things that'll hopefully correct a little bit of the problems last year is going to the straight seeding. 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 the real assessment. So that'll help, but I think more to come and see how this evolves. But if you do go to 16 [teams], you are playing more campus games because you'll have more first-round games. So you may not have later-round games, but you'll have more first-round games [on campus]. Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube . Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Gardeners' shopping options grow in Montrose with Petitti preparing to open 10th store
Petitti Garden Centers will open its Bath Township location in the busy Montrose business corridor later this month, with a grand opening celebration scheduled April 10. For A.J. Petitti, president of the company and son of founder Angelo Petitti, the Springside Drive location is more than the 10th store in the family-owned business. "I love the location," Petitti said last week as workers stocked shelves inside the converted office building. "I've been wanting to get in the Bath market for years." Angelo Petitti remains active in the business and hosts a Gardening With Angelo radio show on WTAM-1000 radio from March to October. Construction and renovation of the new store began in March 2024 after the company bought the property in late 2023. The location is special not only for the area known for its consumer traffic and dense retail presence, but family reasons, he said. Petitti said family members, including his parents, live in Bath Township. The proximity to the new store will bring special attention from the company's founder himself, Petitti said. "Every time there's a dry plant in here, I'm going to be getting a call from my dad," he said. The company has deep roots in Northeast Ohio, with its first location and corporate offices located just north of the Summit County border in Oakwood Village. It maintains about 1,300 acres of land in Lake County where trees, shrubs and ornamental grasses are grown for the company's stores and sales to other garden centers. A 12-acre greenhouse facility in Columbia Station grows annuals, perennials, vegetables, herbs and indoor plants. Petitti said the Bath location presented some design challenges, but the result will be a unique store with about 30,000 square feet in the renovated building and 150,000 square feet total including the outside greenhouses. The location represents a multimillion dollar investment, but Petitti declined to be more specific. "It's a totally different layout than every other store we have," he said. Petitti said he started working at the family business when he was 7, helping sweep, dust, load and stock. "This is all I ever wanted to do," he said. He's a gardener himself, with attention to roses, dogwoods, impatiens and herbs — lots of herbs, he said. Although based in Northeast Ohio, Petitti said the company looks far and wide for new products. "Every year we go all over the world to look for new trends, new product ideas," he said. "We're always looking for something new." Petitti said keeping its more than 1,200 employees happy helped the company maintain workers during an era of labor shortages. "Our turnover rate is extremely low," he said. "Just treat them the way you want to be treated… customers or employees," he said. The company has locations in Tallmadge, Jackson Township, Avon, Oakwood, Bainbridge, Boardman, Brunswick, Strongsville and Mentor. More: Tallmadge's Petitti Garden Center in bloom after remodeling Petitti said he's eager for the finishing touches to be completed and the garden center to open to the public. "It's going to be gorgeous when it's all done," he said. Leave a message for Alan Ashworth at 330-996-3859 or email him at aashworth@ Follow him on Twitter at @newsalanbeaconj or Facebook at This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Petitti Garden Centers preparing to open 10th store in Montrose
Reuters
20-02-2025
- Sport
- Reuters
SEC, Big Ten commissioners promote change in CFP seeding format
February 20 - Commissioners of the Southeastern and Big Ten conferences hinted that they know how they're going to vote if the issue arises of changing the seeding format for future College Football Playoff tournaments. Greg Sankey of the SEC and the Big Ten's Tony Petitti would no longer guarantee conference champions the top four berths in the bracket if they don't end up within the top four of the final CFP standings. Those coveted top-four seeds are assured a bye in the first round. Any changes need the unanimous approval of all 10 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua. The Fighting Irish are not affiliated with a conference in football. The seedings proved controversial in the past season's CFP bracket, the first one to feature 12 teams instead of four. The Mountain West's Boise State finished ninth in the final CFP standings but was awarded the third seed for winning the conference. Similarly, Arizona State finished 12th in the rankings but slid into the fourth seed because it won the Big 12. The third- and fourth-ranked teams in the final standings, Texas (SEC) and Penn State (Big Ten), respectively, were pushed down to fifth and sixth in the bracket because they did not win their conferences. Petitti wants the five highest-ranked conference champions to automatically earn spots in the CFP tournament, but not necessarily the top four seeds. "We're in favor of going to a straight seeding, where there's no difference between rankings and seeding like we had this year. We're in support of that for next year," Petitti said. Sankey also said he is "prepared to vote for a seeding change." The 10 commissioners and Bevacqua, who make up the CFP management committee, are to meet next week in Dallas to review last season's tournament. The Big Ten and SEC will carry extra clout going into the CFP format for the tournament capping the 2026-27 season. Changes at that point could include expanding to 14 teams. "Oh, it's gonna go to 14. I would bank on that," ESPN reported on Tuesday, citing an unnamed Big Ten source.
