I don't get why everyone swaps the quality of conferences every year in terms of their quality vs each other.
The conferences are made of of many hundreds of kids, and over that size a sample they are basically the same year after year.
And I really don't get the criteria used to rank them. How on earth could the WAC be viewed as by miles better than the ACC, they have two respectable teams and a boatload of cupcakes.
OSU loses to Illinois and everyone thinks that the Big 10 is brutal. I think it makes the conference stronger, it shows the depth of the conference. If one team was always running everyone else over like BSU or Hawaii does, it doesn't mean its a strong conference, you could easily conclude that it has no depth.
I think people need to be less fixated on if a team is running the table, and focus on the depth and also consider where they are recruiting from. Some parts of the country just produce better players, due to bigger population bases, importance of the game and frankly the weather.
It's hard to do, but to me the conference rankings would be:
SEC
Big XII
Pac 10 / Big 10
ACC
'big gap'
Big East
'big gap'
all the mid majors
|