That's a great question. Clearly the Pac-12 is heads and shoulders above everyone. I kid!TheCatt wrote:So if the SEC isn't the best at football, who is?Leisher wrote: Let me correct ESPN's defense:
"We paid a billion fucking dollars for the rights to air SEC games. We're also losing money and subscribers like crazy. Look at how we've got Steven A. Smith commenting on every sport like anyone could possibly be an expert on all of them. We have to pretend the SEC is the best in the nation to get you to watch their games on our channel or we lose our asses!"
I know we want to declare one conference "the best", but I don't know if such a classification means shit.
First of all, all conferences would have to be on an even playing field, and they are not. That's not even a point that can be debated. That's going to skew any data we bring up. The SEC's bullshit pre-season rankings, their weak ass out of conference schedules, Bama not playing on the road in over a decade, the number of P5 teams they play versus other conferences, and yes even bowl records would all be suspect. How do those advantages translate to wins?
Those advantages also help them with recruiting. And let's be really honest, the NCAA turning a blind eye to indiscretions at some of these schools helps them too.
Take Clemson's PED scandal as an example. Their head coach just admitted that the program possibly has been accidentally giving PEDs to their players and that story didn't last a day in the headlines. Where is the NCAA?
If that was OSU (or another school from a conference without a contract with ESPN), it'd be a lead article on ESPN's site for a week. ESPN mercilessly attack Urban Meyer because he might have known about a domestic violence incident involving a coach from years ago. Meanwhile, they're writing articles about how Kareem Hunt deserves a second chance for actually assaulting a woman.
You cannot say the MSM's biased takes on things don't help or hurt schools, but to what effect?
Anyway, back to the discussion at hand. Honestly, conferences are nothing more than platforms for their best teams. The drop off from best team to worst team in each conference is pretty huge.
We routinely mock the Big Ten West because it's weak, but why do we give the SEC East any credibility? It's a complete joke. Nobody in that division has done shit in a decade, but they're SEC so they get the benefit of the doubt. LSU and Auburn are always mentioned as contenders, but LSU has been an also-ran for longer than everyone in the SEC East. Auburn had one miracle year based upon a fluke play against Alabama.
Take Bama out of the SEC and what are you left with? Mediocre offenses with terrible defenses.
Without Clemson, where would the ACC be? Hanging out with the Pac-12?
Take, uh..., you know what? Fuck you Pac-12.
Take OSU out of the B1G and you have a field that compares to the SEC without Bama. A bunch of middling teams who are contenders every couple of years.
Is the Big 12 the best conference? Seriously. They don't have a Bama, Clemson, or OSU at the top, but they have more of those "every couple of years contenders" than any other conference. Oklahoma, Ok St, TCU, K St more rarely, and Texas looks to be jumping back into the fray.
So I have no idea. I just know that nobody else can truly say which conference is the best either. Not at this time with things not being equal.
