National Playoff Plan: Why the Big Ten (Not SEC) Is True College Football Power

According to an article published online by the Chicago Tribune yesterday, the Big Ten has a plan to save college football.

And, surprisingly, it supports a playoffs scenario.

Yes, the Big Ten was the leading voice of dissension when the SEC presented a four-team playoff scheme back in 2008, when the BCS was being reexamined in the same way it is being scrutinized today.

But, now they have apparently tuned into a different channel that shows downward spiraling attendance figures and tells tales of falling TV viewership.

The Big Ten’s “New Deal” purportedly consists of a variation on the popular “plus-one” proposal, which would use the Top Four BCS teams to create a mini-playoff scenario.

The intriguing bit of the Big Ten's plan is that the initial two playoff games would be played on the home fields of the higher seeds, thereby doing away with the idea of a neutral-sited affair until the championship game is played.

So, why, when the Big Ten suggests what is basically the same plan that the SEC proposed four years ago, is the proposal suddenly heralded as big news and labeled doable?  

Why is the plan thought to be the one that can save a sport in the throes of an unjust and illogical system?

And, remember, this is the same plan that the Big Ten has, for all practical purposes, snubbed at every turn—that is, until just recently.

Perhaps the plan is deemed more savory and viable now because the climate of college football has changed since 2008, and fans are by and large more vocal and adamant about reforming the BCS.

But, what if the real reason this playoff plan is being received as magically delicious is that the Big Ten, from a conference perspective, represents the true, long-term power base in major college football?

Yes, what if six straight BCS titles, throngs of passionate fans, stacks of cash and total domination for almost a decade don’t amount to command and influence for the SEC, from a national power perspective?

Here are some numbers to consider.

First, from a purely financial standpoint, the SEC does indeed out-earn the Big Ten, but the race is much closer than you might think.

According to the college athletics finance database compiled by USA Today, the 11 SEC athletic departments listed (excluding Vanderbilt, which didn’t report) combined for the 2009-10 academic year to average $88,843,019 in operating revenue.

For the same time period, the 11 athletic departments reporting for the Big Ten (excluding Northwestern, which didn't report) combined to average $87,573,055 in operating revenue.

That means the average SEC school edged out the average Big Ten school by only $1.2 million.

So, the SEC doesn’t rule the world due to its overflowing coffers.

Another approach to gauging real power comes from looking further back than the present BCS era to count national championship titles.

Yes, you can’t deny that since the dawning of the BCS era in 1998, the SEC has utterly dominated college football—to the tune of an 8-1 record in title games (with the only loss coming in this past season’s all-SEC title tilt). 

The Big Ten's BCS title game record? A paltry 1-2.

Indeed, the SEC’s closest competitor in the age of the BCS is the Big 12, which is 2-5 in championship play.

Despite this BCS domination, if we look further backward in history (remembering that college football dates back to 1869), we see a bit of a different picture painted on the gridiron canvas.

Overall, the teams that currently combine to make up the Big Ten have 42 national championships, while the members of the SEC have 32 (if you want to add Texas A&M and Missouri, who join the SEC in 2012, make it 34).

And then you’ve got the fact that the Big Ten has been a viable entity since 1896, while the SEC didn’t get off the blocks until 1933—that’s a 37-year head start on power-grabbing.

What is far more difficult to gauge is the concept, from a national perspective, that the Big Ten institutions are somehow more prestigious, more ethically sound and more academically-minded than those in the SEC.

I’m not saying that this is true, but it would be hard to argue (despite the blaring Penn State and Ohio State scandals from 2011) that from a reputation and perception standpoint, the Big Ten doesn’t have a very real edge over their compatriots in the SEC.

Again, it’s crucial to restate that we’re talking about opinion (or, perception) as opposed to fact (or, reality).

Indeed, you can’t buy history and you can’t buy prestige, and you can fabricate neither.

So, are commissioner Jim Delany and the Big Ten the true power players in major college football, ahead of SEC chief Michael Slive and friends?

Well, if the Big Ten winds up being the league that first supports and then pushes through a college football playoff (mini or maxi), then it would be difficult to deny that it is the most powerful conference in college football.

Yes, the Big Ten rules college football from a long-term perspective; not the Big 12 (with sincere apologies to DeLoss Dodds), not the Pac-12, not the ACC and, indeed, not the SEC.

Don’t be bedazzled by the very real on-field dominance of the SEC.

It’s the Big Ten that’s still at the helm of the ship carrying college football through some fairly choppy seas.