Of course you can't. SEC wins or losses just tend to inspire those sort of nonsense threads because a lot of their fans are so vocal and vehement in believing that conference is head-and-shoulders better than any other. Sometimes the threads stay good-natured, and they can be kind of fun then, but unfortunately they usually degenerate into name-calling and generalizations.
Maybe it's just cuz I'm from the BIG XII but I always saw TX and OKLAH as powerhouses. Then you got the good ol HUSKERS that blew ass for a while. OKST had a few years where their OFFENSE wasn't bad.
BIG 10 has... an always overrated WISCY TEAM (sorry, no disrespect--it's just how i see them). Iowa is like the HUSKERS. INDIANA is like IOWA STATE. OHIO STATE is a version of TEXAS but take off a little meat. I still think BIG XII has had an edge overall ahead of BIG X. We rarely have a team that is clearly dominant (usually it's 2 teams and sometimes 3) whereas in the BIG X I seem to favor a team big time in the conference and everyone else just wallows around watching.
BIG 10 has... an always overrated WISCY TEAM (sorry, no disrespect--it's just how i see them). Iowa is like the HUSKERS. INDIANA is like IOWA STATE. OHIO STATE is a version of TEXAS but take off a little meat. I still think BIG XII has had an edge overall ahead of BIG X. We rarely have a team that is clearly dominant (usually it's 2 teams and sometimes 3) whereas in the BIG X I seem to favor a team big time in the conference and everyone else just wallows around watching.
From 2003-2006 the Big 12 only had OU/Texas, and both were power houses in 2004 only. So my point is that most years they were like the Big 10 in that they had 1 contender, and then a big drop off. 2004 wasn't like that, they had 2, but the rest of the time whoever won the RRS would win the conference.
