In the world of college football, the SEC and Big Ten conferences are two of the most powerful and influential entities. With a combined total of 26 national championships, these conferences have dominated the college football landscape for decades. So when news broke that they were considering creating their own postseason, it sent shockwaves through the NCAA and the entire sports world. But would they have actually followed through on this threat? And what would the NCAA look like without them?
The idea of the SEC and Big Ten creating their own postseason was first brought up in 2012, when the NCAA was in the process of implementing a new playoff system. The two conferences were not happy with the proposed format and felt that it did not adequately represent their interests. As a result, they threatened to break away and create their own postseason, which would have included only teams from their conferences.
At the time, this threat seemed like a real possibility. The SEC and Big Ten had the resources and the fan base to make it work. They also had the support of other major conferences, such as the ACC and Pac-12, who were also dissatisfied with the proposed playoff system. It seemed like the NCAA was on the verge of losing its two biggest and most influential conferences.
But as negotiations continued, it became clear that the SEC and Big Ten were not willing to risk their relationship with the NCAA. They ultimately agreed to the new playoff format, which included a selection committee and four teams instead of the previous two. This compromise satisfied the two conferences and the threat of a breakaway postseason was no longer on the table.
So why did the SEC and Big Ten ultimately back down from their threat? The answer lies in the importance of the NCAA to college football. While the SEC and Big Ten may have the most successful teams, they also rely heavily on the NCAA for revenue and exposure. Without the NCAA, these conferences would have to create their own governing body, which would be a costly and time-consuming process. They also risked losing the support of other conferences and the overall stability of college football.
But what if the SEC and Big Ten had gone through with their threat? What would the NCAA look like without them? The short answer is, it would be a very different organization. The loss of these two conferences would have a major impact on the NCAA’s revenue and influence. The SEC and Big Ten bring in millions of dollars in television contracts and have a huge fan base that generates significant ticket sales and merchandise revenue. Without them, the NCAA would have to find new ways to generate income and maintain its status as the governing body of college football.
In addition, the absence of the SEC and Big Ten would also have a ripple effect on other conferences. The ACC, Pac-12, and other smaller conferences would have to find new opponents to fill their schedules, which could lead to a decrease in revenue and exposure. It could also create a power imbalance, with the remaining conferences struggling to compete with the SEC and Big Ten’s dominance.
But perhaps the biggest impact would be on the players. Without the SEC and Big Ten, the level of competition in college football would decrease significantly. These conferences are known for producing some of the best players in the country, and without them, the talent pool would be greatly diminished. This could also affect the NFL, as teams would have fewer top prospects to choose from in the draft.
In conclusion, while the threat of the SEC and Big Ten creating their own postseason was a real possibility, it ultimately did not come to fruition. The NCAA and these two conferences were able to reach a compromise, and college football as we know it remains intact. But it serves as a reminder of the power and influence that these conferences hold, and the potential consequences if they were to ever break away from the NCAA.
