I won't argue that the Big Ten is not in a down turn right now, I think to some degree most of the complaints levied at the conference are deserved. My question is this..

Two years ago Ohio State marched through the Big Ten with very few speed bumps (a small scare against Illinois if memory serves correctly, and a great game against Michigan). Then they got blown out and everybody said the Big Ten was so weak. And that it should have been evident that Ohio State wasn't really that good because the Big Ten was weak that year.

Last year they then pointed to our OOC loses at the beginning of the season and our Bowl loses at the end of the seaason to further prove their point. I did not agree 100%, but there was definately evidence to prove otherwise.

This year our only OOC loses have come against top 25 teams, with the exception of Notre Dame beating Michigan (which alot of people half expected anyway). Yet we are still looked as weak, though thanks to the ACC and Big East's ineptitude not the weakest.

My problem is this, the PAC 10 is really no better this year, but the media is acting like they are 100 times better. They are 0-5 against the Mountain West, a mid major, which may or may not mean something. One of those teams that lost was ranked and another was blown out 59-0.Plus one of our loses came against a PAC 10 squad (Oregon) that was supposed to bury(Purdue) the Big Ten Team but needed 2 overtimes to do it. I won't get into Penn State/Oregon State and I appreciate the @$$ whoopin' USC laid on tOSU, but how in the world are they still considered that much better.

I get that USC is the end all, be all of college football to alot of media types, but when they  voted Florida in over Michigan 2 years ago, it was because the Big Ten was weak and I think the Big Ten (in 2006) was comparable to, if not better than PAC 10 as of right now.

I just don't get it.