How the Big Ten lost the narrative war to the SEC

The rivalry between the Big Ten and the SEC has emerged as one of the most riveting narratives in college football, especially as the landscape of college sports evolves. The phrase “narrative war” encapsulates not just performance on the field but also perceptions, public relations strategies, and the business dynamics of college football. In this context, it seems the Big Ten has been losing ground to the Southeastern Conference (SEC).

### Keyword: Big Ten Narrative

#### Big Ten’s Current State

At the forefront of the Big Ten’s communication issues is its recent, controversial proposal to expand the College Football Playoff (CFP) format to 28 teams. While sources close to the conference argue that this idea originated from informal discussions rather than a formal proposal, the fact that it was publicly acknowledged reflects poorly on the conference’s strategic communications. The situation was exacerbated when SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey countered by announcing a shift to a nine-game conference schedule starting in 2026—an adaptation that positioned the SEC as proactive and forward-thinking.

This juxtaposition indicates that despite winning the last two national titles, the Big Ten lacks a cohesive strategy when it comes to crafting its message and engaging with the media and fans. The SEC, by contrast, seems adept at controlling the narrative and capitalizing on Big Ten missteps. The impression is that while the Big Ten’s ideas are out of touch with the realities of modern college football, the SEC thrives by deftly navigating the media landscape, avoiding controversy while maintaining its competitive edge.

#### Misaligned Interests

The proposal to expand the playoff system to include more teams raises substantial concerns, not just about the competitiveness of the season, but also regarding player welfare. Critics point out that automatic bids could allow subpar teams—like those with 7-5 records—to contend for national titles, effectively diminishing the significance of regular-season games. There is also skepticism about whether there’s any substantial financial incentive to justify such expansion, especially when current financial structures are already under scrutiny.

Adding to the issues, the Big Ten appears to be unaware of the implications such expansions could have on the well-being of players. Discussions about extending the season length and increasing the number of games may overlook important factors, particularly player health and academic commitments. Voices within the advocacy community argue for a more balanced approach that includes negotiations with players to secure their interests and ensure their voices are heard in decision-making processes.

#### Lack of Leadership Visibility

A critical aspect of the Big Ten’s narrative problem stems from the leadership dynamics within the conference, particularly under Commissioner Tony Petitti. While he is described as intelligent and capable, there have been increasing concerns regarding his visibility and public engagement. The Big Ten has engaged in relatively closed-door meetings, limiting media accessibility, which starkly contrasts with the SEC’s approach of inviting scrutiny and engaging with the press.

By excluding the media, the Big Ten inadvertently cedes control of the narrative. In contrast, the SEC actively shapes its public image through transparent practices, ensuring consistent communication and engagement with fans and the media alike. This differentiation has created a perception that the SEC is more in touch with its stakeholders, while the Big Ten operates in a detached manner.

#### The Contrast in Media Strategy

When examining the respective media strategies of the two conferences, the differences are glaring. The SEC’s spring meetings, for example, are characterized by transparency and accessibility, features that are crucial in crafting and maintaining a strong narrative. Conversely, the Big Ten’s secretive approach has made it more challenging for its narrative to resonate with fans and media.

This reticence to engage openly has led to missed opportunities for the Big Ten, particularly in proactively addressing any rumors or controversies related to its proposals or decisions. By the time Petitti sought to articulate a position on playoff expansion, the discussion had largely moved on, leaving him defending ideas that had already lost traction.

#### Team and Coach Perspectives

Voices from within the Big Ten, including coaches like James Franklin from Penn State, have expressed frustration at the league’s handling of its media strategy. Franklin underscores the importance of using media exposures strategically to elevate the narrative surrounding the Big Ten and keep its teams relevant in the broader college football discourse. As it stands, the Big Ten seems to be lagging in creating a strong, unified public voice.

#### Conclusion: The Road Ahead for the Big Ten

As the Big Ten approaches the start of the football season, it has the opportunity to shift its narrative. With a competitive lineup of teams, the focus should return to the on-field performances that will define the conference’s standing. However, it must also recognize the importance of a coherent communication strategy, transparency with the media, and proactive engagement with stakeholders—most notably, its players.

The challenges faced by the Big Ten are illustrative of a broader need for adaptation in a changing college football environment. By recalibrating its approach both in messaging and decision-making, the Big Ten could not only regain narrative control but also secure its standing in a competitive landscape dominated by the SEC. As fans eagerly await the season ahead, the potential for a renewed focus on football—and a more balanced, proactive approach in managing the narrative—presents an avenue for the Big Ten to regain its footing in the ongoing rivalry.

Source link