The SEC is probably better top to bottom, but is it the greatest? No. Not until one team can become dominant, ala OSU this year then you will continue to have the Urban Meyer's of the world complain.

The SEC is probably better top to bottom, but is it the greatest? No. Not until one team can become dominant, ala OSU this year then you will continue to have the Urban Meyer's of the world complain.

:thumb:

Colin Cowherd said today that if you take USC out of the Pac-10 your left with the Big East. :laugh: And he's a Pac-10 homer.

 

I think after that he said worse than the Big East. :sssh:

The SEC is probably better top to bottom, but is it the greatest? No. Not until one team can become dominant, ala OSU this year then you will continue to have the Urban Meyer's of the world complain.

So having one great team makes the entire conference the best? The big 11 has the two best teams in the nation and they aren't even the second best conference.

I think after that he said worse than the Big East. :sssh:

 

I would hope so...because reversing what Cowherd said, if you added SC to the Big East, it would easily be the strongest conference.

None of the other Pac-10 teams claim they deserve to be in the title game.

And if USC wins they'll be ahead of any SEC team so what's the complaining about?

The SEC is probably better top to bottom, but is it the greatest? No. Not until one team can become dominant, ala OSU this year then you will continue to have the Urban Meyer's of the world complain.

 

 

So having 3 teams in the Top 10 makes you a weaker conference than having 2?

 

That doesn't make much sense. And if OSU is so dominant, why did they only win by 3 at home? Isn't the argument from all the Big10 fans that UM and OSU are the two best?

 

So by your argument, OSU isn't dominant, therefore the Big10 CAN'T be the best conference.

 

By your argument, the Pac10 is CLEARLY the best conference because USC is dominant.

 

Big10 has OSU/UM

SEC has UF/Ark/LSU

BEast has UofL/WVU/Rutgers