This is a pretty weak argument. Everyone is cheating outside of the SEC so the fact they're winning titles against a bunch of cheaters while avoiding their own trouble means those titles are somehow tainted? Because they obviously have to be cheating too and just not getting caught. Because you say so. Really?
For one, I never said so, but I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone in the SEC not named Vandy, has committed an NCAA violation in one way or another. You'll never convince me that oversigning does NOT put the SEC at a pretty spectacular advantage. If you don't believe so, I'm not going to argue. I don't really think the SEC is covering their violations up any better than the rest of the schools, I do believe the NCAA is just waiting for all of their facts before they blow the whistle - and put an * - on the SEC's five year dominance in college football.
You already said that it is a scandal-ridden era and pointed out that virtually every top program has been through the dirt. So if everyone is playing the same game and if everyone is breaking the rules, the SEC (assuming you are right) is still just doing it better on the field, where it counts.
When you think of the teams that won National Titles in the '90s, for example, do you think scandal? Probably not. When you look at teams that have won titles this decade, OSU included, you think scandal. When all this broke about OSU, for example, and it was rumored that it went on as far back as OSU's title run, some (not saying on here or anywhere in particular) automatically assumed that The Vest was being devious even back then. It was obviously proven that wasn't the case, but it has yet to be proven that 'Bama & Auburn are in the clear.
Say it wasn't the SEC that had won five-in-a-row. Say it was the PAC-10. I think you'd agree that this whole decade, basically, as been one scandal after another, or potential scandal I should say. We're learning things about teams that possibly happened three, four, six, seven years ago. Schools are getting in trouble, major trouble. It's all about perception. It's been proven that other schools (OSU, UNC, etc.) have committed pretty serious violations. Now, it's been "rumored" that 'Bama, Auburn, LSU have committed potentially major NCAA rule violations. Nothing proven, but fans outside the SEC (whether it's for resentment or whatever) are going to look at the SEC's five year run in college football and honestly believe that if the NCAA pokes it's finger enough, they will find players that should've been ineligible to play in those NC games. All because the perception around college football right now is that everyone is cheating...even if they aren't. It's kind of like steroids in baseball, a player can hit 10 HRs one year, and the next year he can hit 60. Since baseball was rocked with the steroid era, one would assume maybe that the player may or may not be on steroids. A school can be irrelevant for a few years in terms of a National Championship, and then all of a sudden go undefeated, have a NC, and a Heisman Trophy winner that was rumored to have been the center of a major NCAA rules violation. People are going to think "cheater" even if it's proven there really wasn't any wrongdoing.
I guess I like knowing that team has been cleared from any potential "Title Stripping" violations, while the SEC's five year title run is in the record books - but for how long?
Seriously, when you weigh their talent versus their schedule, who should beat them? I know some people say it in a smart ass way, but when you stop and think about it the point is that OSU has separated itself from the rest of the Big Ten for the most part. It is never easy to go undefeated but how many games in the last 7 years can you look at on paper and truly say, OSU should lose that one or even that it should be a toss up (in conference).
Really? Because I can recall Penn State, Wisconsin and Iowa being concerns for me when OSU's schedule has been released in recent years. Purdue beat them a few years ago, at their place. Road games in the B1G are tough. Teams are familiar with each other, there's rivalries and so many other things that go into B1G football games, just like every other conference. I'd be more intimidated about going to Penn State, Michigan State or Iowa than I would be going to Mississippi State, Ole Miss or even Arkansas. So to answer your question, if you really want me to go through OSU's schedule for the last seven years and name games that I truly thought OSU either A) should lose, or B) was a toss-up I will, but I'd rather not. When it comes to Iowa and Michigan State - I feel we're better than those teams, any year, but at home. You put us on the road against those two, it becomes a toss-up. When it comes to Penn State and Wisconsin, home or away, it's a toss-up. And now with Nebraska? It's nothing to do with talent really, because yeah - they may be better talent wise - but it's more to do with the nature of playing in the B1G.
Finally, what era is it that you consider the Big Ten to have dominated?
Sorry God of College Football Statistics... I guess the B1G has never ever been dominant in college football history. I guess consistent is a better word. Certain teams in the B1G may have been dominant, but the conference as a whole never was. The Qtr. Century rankings show that. However, from 1902 to around 1947 - I think - the B1G wasn't allowed to play in any Bowl Games. UofM played in the first bowl game, I think...and they struck a deal with the PAC-10 in or around '47 to play in the Rose Bowl. Irrelevant, I know, because there weren't many bowl games. But from '47-'75, the Rose Bowl was the only bowl game B1G teams were allowed to participate in. So, maybe the B1G would've won a "big time" bowl game during that time period, if it were allowed to participate. We'll never know if that would've had any effect on how "dominate" the B1G was, even if it was for a "Qtr Century".
