Funny blog. Nothing the guy says backs up the Big Ten being better. He changes his point to: 1) the SEC should be waaay better and 2) if things were different, the SEC
might not be better. Lame-o.
Oooh, that National Title stat is a killer. How many of those did the Big Ten win before the SEC existed? For that matter, pick your stance. Does all of history count or only the last 20 years (when you are talking about Notre Dame) or is it only after Tressel became coach (when you are talking about Michigan)?
You know, Muhammad Ali was a great fighter.
Was being the operative word. The SEC
is the best conference. Right now.
I'll propose a couple of questions, even though you won't take them seriously - maybe someone else can answer. If you were the AD at a rising national power with a standing invite to join the Big Ten or the SEC, which would you choose if you based your decision entirely on the probability of reaching the following goals:
1) Win a conference title
2) Win a national title
I would think, to win a conference title, you'd look and say there's one program you have to compete with (and maybe 3 others that are obstacles). In the SEC, you have four recent national title winners, five all together in the BCS era, plus another national title winning coach, plus another program that averages nearly 10 wins a year. It'd just be more difficult to win a conference title in the SEC.
Now, for a national title, you have to figure it a couple of ways. If you go undefeated, you are a lock in one of those conferences. If you slip up once and fall into a group of teams with a loss, in one of those conferences you are still going to have plenty of good wins to differentiate yourself.
Ultimately, you and I can sit here and throw out all of the stats and one liners we want, but when it comes down to it the only thing that matters is the pecking order and the SEC has that top spot locked up.
