The reason I was pressing hard on comparing the bottom ranks of the SEC to better teams is because a lot of the time I hear people dismiss that the SEC has teams that just aren't even CLOSE to LSU, Alabama or Florida when you really look at it. But, when someone from a different conference beats these bottom to mid-tier SEC schools, suddenly they become only "the 6th best" or whatever. So, I hope that explains why I was going at it like that.
I picked TCU to compare against Auburn because they were a non-BCS team during that span & they still outperformed most of the SEC. You wouldn't know that if you talked to many SEC praisers, though. They probably think Mississippi State has accomplished just as much just for playing in the SEC.
The Big 10 is hard to argue for in comparison to the SEC over the last 5 years. Ohio State has been really successful along with Wisconsin to a bit of a lesser extent. The Top 3 SEC teams, generally, are the main strength of the conference, though. The problem with the Big 10 is the bottom of the conference is absolutely hideous while the bottom of the SEC is just hideous when they play the Alabamas, LSU's & Floridas (during Tebow).
Indiana & Minnesota just don't measure up with Vandy & Ole Miss. But, once you get up into the mid-tier of the conferences, there's really less & less of a difference.
South Carolina & Michigan State is the middle vs. the middle matchup & really, there's not a mile of difference. South Carolina has been better over the last 5 years, but it's not some crazy difference. So, to be totally fair to both sides: I would say that the SEC's biggest advantages against the Big 10 are not only at the top, but at the bottom, as well. The SEC seems to still have a slight advantage through the middle of the conferences too. It's just that I believe if you stuck Michigan State in the SEC, they would hold their own in the conference. Would they win it very often? No. But would they be at the bottom of the SEC just because they're in the middle of the Big 10? That answer would likely still be "no".
9/17/2012 12:17 AM (edited)