Chicago Tribune
20-02-2025
- Sport
- Chicago Tribune
Big Ten and SEC are prepared to push for changes to College Football Playoff seeding in 2025
NEW ORLEANS — The Big Ten and Southeastern Conference commissioners on Wednesday said they will push for something closer to 'straight seeding' in the College Football Playoff next season to give less of a break to lesser-ranked conference champions and better reflect how teams are ranked by the playoff selection committee. 'I'm prepared to vote for seeding change,' SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey said. 'But it has to be unanimous.' At least for next season, anyway. Sankey and Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti, speaking after joint meetings in New Orleans with their conferences' 34 athletic directors, acknowledged that their leagues ultimately will be driving changes in the CFP format after the 2025 season. However, they declined to address details of anything related to 2026 or beyond that might have been discussed — topics that likely include expansion of the playoffs and more automatic bids for their conferences. Sankey said those negotiations should include leaders of all the conferences, who meet next week in Dallas at a CFP gathering, but that the SEC and Big Ten can certainly be trusted to keep everyone's interests in mind. 'If I was just representing the SEC, we'd still have a four-team playoff,' said Sankey, whose conference's addition last year of Texas and Oklahoma was part of a nationwide shift that added uncertainty to college sports. 'It was neither our idea, nor was it our commentary, nor was it our need — even post-expansion. 'My view is the 12-team playoff last year helped everybody's regular season or brought people into the conversation. From my seat, we've deployed leadership in a responsible way.' Last college football season was the first under the expanded 12-team CFP format. While it was largely viewed as a success, a provision that rewarded byes to the four highest-ranked major conference champions drew scrutiny after all four of those teams — Arizona State, Boise State, Georgia and Oregon — lost their CFP openers in the quarterfinals. Ohio State and Notre Dame each won three playoff games before the Buckeyes knocked off the Fighting Irish in the title game. Petitti said both conferences are in favor of going to 'straight seeding' so that 'there's no difference between rankings and seedings.' 'The committee just puts in for the 12 teams next year — just says, 'These are the 12 teams in the order that they fall,' based on their judgment and the criteria they're given in the selection room,' Petitti said. 'That would give the committee more flexibility to really do the job in probably a much clearer way for fans.' An exception still would occur when one of the five highest-ranked conference champions is ranked outside the top 12. That team would get in next season, as Clemson (No. 16 CFP) did last season. While the CFP contract from 2026 through the 2031 season requires the SEC and Big Ten to consult other leagues about prospective changes to the playoff system, it also provides them with the ability to impose changes they both want. What sort of leverage that might provide them might be better understood after next week's meetings in Dallas, where a unanimous vote would be needed on any shift in seeding for 2025. After that, 'the process going forward, if we decided to make changes, contemplates that the structure of that is led by the SEC and the Big Ten,' Petitti explained. 'So, it requires (the SEC and Big Ten) to get to consensus to make a meaningful recommendation, if any, to our colleagues in the (other) leagues, and also requires us to get their input and to speak with them, to give them an opportunity to weigh in on whatever it is that we're thinking about.' Sankey said his conference still is considering going to a nine-game regular season the way the Big Ten does — a move that could potentially help SEC teams' strength of schedule. Meanwhile, Petitti portrayed reports of tension between conference commissioners as overblown, insisting they've been working together on the biggest topic consuming college sports — the House settlement, which is poised to reshape the industry by allowing schools to pay players directly. 'The work that's been done around the settlement among the conferences is probably unprecedented in terms of the amount of collaboration that's required to get this right,' he said.
