Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops stirred up a healthy debate this week when he took a few shots at the SEC, the same league that's captured the last seven national championships.
"So they've had the best team in college football," Stoops told the Tulsa World. "They haven't had the whole conference. Because, again, half of 'em haven't done much at all. I'm just asking you. You tell me."
Stoops, who recruits players to Oklahoma and as such, the Big 12, has a responsibility to defend the league he coaches in, but he may have gone a little too far.
"So you're listening to a lot of propaganda that gets fed out to you," he said. "You're more than smart enough to figure it out. Again, you can look at the top two, three, four, five, six teams, and you can look at the bottom six, seven, eight, whatever they are. How well are they all doing?"
What I don't understand about the ensuing uproar is this: People don't want to buy three statements I believe are true and far from being mutually exclusive:
The Big 12 has the strongest bottom half of any conference in football.
The SEC is the nation's best conference on the football field.
Considering its reputation and the way people refer to it, the SEC is far overrated.
I agree with Stoops that the gap isn't as wide as people think, but fresh off a 28-point beatdown to an SEC team in the Cotton Bowl, now is probably not the time to be making that argument.
Fortunately, our colleagues at SportsNation have stepped in and taken Stoops' points to the people. How would you rank a Big 12/SEC 24-team superconference? You can fill out your own ranking here, but here's how I'd slot it:
Thoughts on my ranking?