Seven different Big Ten teams have played in BCS bowls. Perhaps we should make sure we are talking the same point. I have no problem granting you the fact that the perception of the Big Ten has taken a hit largely due to Ohio State's big game performances of late... and you are also right that the perception will only change with winning. That's the way it is and always will be. In the past three years, Florida and LSU put up big time scores in the championship games. USC put 55 points on Oklahoma. Almost half of the BCS championship games have been blow-outs. Championship games are about teams, not conferences... except in perception. And as a conference, we play just fine against the SEC (damn tOSU). Neither of us has a winning record against the PAC-10 this decade. SEC... the best league right now, sure! Dominant over other conference in inter-conference games, hardly. The gap is not nearly as wide as you might want to believe. That's my point. Btw, I live in Florida. Do me a big favor and beat them this year.
BCS Bowl Records Big Ten 8-11 .421 Wisconsin (2-0) Ohio State (4-3) Michigan (1-3) Purdue (0-1) Illinois (0-2) Iowa (0-1) Penn State (1-1) SEC 12-5 .710 Tennessee (1-1) Florida (4-1) Alabama (0-2) LSU (4-0) Georgia (2-1) Auburn (1-0) reality is perception. .421 vs .710
Well, we had 'em tied 10-10 at half in the BCS 2002 Orange bowl... two 3rd qtr fumbles and we were toast. ................so, in a way.... you're right. Now, I know any top SEC team could rip USC to shreds... and if they played in your conference, they would easily lose three games a season... and all that stuff.... even though they have ventured into the SEC four time of late and put up 168 points to 48.... and put 50 on the Arky team that won the west.... a game Arky would have easily won if McFadden had played (particularly if he also played defense) yada, yada... but alas... As you know, reality is perception.
I have trouble staying awake watching Big 10 regular-season games. Seriously. And it always sounds like the crowds suffer from the same condition. Also, this: That's what you call parity. Top to bottom, no other conference comes close.
I'm now totally confused. Your stats mean the SEC averaged 24 players per team and the Big Ten averaged 21.... is there some statistical relevance to that? Also, if there were five SEC teams with 30 or more and no other conference had two with 30 or more, wouldn't that mean a lack of parity top to bottom in the SEC. If the Big Ten had only one team with 30 + and 21 as an average, it would suggest more parity in the league top to bottom, not less.
Yes. We put out more pro-caliber players. It actually means the complete opposite of that. If there are more schools producing higher numbers of NFL players, then the league becomes more competitive all around. But what the stat is spelling out is that the average isn't even close to 21 for teams 3-11 in the Big 10. What it's saying is that other conferences are far more top-heavy than the SEC when it comes to producing NFL talent. Was it really not that obvious? Perception, right?
Couldn't find 2007, but at the start of 2008, there were 27 Iowa players on NFL rosters, 26 from Michigan State, 20 from Illinois and 34 from Penn State... and the top two you mention (guessing you meant tOSU and Michigan) had over 40 active players. Matter of fact, Indiana was the lowest with 12. So when you dip down to 5 for a school, yes, it does speak to lack of parity in a league. Does the SEC have more players in the pros than the Big Ten. Yes. Is it by some dominant, meaningful number. No. Means little in fact. It's akin to using rivals star ratings to determine greatness. Last bowl season I counted (it was a slow day) 35 players on South Carolina's roster who had been either 4 or 5 star recruits out of high school. Iowa had 10 on its entire roster. 31-10 and it wasn't even that close. My point is, if all this nfl stuff meant anything, as a league you'd be better than 50/50 against the Big Ten in the past 8 years.
If your point is that there are 5-7 top-tier teams in the SEC vs two top-tier teams in the Big 10, then I guess both conferences are lacking in parity to some degree. It's just to a far greater degree in the Big 10. It does mean a great deal, in fact, as the Big 10 is a perennial no-show for the big games. All the accolades belong down here. If you honestly believe that the week-in/week-out intensity and physicality is even close in the two leagues, then I think that demonstrates a remarkable lack of perspective.
